Question "On Hold" but its already been answered, Negative votes on new user posts, And general Shin kicking

Question

Now this is a small rant of mine but since I'm a new user I'm guaranteed to get maybe -1 or -2 on this post but here I go.

now this is related to New User Experience: Why allow downvotes (esp. below 0) on already closed questions? so read that a bit if you want but on with the rant.

First question I put on RPG.SE I got a negative vote but I got good feedback: How do I deal with a DM who restricts my character options? However I got a -1 so I thought well since I got a good answer I will put [Answered] as to stop people coming and giving negative votes. Only to have the post title edited not even 2 minutes later to remove that.. and then to get another negative vote. That feels like people are setting the bar a bit high. And then there is a reputation system.. like having to get 15 rep in order to vote or 50 rep to comment. To new users like me this is quite a high bar to jump over. the Rep system in general is a good idea it just makes getting into the sites main features quite hard for a new user unless you post several question a day.

And onto the second part which gripes about the dreaded [On Hold] tag. The [On Hold] tag can mean your question may never be answered since no one can post answers. Maybe allowing for answer might be a good idea (since I have come across [On Hold] tag questions that I can easily answer) and add to that one of my other questions got [On Hold] when it was already answered: 5e Striker. What class should I be? [on hold]

so my questions are:

What would be the best way to allow new user to access the site easily ?

What can be done to improve the reputation system ?

What can be done to improve the [On Hold] tag ?

And: What can be done to stop General Shin kicking for new users ?

Disclaimer: This is a open ended discussion and will remain that way until a condition has been met [An Answers idea has been put into use]

Answer 1

I'm going to add a second answer that gets to the real problem you have. You think your problem is that everyone's being mean and closing your question. The real problem is that your question is incoherent and not able to be answered.

I agree that at its heart your question is a "type 2" charop question, so it has the capacity to be valid. If your question really was "What's a good direction for a 5e build that has high dps and uses halberds" we could probably answer that well.

However, the experienced users of the site picked up on the context cues that you don't really know what you're asking. This isn't necessarily all your fault, but it's clearly the case.

1. 5e! (and now maybe using 3.5e in it?) But asked using a mishmash of 5e, 4e, and 3e terminology. This was a warning sign that either you were super confused or that y'all are playing an undefined variant of all these versions- turns out the latter is the case. If you guys are playing Calvinball D&D it's really hard for anyone to make constructive suggestions - God only knows what actual rules your group is using, and how the question's developed makes us think you're not totally sure either.

2. "I want to take on something CR20 at level 8" "but I don't want to be overpowered, like by being able to hit something of my CR + 5" - Besides not being correct for 5e, as SSD pointed out this is mathematically impossible. You keep changing the wording on this clause (now it's hp of damage! now it's something else!), but not in a way that makes us think you really know what you're asking, it seems pretty random.

3. We don't know what rules you are using. We don't know what kind of threats your DM uses really because "CR20 werespider vs level 8!" doesn't pass the sniff test; no one that level survives against a real CR20. Which means the information we're getting is wrong or the DM is playing Calvinball too (seems likely).

4. You don't want to outshine the other party members - which we know nothing about, or their general optimization level. So we really can't help you there. Are these guys waving around Blackrazor playing 3.5e Uber Optimized Pounce Barbarians, or are they just rolling 5e default?

It seems to us that:

1. The DM may not even be sure what rules they're using, and/or rules may not matter a lot in that game.
2. You are therefore not sure either, I think. You are also not communicating very clearly.
3. As a result we don't know enough to answer. Maybe we will if the communication issue gets cleared up, but it's seeming unlikely.

This isn't necessarily bad. People don't have to play a "real version" - my first D&D game I was in was in the back of a car going to Scout camp and we didn't even use dice, the DM just made up whatever was fun and kept us engaged. There's nothing wrong with that playstyle. But, it does make it very difficult for us to help with a question about it that is kinda a rules question but then the rules are unclear. Also, you need to practice taking a step back, thinking about your problem and how someone who does not live in your brain might need context information to answer effectively, and try to do that when composing questions.

Answer 2

First thing, I have to say right off that none of these things are under our power to change. The software is designed that way, and RPG.se doesn't have control over the software. I will attempt to explain why they work the way they do, though.

So there will be no answer that is put into use, because RPG.se can't change the things you've brought up. (The place to propose change to SE network software is Meta.StackExchange.com, but as will become clear, these three things aren't up for negotiation anyway.)

Reputation is functioning as intended

The reputation system is a gatekeeper: only users who have learned how to contribute to the main purpose of the site earn access to things that are not the main purpose of the site. Anyone can ask questions and post answers, even anonymous users. Users have to figure out how to do those two things according to RPG.se's goals before they get access to any other abilities, and that's very deliberate. The Stack Exchange model strongly emphasises asking and answering questions, so only users who have figured out how to do that in the way SE needs can unlock more privileges.

