What can I read about how we tie the stochastic characteristics of conflict resolution into statements about the nature of a game? Is occasioning a lot of odd behavior.
- It's drawn automatic comment-flags a few times. A number of those comments are users arguing (in 600 chars or fewer) why the question is good/bad/on-topic/off-topic.
- It's got one answer that's basically "here's some references which I don't think address this; maybe video game people know more."
- It's got another heavily-downvoted answer that seems to be just one user's description of how they believe/percieve distributions to play out. (And then there's that strange tagline at the end.)
The first point alone makes me think we need this meta to more-fully explore the question's merits, flaws, clarity: as much ink's been spilt arguing the question' status and understanding its details as on answering it. The perplexing existing answers strike it home for me.
For now I'm holding the question, moving the comments to a dedicated chat room, and I encourage all who've engaged with the question on mainsite to discuss it here where I hope the space and tools at everyone's disposal can help make it a great contribution to the site.
Just to be clear: I'm not really sure one way or another on the question. I thought it merited holding because of the storm I saw swirling around it. My hope is that in this meta supporters and opponents can make the longer arguments the question seems to deserve. If, as a result of this, five reopen-votes accrue, great. If not, great. The community of people involved with and knowledgeable about the question can do their thing better than I can.