Me and another high-rep user came into conflict over the editing process and authorial intent at Help with problem player. Specifically, I think that if an edit fundamentally changes the question asked it should be authorized only by pre-existing author approval, whereas he is of the position that as long as a request for authorial approval is present changes in fundamental meaning should not be undone/further edited. Which of us is right about that and how should this have gone down?
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
7
asked Mar 1, 2017 at 16:25
-
1\$\begingroup\$ I don't feel that my edit dramatically changed the authorial intent. The problem in the question stemmed from bad behavior which, to me, seemed to stem from an expectation of an RPG playing like a video game. The OP also says in his question that he has tried, without luck, to get the problem player/character to "redeem" himself without much buy-in from the player. The original question (before any edits) asks, "What are some things you've all tried and done to help fix scenarios like this so everyone has fun?" which I'll note is not a good question for the Q&A format. [cont'd] \$\endgroup\$– LegendaryDudeMar 1, 2017 at 16:28
-
1\$\begingroup\$ [cont'd] In this case the underlying problem actually seems to be the "problem player's" perspective of the game. Either the OP can resolve the problem by removing the player from the game, or he can help that player adjust his perspective. I've tried to help the relatively new user phrase the question in such a way that will get answers to help him solve the problem of the player's perspective. Ultimately, the question really is, "how can I help this player 'see the light'?" since he's clearly not asking for a way to remove the player from the game. \$\endgroup\$– LegendaryDudeMar 1, 2017 at 16:31
-
3\$\begingroup\$ @LegendaryDude Those aren't the only two options! Your personal approach to this problem-- your 'answer', if you will-- is causing you to see your answer as the only reasonable course of action and so you are writing it into the question to be the only reasonable course of action, which is inappropriate. Or at least that's my perspective. For example, I would argue that an answer like 'Here's how you can incorporate his playstyle into the game in a healthy way' would have been appropriate to the intent of the original question but with that last part of your edit it's not anymore. \$\endgroup\$– Please stop being evilMar 1, 2017 at 16:34
-
\$\begingroup\$ OK, that's fair. I fully understand your perspective. I guess my understanding of the question is different, because it seems to me the OP wants the player to stop playing like he's in a video game, as it seems it is that behavior that is causing the rest of the group to want to leave. I don't see how such a vastly different play style can be incorporated into a game but I have little experience with diverse groups of players. I will accept that my edit was a bit overzealous and should have asked for clarification in a comment and waited for a response from the OP. \$\endgroup\$– LegendaryDudeMar 1, 2017 at 16:40
-
1\$\begingroup\$ @LegendaryDude Thanks for being so civil about it ^^ \$\endgroup\$– Please stop being evilMar 1, 2017 at 16:40
-
1\$\begingroup\$ Of course! I'm not here to pick fights or force my will upon others. We're a community and these issues should be discussed civilly and with open minds. :) \$\endgroup\$– LegendaryDudeMar 1, 2017 at 16:41
-
3\$\begingroup\$ I've put a comment specifically asking the OP to clarify on t his point. Like i say, there's a real good chance you are right - but making the OP engage rather than guessing is always good for a number of reasons. \$\endgroup\$– mxyzplkMar 1, 2017 at 16:45
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
4
The edit overstepped and I have rolled it back.
@legendarydude may be correct about the source of the problem - maybe the way their group can have fun is by adopting a deeper in-character RP stance. But the place to address that is in an answer, not by changing the question.
Edits should not change authorial intent, and if an edit is proposed to the OP should be engaged (some are too hapless to do the edit themselves but at least get their buy-in in comments).
If the OP doesn't come back/won't engage, then there's zero worth in spending time working on their question/answers anyway. Getting them to engage will often improve the question in unexpected ways and makes sure we're spending all this work with a meaningful benefit at the end. Don't be afraid to ask questions/make suggestions and wait. Patience is the hardest thing to have, but it's the right answer here.
In general once an edit or whatever is contentious enough that it's been made but then someone objects, don't just keep rolling forward/rolling back especially if you're not the OP. Take it to meta and/or revert it and have patience.
-
1\$\begingroup\$ While I agree, this makes me a little uncomfortable because it was so fast and I don't really feel like Legendary Dude has had a chance to be heard. I guess I'm just a little nervous about it being kinda edit-war-y (imagine if someone else posted a contrary answer and rolled back to his as part of it). I feel like we should wait until your answer is firmly approved (idk, like +5 or something?) to go forward, but that's a different question. \$\endgroup\$ Mar 1, 2017 at 16:38
-
2\$\begingroup\$ Reverting and keeping on hold should always be the default action. Again, patience never killed anyone. \$\endgroup\$– mxyzplkMar 1, 2017 at 16:41
-
\$\begingroup\$ Oh, ok, I wasn't aware that was an established site policy on this issue, my bad. \$\endgroup\$ Mar 1, 2017 at 16:42
-
3\$\begingroup\$ @thedarkwanderer Not so much established policy as established best practices. In cases like this one, least change to the question while waiting for clarification makes for less potential mess. There are exceptions, but normally that's usually the least confusing for readers and the asker. \$\endgroup\$ Mar 1, 2017 at 17:34