Held questions are functioning as intended

The point of a question being on hold is to prevent answers. That's 100% the point of it. There will never be an option to answer questions that are on hold.

Holding (and closing) questions exists because Stack Exchange specialises in only certain kinds of questions. Any question that is looking for discussion or opinions is off topic, because the point of Stack Exchange is to handle questions that have solutions, not discussion or argument. SE was invented to do what discussion forums do poorly (solve problems), and will never be altered to try to handle what discussion forums already do very well already (general discussion, brainstorming, and opinion sharing). When people submit questions that don't fit they get put on hold permanently.

The question you mention, https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/66908/5e-striker-what-class-should-i-be, is on hold because it's asking for ideas. It will stay held, and in four more days it will graduate to [closed] instead of [on hold].

However, it will remain votable. The purpose of votes is to sort questions, and held questions still need sorting. Votes give or take away reputation for the post owner, because that's part of the point of the reputation system: useful questions are rewarded with positive reputation, and the kinds of questions that RPG.se doesn't want people to ask more of are rewarded with negative reputation.

General shin kicking either gets better or worse, depending on the user's choices

The shin kicking isn't actually kicking. It's more like someone walking into a thorny bush and suffering the scratches that naturally causes. Getting ripped by thorn bushes stops happening when users notice there are signs marking the path, and stop walking off the path into the thorn bushes. The thorn bushes exist to protect the sensitive parts of the site, which if walked on, would eventually destroy the site's usefulness and reason for existence.

New users generally don't already know that walking over there causes damage. Also, because most other places on the internet let people walk there, new users here often assume they can walk there here too. We have a tour and help centre that says “don't walk over there, please stay on the paths, thank you,” but there are always 10 people who don't read that for every one who does, and of those who do read them, full understanding of their implications is rarely automatic. The negative reinforcement of the reputation system is to enforce the rules and protect the site, whether people have read the rules or not, and in general to teach the practical application of the rules.

A new user who keeps on running into the negative reputation effects (walking into the thorn bushes) is causing a problem for the site: they're not following the rules or purpose of the site. Rather than suffer the problem though, the site makes that user responsible for solving the problem: it lets the user decide when they've had enough thorns. When a user decides they've had enough thorns, they do one of two things:

1. Leave

   The site is okay with this, because what the site is doing is very specific and is not what everyone is looking for. If someone personally doesn't work well with both negative and positive feedback, they won't like it here and leaving is the right choice. Similarly, if someone has mistaken RPG.se for a discussion site, they should go elsewhere, because discussion sites are elsewhere.

2. Adjust

   The site is okay with this too. A user to adjusts how they use the site until they start getting positive feedback has started using the site for what it was designed for. That's an improvement in the site's goals and purpose.

It's like learning to skateboard: when you fall it hurts, and when something hurts you learn to stop doing it. To stop falling, you either by giving up learning to skateboard entirely, or get better enough at skateboarding so you don't fall very often anymore.

In conclusion

The held status and reputation system are functioning exactly as intended. They worked to make you do something different: post here! You decided to adjust a little bit, instead of leaving.

That means that you have another chance of learning how the site works and what it expects from users. You also know more now that RPG.se isn't designed to make everyone happy or be used for everything related to RPGs; it's designed to attract people who want to work with its system, and be unattractive to those who aren't interested in doing what it aims to do. It's not the only place for RPG stuff online and purposefully doesn't try to be.

Now you have some context for understanding why holds, negative reputation, and a bumpy ride for new users exist, and if those goals sound worthy to you, you'll adjust a bit more to accept them as a necessary evil outweighed by the good they do. If not, you might be closer to deciding that what RPG.se really is about isn't what you were actually looking for, now that you know a bit more about what RPG.se is for. Either way, the site moves that tiny bit closer to being in harmony with its purpose and the users who help it get there.

Answer 3

First let me say welcome to RPG.SE. In general a lot of the issues you've brought up have to do not only with RPG.SE's guidelines but overall guidelines followed by just about every site on stackexchange. I'll try to address each issue individually, but as a holistic approach I would simply say that Stackexchange expects a user to learn about how the site works and adjust their behavior to fit in and handles that by the privilege system and distributed user rights allowing the community to self-police its actions and users.

On Hold is less a tag for users and applied after the fact when a question is put on hold by a vote of 5 users (with the rights) or a diamond mod. Questions are put on hold because they do not meet the quality and content guidelines for the site. When a question is on hold no new answers can be given for it until it is reopened. On hold is used to help improve questions without low quality answers coming in until the question itself is high quality. It also is the state a question will be in if it is deemed not an appropriate fit for the site and will remain so until deleted by the user or a moderator.

Downvotes are not a judgement on you personally but on the quality of the question itself. Downvotes are a tool for the community to encourage you to improve or delete the question as a way of maintaining and improving the overall quality of the site.

