I have a question about my Role-playing Games Stack Exchange post: Are there any published sources on what a "Templar" should be?

A member of the community incorrectly placed my question on-hold for "being about video games" when all edited versions of the stated question make no reference to video games.

Sample definitions of a Templar were provided from video games, but this was only used as a point of reference in the absence of pen and paper references, of which my question asks for in the first place. My question was bolded and separated with a horizontal line across all versions and clearly makes no distinction as to being about "video games" or "game development".

  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ NB that the question is no longer closed for being about video games. That error was corrected — it is now closed as “Too Broad.” \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jan 15 '17 at 2:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ (The specific question's since been auto-deleted by the system as “closed and abandoned”, so it can only be viewed by users with 10k+ rep.) \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Feb 10 '17 at 21:16

Thank you for taking this to Meta: comments on the question itself were clearly not a productive channel for improving your post.

I need to clear up one misconception above: you say that a member of the community put your question on hold. That's not true. Five members of the community put the question on hold.

As one comment pointed out, only the most-votes-getting close-reason gets displayed. If I recall correctly there were three close-votes for being off-topic as about video games, one as too broad, and one as primarily opinion-based.

Looking back at the early version of your question--which was the one visible when the close-votes were cast--I hope you can understand how someone would think it was about video games. It mentioned players and a session in one sentence, while devoting six paragraphs to video game examples and most of two paragraphs to sweeping generalizations about what "people" think of Templars.

Your latest revision doesn't do much to make things clearer, but you indicate in comments that you are actually asking about TTRPGs, and just thought the video-game examples would communicate your question well.

So now your question's [on hold]. And it's for the wrong reason.

That's okay. The hold is there to stop people from answering a question that's unclear, or off-topic, or a bad fit. Your question is some combination of those. So the hold's doing a good job.

Many users have commented, asking you for clarification or suggesting other ways of approaching the question. Now you should take a look at those comments and look for how to improve and focus your question. If you think you've addressed the issue a comment raises, flag the comment for deletion. (I usually put in the custom reason "obsolete: I now address this in the post.")

Once you edit the question (as long as it's during the next five days), it will be placed in a review queue for reopening. Other users will come along, look at the question, and vote on whether it seems site-ready. Any user's reopen vote will also place the question in that queue, and you can always flag it for an elected moderator's attention if you think everything's in good order and it should be reopened.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I first voted to close it as a video game question: I saw a question that asked about templars in "fantasy RPGs" (not mentioning tabletop or video games), and which presented video games as examples of templars. Immediately after that was resolved, the remaining issues with the question were clarified. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Jan 15 '17 at 1:22
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @a3eb5744 You have quite exhausted the "it's not against anything in the tour or about pages!" angle. We've made it clear there's problems, and refusing to listen and deciding we're abusing the system is your problem, not ours. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Jan 15 '17 at 1:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener If it sounds like I've exhausted that "angle" as you describe, then suggest how you would rewrite my question. You have the ability to edit my post too you know. You have personally not suggested an actionable edit for my post, of which I have amended for every user who gave me one. \$\endgroup\$ – a3eb5744 Jan 15 '17 at 2:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener You just explained how you misread my post which has now been intensively corrected. Please re-read. Thanks! \$\endgroup\$ – a3eb5744 Jan 15 '17 at 2:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ @a3eb5744 I gave you a suggestion to focus on a different problem which I cannot write for you and which it is not my responsibility to write for you. You've responded with belligerence thus far to all of my attempts to engage with you on any level, so I am not inclined to provide further suggestions. SSD has already provided a current avenue of improvement. // Yes, I did re-read your post. We've discussed that, including why it is still closed. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Jan 15 '17 at 2:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener You're saying I'm in the wrong because quote: "several of us in comments explained at great length why it is closed". Again--I reworked the question for every user suggestion. Sure it's not your job to tell me exactly how to rewrite my question, but it's not my job to say I know what to do if when you tell me "Your post is wrong" and all you tell me is "It just is". It's been thoroughly reworked since its initial revision, please re-read. Thanks for all your help! \$\endgroup\$ – a3eb5744 Jan 15 '17 at 2:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener As a moderator, your behavior toward me honestly constitutes as harassment and willfully turning an eye toward imperative comments I have made. I'm not sure how you haven't been flagged for behavior if there doesn't exist a clique of moderators serving aesthetic interests. I would like to see you evaluated if you are a moderator. \$\endgroup\$ – a3eb5744 Jan 15 '17 at 2:17
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @a3eb5744 I am an ordinary user with limited moderation privileges unlocked, in a user-moderated community. I am not an elected moderator. You may go right ahead and submit me for review to whatever moderator or SE staff member you wish. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Jan 15 '17 at 2:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener You're a user with reputation who I have reason to believe abused earned privileges. Reported for harassment and subverting discussion guidelines in rpg.stackexchange. Thanks! \$\endgroup\$ – a3eb5744 Jan 15 '17 at 2:24
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @a3eb5744 I'll not be clicking on the link you provide in another comment; I don't really trust you, being that you're a complete stranger to me. Also, if I'm to communicate about matters of concern to this community I want it to be on the platform on which this community does its business. I believe I've said all I need to: why I cast the close-vote, some things that I think might improve the post. While you've responded to anything... \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Jan 15 '17 at 2:32
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ ...directed your way (as I believe you mentioned in a comment somewhere), I don't know that you've listened to anything, so I'm not interested in spending any more time. There are hundreds of other users who can evaluate your post and cast reopen votes or not. Happy hunting! \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Jan 15 '17 at 2:33
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ @a3eb5744 nitsua60's point that we conduct our business locally has merit. We don't need to follow you out to Github to discuss this. I've removed that comment/link. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jan 15 '17 at 2:45
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ @a3eb5744 We're not doing this offsite. We conduct our business where we have full access to the records of everything said, in perpetuity. Note that I am an elected moderator; what I'm saying to you is not negotiable, as it is information for you, not a suggestion or negotiation. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jan 15 '17 at 2:48
  • 10
    \$\begingroup\$ @a3eb5744 — You seem to be confusing "exercising" with "abusing". It isn't abuse just because you disagree. \$\endgroup\$ – Quentin Jan 15 '17 at 9:33
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @a3eb5744 Since I missed all of the back and forth, the key ingredient to refining the scope of your question is to identify which game system you'd like an answer for; which TTRPG are you playing where an answer about the nature of a Templar -- scoped to that game system -- will help you in your discussions with your players \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Jan 17 '17 at 20:22

