15
\$\begingroup\$

The asker of https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/92839/can-you-take-a-short-rest-while-unconscious decided that account deletion was their preferred future on the site, leaving behind a question that's a bit of a mess. (There is also the detail that, very likely, they were not supposed to be using the site while their real account was serving a suspension.)

It has a very nice canonical title, but its details are extremely specific to the one — now non-existent — account's problem. The details of the problem were also likely invented for effect. It's a bit of a shame to have such a straightforward title occupied by such a narrow question, when that question is very likely to need answering properly and directly at some point in RPG.se's future.

What shall we do with this question?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ How do we know that the asker was very likely to be using a new account to get around a suspension? \$\endgroup\$ – Joe Jan 17 '17 at 2:36
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Joe Moderator magic which we're not allowed to share the details of, lest the malefactors overhear and devise a counterspell. Sorry. ;) \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jan 17 '17 at 2:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ Quite sensible, then. \$\endgroup\$ – Joe Jan 17 '17 at 2:48
31
\$\begingroup\$

Close and delete the post because the sockpuppet was used to bypass a posting ban.

Then let a new question on the topic be asked organically again--perhaps by someone with a good answer so they can SAQ it, perhaps by someone else much later.

(For a less drastic solution, see my other answer, separated so folks can vote for each uniquely.)

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm with deleting it \$\endgroup\$ – Wibbs Jan 9 '17 at 22:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ For voting reasons, can you break the delete option and the rewrite title option into two posts? There are arguments for/against one that don't apply to the other and vice versa. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jan 9 '17 at 22:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks! So, a con for deleting is that it wipes out the rep of those who answered in good faith. (I'm cool with nuking my own rep, but I'm less sanguine about others'.) On the pro side, someone deleted for being a sockpuppet triggers an automatic deletion of their content that is scored -1 or lower, so only mere accident lead to the question not being automatically deleted anyway. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jan 9 '17 at 22:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie Nobody on that question is going to really hurt for the lost rep, so in this particular case I'm not too worried about making an example of how a misused sockpuppet wastes the community's effort. \$\endgroup\$ – BESW Jan 9 '17 at 22:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ @BESW It's true. But in terms of the appearances to other site members that you'd brought up in chat, there's what impression it gives to consider. (I'm very on the fence, though, despite bringing these up.) \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jan 9 '17 at 22:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ Deletion is a necessary part of site workings, and is not very visible after the fact. What we were talking about in chat was a very visible hijacking of the question, which isn't something the Stack does as a rule (like, literally there are kinda rules against it). \$\endgroup\$ – BESW Jan 9 '17 at 22:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @BESW That's a fair distinction, yes. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jan 9 '17 at 22:45
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I will note for this answer that the people who stand to lose rep from this deletion have 155k, 36.2k, and 8,119 reputation from most to least; the reputation they stand to lose is miniscule compared to what they have, and they're long-term members and frequent enough answerers they'll surely have it back in a few days. One other individual is brand new, but gained no votes and stands to lose little to nothing in the deletion. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Jan 10 '17 at 1:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ In response to @doppelgreener's point: I certainly wouldn't be miffed in any way by a "loss" of rep if the question gets deleted. If deleted I interpret it as "that question wasn't real, so I didn't really gain rep by answering it, and now that figment-of-rep is gone like a dream in dawn's light. No harm in not having what you didn't get." (Also, I wouldn't get miffed by a loss of rep anyway, 'cause there's plenty out there. But in this case it's doubly-so.) I've upvoted this option. \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Jan 10 '17 at 4:30
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm ok with the rep loss, too. My only regret is now I don't have an answer that starts with "Why aren't you in a coma" \$\endgroup\$ – daze413 Jan 10 '17 at 4:33
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I'll just be glad when we no longer have an answer that starts with "you can't rest while unconscious"! </teasing of SSD> \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Jan 10 '17 at 4:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ Could the post be changed to Community Wiki? \$\endgroup\$ – Columbia says Reinstate Monica Jan 11 '17 at 1:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ @RobertColumbia Read this discussion if you haven't already, and then make a separate answer on this question proposing that alternative, so we can vote on it! \$\endgroup\$ – BESW Jan 11 '17 at 1:55
7
\$\begingroup\$

Close the post because the sockpuppet was used to bypass a posting ban.

Change the title to better reflect the question's specific dilemma.

Then let a new question on the topic be asked organically again--perhaps by someone with a good answer so they can SAQ it, perhaps by someone else much later.

(For a more drastic solution, see my other answer, separated so folks can vote for each uniquely.)

\$\endgroup\$
-2
\$\begingroup\$

Transfer it to Community, part of whose raison d'etre is "Own community questions and answers so nobody gets unnecessary reputation from them". The question can then be CW'd, and edited into respectability.

(This was the chosen solution when a similar problem arose on English.SE).

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ At this point I think the more straightforward action is to just have a new question (asked by someone for a canonical Q&A, or asked by someone facing it as a real problem) that actually has an active not-destroyed not-troll account for its custodian & owner. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Jan 22 '17 at 23:18
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm generally wary of using CW to justify retaining questions which are otherwise questionable, as it has a history of misuse in that regard. Can you edit in more details about why it's the best choice for this particular situation? \$\endgroup\$ – BESW Jan 23 '17 at 6:59

You must log in to answer this question.

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