In general if you are looking for information both the tour page and the help page contain a wealth of information to help new users. Hitting those low rep privileges is actually easier than you think since a question upvote is worth 5 points and an answer upvote worth 10.

Answer 4

See Can we improve the way we treat newcomers? for a discussion about putting questions on hold, and the new-users tag for previous discussions of all your points. The short form is that:

1. The rep system is working as designed - you earn rep by knowing how to do things in our way, and then you get to do more things. These boundaries exist because new users don't know how we do things, and won't learn without some guidance.

2. Closing questions is working as designed - we have specifically decided (we here and SE in general) that putting questions on hold while they are fixed up, rather than dealing with the resulting bad/confusing answer storm from leaving them open, is the right way to do it.

3. Everyone can do a better job of being more welcoming to new users - welcome them, point out what they could do to improve, link them to the help center/relevant meta/whatever. It's easier to learn the rules and be happy if someone helps you.

However, in general this isn't a "do what you want" forum. To maintain our super-high quality we have rules so that we don't turn into the other things out there. If you want to blabber aimlessly go to Reddit, if you want hugs and personal validation go to Tumblr, if you want well curated clear answers to clear on topic questions, come here. So we should help new users learn the rules, but we are not interested in scrapping the rules.

Answer 5

The "Shin Kicking" Happens To Induce Us To Ask Good Questions

Pallas, I am a fairly new user and had to do a bit of work (trial and error) to figure out how to ask a good question and how to draft a decent answer. (Even so, an answer I wrote last week was deleted by the mods ... so it goes). If we have 'forum' habits from years of interacting on forums, there's bit of cultural adaptation to get the most out of this site.

The question you have on hold looks like a character optimization question. A good optimization question needs to meet certain criteria. The quote below is from the best answer to a meta question on character optimization. It got 18 votes: no other answer got even close, so there's some good guidance there.

Please open the links in that question for each case, 1, 2, 3. This should help you see what a good optimization question looks like. If you can reshape your question to get into a better form, it may get taken off of hold and get more than one answer.

There are 3 types of char-op questions that fall into the "good" category:

1. I'm 90% complete and I need help making the final selection or two.

2. I need some general advice on direction for a build.

3. The last kind of question that I see as useful is the challenge question. These are the most borderline Op questions IMO, but they can also be the most fun.

Have you ever heard the adage "there are no bad questions?" I've heard that in the work place, in safety meetings, at church, many places.

Well, there are bad questions here.

Answer 6

I'm really new to this, but I've seen several issues with the implementation. I tend to agree with @Pallas, even though I understand where the established users are coming from (in most cases).

1. Human beings are not interchangeable cogs, and many human beings do not understand this reality. The way I think, the way I process things, the ways in which I formulate my thoughts, is not the same as other people. In fact, it helps me immensely to kind of talk out my thoughts, and it's especially helpful if I can debate them with someone else. When I do this, I'm not debating to prove you wrong, I'm trying to figure out if I'm right. In your personal way of doing things, this might be viewed as argumentative, or pushy, or arrogant, but if you were truly unbiased, you'd realize I'm posting a concept, and then trying to get others to poke holes in it so I can correct the errors. I'm sure gaps exist, but I need outside help to fill them.
2. There is definitely a certain kind of personality type that is attracted to a moderator role on a Q&A group such as this one. That personality type is diametrically opposed to mine. If the local regulars are already saturated with that type, I'm probably going to drop out after a very short time. Thus, the entire system is a self-licking ice cream cone. You only get more of your own kind. Some of you sit back and think to yourself, Good. I don't like you people anyway. That's fine by me, except you've advertised yourself as something else, when what you really are is an echo chamber.
3. In terms of the On Hold system, I've run into several (5 in 2 days) instances of a question that's On Hold that I thought I could resolve quite quickly. I read the question and thought, Sure, there's a relatively simple solution to this. But I couldn't answer, because the user(s) who put it on hold couldn't think outside of that particular type of box.

Frankly, this is why I left Reddit after just a few weeks. The dogpiling, the downvoting to hide unpopular ideas, the forum sliding. Maybe this is where the internet naturally goes for people like me. Emotionally, it's tough. I feel like I have a lot to contribute. I don't mind conforming to most of the rules, even the ones I think are a knee-jerk reaction to something stupid. It's the rest of the community that's my problem. Your biases are doubleplus good, and mine are wrongthink, Comrades. Yours don't really exist, because they're shared by your like-minded friends who have accumulated the larger amounts of rep, just like you. My biases are unacceptable, because they grate on you, not necessarily because they actually violate a rule or have hurt another user.

This isn't a diatribe. It's my experience. I'm not angry about anything. Honestly, it's disappointing and disheartening more than anything. As I'm typing this I'm pretty sure I'm going to end up out of another online community again. Every time I feel like I've found a cool community where I might share some ideas and get some good ones in return, I find out that the personality differences make me incompatible with the community, and I might as well leave now instead of trying to change the culture, because it's firmly entrenched.