Your question was put on hold for other reasons, as KRyan explained in a comment on your question (bolded). Immediately afterwards, he goes on to explain the real reason why it's remaining closed:

Ultimately, the reason given is just what received the most votes, which may have been due to misunderstanding. But even if it’s on-topic, it is still hopelessly too broad, and primarily opinion-based. No one here can speak for the entirety of the RPG audience as to what “templar” means to them. There is no way to authoritatively or even credibly answer this question. Speculation and blatantly asserting one’s personal preference is universal are the only ways this might be answered, and those are not answers we want or allow.

You responded to this comment so I presume you read it.

If a question needs significant improvement, we place it on hold. Having a precisely accurate reason isn't really important; the fact it is closed at all is what's important.

Several of us have, in comments, explained at great length why it is closed and asked you to reframe your question into something actually workable. If it's going to be adjusted, it's only going to be adjusted to be closed for the proper reason: too broad or primarily opinion-based.

  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ But the close-reason isn't going to be adjusted, because experience shows there's really no need to do this. Either OP will edit and the question will get reopened and it'll never matter that for a day or two the "wrong" reason showed, or they won't and the post'll lie abandoned, and eventually a Roomba will suck it up. \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Jan 15 '17 at 0:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ It was reframed and corrected long before I made this post on meta. Please re-read. Thanks! \$\endgroup\$ – a3eb5744 Jan 15 '17 at 2:09
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Turns out I was wrong! A moderator went ahead and changed the close-reason. Note to future readers: close reasons can and might be changed, but I (and six comment-upvoters, presumably) don't generally see much of a need to do so. \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Jan 15 '17 at 3:13
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @nitsua60 Yeah, usually there's no need to. When the user is persistently confused about the wrong close reason being visible though, it can sometimes be helpful to eliminate that as a source of contention with a quick moderator reopen and reclose with the corrected reason. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jan 15 '17 at 23:15

Your description of the on-hold status of the question seems somewhat disingenuous to me.

You engaged in a long conversation in the comments on it which include statements such as:

Ultimately, the reason given is just what received the most votes, which may have been due to misunderstanding. But even if it’s on-topic, it is still hopelessly too broad, and primarily opinion-based. No one here can speak for the entirety of the RPG audience as to what “templar” means to them. There is no way to authoritatively or even credibly answer this question. Speculation and blatantly asserting one’s personal preference is universal are the only ways this might be answered, and those are not answers we want or allow. – KRyan


Yes, RPGs have published descriptions of what templars are within their own system. But that isn’t what you’re asking (and asking for statements of that sort from all systems that have ever done so is massively too broad). No one has, or even could, state definitively what the word means for all RPGs ever. – KRyan


The problem is that this site works around a correct (and best) answer. But also works around that it (the answer) should be precise. Your question does not have an objectively good answer. The question is good in itself, is the possible answer that is bad. It is too broad. We can cite maybe a hundred or even more fantasy works, and each of them would be correct. You can even throw a stone at any game (with Templars) and find a correct answer, but not THE correct answer. – Chepelink


Not every question asking for source material is a valid question here. That depends on what it is asking. For example, if I ask for the best tabletop game utilizing sources and so on, it would be a very bad question. On the other hand, if I ask "Is there an RPG that is widely acclaimed as an economical success and has over 1,000,000 players?" That would be close to what this site can answer. – Chepelink

While the original close reason may have been incorrect (I'm not entirely convinced that it is, since all the supporting material you mention references video games and not TTRPGS), the question (in its current state) is a poor fit for the site and should remain closed (just for different reasons) unless and until it is improved.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ 1. My question asks for published sources on Templar definitions since I don't have one for pen and paper games. 2. My bolded question clearly never asks about Templars in video games. 3. I use sources shared with me by players in my campaigns since I have no reference in pen and paper (hence the entire purpose of my post). 4. You conflate me listing an example set of definitions in video games with my clearly bolded question not actually referencing games at all. Why? \$\endgroup\$ – a3eb5744 Jan 15 '17 at 1:26
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If you couldn't read that post (with the question clearly bolded) without assuming it relates to video games, then are you looking for me to write something like this? If it looks silly that I added this then maybe it's silly to assume my post was ever about video games to begin with. i.imgur.com/JUAkaHF.png \$\endgroup\$ – a3eb5744 Jan 15 '17 at 1:32
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @a3eb5744 — You seem overly fixated on a very short, parenthetical statement while ignoring the bulk of this answer. \$\endgroup\$ – Quentin Jan 15 '17 at 9:35
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @a3eb5744 Just to let you know I understand somewhat your frustration, the first few times I interacted on this site and tried to formulate a question (a good question) and some good answers (ones that attracted votes) it took the input from various other members in comments to help make my question a good question, and my answers better answers. The site can take some getting used to in order to get a feel for it, but despite my "what?" response to some of the initial offerings, here I am over two years later, still participating and still enjoying the site. Hang in there. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Jan 17 '17 at 20:26

You must log in to answer this question.

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