11
\$\begingroup\$

Several damage reduction clarifications for Pathfinder has a ton of questions in it. Some are closely related, others are not. I strongly suspect that if the question were asked today, it would be put on hold until multiple questions were made. I see a discussion between some of our more senior members takes place in the comments regarding closing the question, and I think that Dopplegreener-of-the-past makes a good point.

I don't think we should split the question, it's already been very nicely answered, but now that it's back near the top of the "recent activity" pile I think we should close it to discourage confusion amongst new users.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ That answer continues to be one of my top-voted answers. While I totally agree with the closure, I'm a little sad to see it get closed. \$\endgroup\$ – DuckTapeAl Aug 19 '16 at 15:33
14
\$\begingroup\$

Agreed, close it.

  • We always judge posts by our current standards, regardless of how old the post is, and I can't really see this passing muster as a new question.
  • Closing the question doesn't make it or its answers any less accessible to people who will find them useful, but
    • closing it will avoid more noise like the various incomplete or non-answers it's already gathered (as of this writing three "answers" have been deleted so users under 20k can't see 'em).
  • The close will avoid confusing users who think that it being open means this kind of question collection is okay.
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Do you think it should also receive a Historical Lock? i.e., “This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed.” \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Aug 19 '16 at 16:09
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie Well, it is on topic, and we CAN ask similar questions--just not all at once. So Historical Lock might be a little misleading? \$\endgroup\$ – BESW Aug 19 '16 at 21:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @BESW As long as we leave the comments that are already present which explain the reason it's not a good question that should cover the disconnect, right? \$\endgroup\$ – lithas Aug 19 '16 at 22:11
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @lithas What's the benefit of the historical lock, if the reasons for locking aren't applicable? (Also, I'm loathe to rely on mainsite comments for permanent clarification because we can't depend on them to stick around.) \$\endgroup\$ – BESW Aug 22 '16 at 1:41
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I feel like the spirit of the Historical Lock (This isn't a good anymore question, but we used to think it was OK) is still very true. I agree that the exact wording used doesn't hold, but we don't have a similar-inentioned-but-differently-worded lock that I know of \$\endgroup\$ – lithas Aug 22 '16 at 2:08
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I think "closed as too broad" fits the bill nicely. What makes this one more special than all the many other "used to be okay but now we've closed it" questions that aren't historically locked? Why do you want to remove the ability to vote on the question and its answers? At this point, maybe it'd be beneficial for you to make your argument as a separate answer so you have enough room to dig into it properly. \$\endgroup\$ – BESW Aug 22 '16 at 2:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ Closing sounds good to me; keeps the content but stops any more "me too" and so on answers. \$\endgroup\$ – Rob Aug 23 '16 at 13:35
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Historical lock both states that "yes, this is awesome and useful: so don't delete it" and "you should ask your question differently today". It isn't a good, on-topic question for this site, because it isn't one question. \$\endgroup\$ – Yakk Aug 23 '16 at 17:32
1
\$\begingroup\$

Close it, and add a Historical Lock

BESW has made a fantastic case for closing the question, but I think we should place a Historical Lock on the post in addition to simply closing it.

The wording on the Historical Lock reads

This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here.

And I believe that applies to the post in question perfectly. The First bolded article is true: The question is not a good question. It's on topic, but in an unacceptable state. The second bolded article also holds, similarly formatted questions would also be considered unacceptable.

The case for a Historical Lock

According to the SE Meta the following should be taken into consideration when Historically Locking a post:

The post is Off-Topic or Not Constructive,

For the reasons outlined by BESW the question is no longer fitting for our Stack.

The post is stellar, in spite of its off-topic nature,

Despite the fact that the question is inappropriate for our format, the top-rated answer to the question is detailed, correct, and well formatted. There is important information in that answer, and it's a great resource for future users to have access to.

There are a large number of views, upvotes and inbound links on the post,

I'm not an expert on this, so if someone with more familiarity wants to edit in more detail feel free

To my inexpert eyes, this post seems to fit all of the above criteria.

The post is contentious; e.g., it has been closed and reopened at least once, or deleted and undeleted at least once

This is the biggest miss we have for the Historical Lock: There isn't a lot of contention here. We seem to have a consensus that the question should be closed, and I don't see anyone railing against that, or confused by the reasoning. I have no real support for this point.

The Reasoning for the Historical Lock

Closing seems to cast the shadow of disapproval over the closed post. A closed post implies that it is incorrect, and not a proper fit for the site. It is considered unsalvageable as noted in the Flag description for "should be closed"

This question is completely unclear, incomplete, overly-broad, primarily opinion-based or is not about role-playing games as described in the help center, and it is unlikely to be fixed via editing.

A historically-locked post, however, means that the community on the Stack has simply changed, and the post was once appropriate, but no longer is.

Regarding the post in question, it certainly would certainly be put on hold as Too Broad were it posted today. However, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the post aside from the manner in which it was posed. Were it posted today, the asker would be encouraged to split the question in to several related questions instead of a single mega-question, each of the questions would receive answers, and everyone would move on happily.

Why not just keep it normally closed?

The main reason I don't think we should leave the post Closed in a conventional manner is that I think the post provides sufficient value (and has been accessed and cross referenced by enough different people/posts in enough different ways) that it should be held safe from deletion. When searching google the post appears prominently on the first page of my results, and is linked to by 5 other posts on our Stack. The mechanical difference between a Close and a HL seems to be that the post is protected from deletion, and I think that sort of protection is valuable on the post in question.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Closed posts are always re-openable if they're changed to fit. This particular one probably can't be changed enough for re-opening, but "a closed post [...] is considered unsalvageable" is flat-out wrong. A historical lock, by contrast, means it's so unsalvageable that we can't even vote on its existing posts anymore. You've made a decent case here based on the general guidelines for HL, but it'd be stronger if you also explain why the mechanical effects of HL are appropriate here; it's not just a close reason with a different text block. \$\endgroup\$ – BESW Aug 24 '16 at 23:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ @BESW What's the point putting a post On Hold as opposed to Closing a post in those scenarios? As a non-voting user, when I flag a post the option I have available is "should be closed" and the description is "This question is completely unclear, incomplete, overly-broad, primarily opinion-based or is not about role-playing games as described in the help center, and it is unlikely to be fixed via editing." It's entirely possible that I'm just not fluent enough in the close/hold/lock dynamics on this site. \$\endgroup\$ – lithas Aug 24 '16 at 23:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ As for why the HL, I think it's less because of the mechanical benefits (What is the mechanical difference between a HL and a Close anyway?) but because there is no other method of saying "This content is good, but it would require massive restructuring if it were asked today" I try to address that in more detail in my last paragraph \$\endgroup\$ – lithas Aug 24 '16 at 23:19
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ "On hold" and "closed" are mechanically identical; it changes from OH to Closed after 5 days. You may find this meta.se faq post useful. \$\endgroup\$ – BESW Aug 24 '16 at 23:21
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @lithas: "On hold" is just the name for the period in which the first edit will automatically act as a reopen flag to send it into the reopen review queue. After that, only actual reopen votes will put it in the queue. \$\endgroup\$ – user17995 Aug 28 '16 at 1:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .