1
\$\begingroup\$

So my question with respect to spell requirements got locked and one of our moderators decided to throw this gem of a line in there:

" not asking honestly about the practical situation it’s about. "

First: The question has been open for one day and generated some confusion, largely in part because it was spawned off of a debate over the interpretation of Wish. This is entirely irrelevant to the question I asked, and I don't appreciate being called dishonest either directly or indirectly when I'm simply looking to clarify what are general rules clearly described in the book (as cited in my answer to my own question.)

Second: That I would have potentially or even likely used the answer to support a different argument is entirely irrelevant. The question was asked and the answer provided did apply to all spells equally and generally across the board.

So Third: Why did you intervene in something simply because there was a minor disagreement over the clarity of the question? I specified using an example of something simple, and was willing to go further to demonstrate how it would apply to any and all spells, not just Wish specifically. And rather than letting the community respond to the clarifications it asked for, you locked the question completely.

Locking this question that's less than 24 hours old simply because there's disagreement on it is absurd. Is that not the point of questions? To generate answers that sometimes conflict due to interpretations? Are comments not meant to help clarify the answers provided when there may be conflicts?

You may have noticed I didn't readily accept my own answer, leaving it open for other answers that may demonstrate a different interpretation that, and I can't stress this enough, were required to cite the rules as part of the question I asked. That none of the other answers did this is the only reason I summarily rejected the interpretations provided. It was a stipulation of the question that answers be sourced.

For the record, I will argue adamantly when I have a supported answer and cite the rules to support the interpretation. If your counter is, "You're wrong," with nothing else to back it, I will summarily dismiss your counter. That which is asserted without evidence is dismissed without evidence.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ As an aside, if you want to get your question reopened and unlocked I would ask a meta specifically about what people see as needed in order for that to happen. Then a dialog can take place and actionable items given with community consensus. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose♦ Aug 29 '18 at 18:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ This person would not self-answer a new question and then link it as support for another of my answers without at least slightly dishonest intentions... \$\endgroup\$ – Speedkat Aug 29 '18 at 19:38
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Speedkat - I clearly stated above that I hadn't accepted the answer I self answered specifically because I was awaiting other answers that may have provided a different, supported interpretation. If there was one that demonstrated something different from my own that was logically supported, I'm an honest individual that recognizes things like that and simply adopts the rational and logically supported answer, regardless of whether or not I like it. My intentions are to provide supported answers to questions, and to seek supported answers when there is no clear answer. Is that clear? \$\endgroup\$ – Lino Frank Ciaralli Aug 29 '18 at 20:41
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Speedkat there's nothing wrong with linking to a well-voted self-answered Q&A as support for another answer. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose♦ Aug 29 '18 at 20:52
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Rubiksmoose The self-answer in question was posted, self-answered, and linked as support all in the space of half an hour. \$\endgroup\$ – Speedkat Aug 29 '18 at 21:22
  • 11
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm going to step in there: creating a self-answered Q&A to explore a topic for the sake of linking to it for another answer is 100% fine. If the community supports the answer and thinks it's good and makes sense, it provides a more in-depth explanation that may not make sense to do inside another answer and may be more useful separate. If the community disagrees and the answer is wrong, it shows and can't be used to support the other answer (and may lead to competing answers). Let's not go digging further on that front, please. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Aug 29 '18 at 23:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ Related: Gael L has asked a version of the question specifically about wish. \$\endgroup\$ – Bloodcinder Sep 14 '18 at 15:39
10
\$\begingroup\$

Replace “honestly” with “openly”. The question is hiding the practical situation it’s about, and that’s a problem of content that can be described by a variety of words. The motives aren’t really important and I am sorry my choice of words give the impression that motive was an issue. That was careless on my part.

It’s locked for the reasons described in the lock banner and in the comments. Time it’s been on the site isn't a factor in content dispute locks. What tends to draw a content dispute lock are things like a shifting question, edit warring, and/or disputes over its content.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks, that provides some much needed clarity with respect to your comment. I mean, it's still alluding to hidden intentions, which I really don't have. I don't mind if I'm wrong about something, simply demonstrate why. \$\endgroup\$ – Lino Frank Ciaralli Aug 29 '18 at 20:39
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @LinoFrankCiaralli The trouble with “demonstrate why” is that the question is attempting to tell answers how to qualify as answers, and that doesn't usually work. Answers can always try to solve the problem from another approach that doesn't fit into the requirements the question lays out, and then face the voters. The question lacking context caused confusion, then answerers noticed it was arising from the wording of wish. That toothpaste can't be put back in the tube, and we do expect questions to supply the relevant information… because sometimes the answer isn't what the OP wishes. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Aug 30 '18 at 1:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ I was just looking for what the requirements for a spell are. That doesn't seem overly complicated to me, they're clearly laid out in the spellcasting section of the PHB. pgs 202-204. Lots of the sections use the key word "requires", which is highlighted in my answer. I get that you keep trying to apply it to the other answer, but my question is standalone on general spellcasting, nothing more. \$\endgroup\$ – Lino Frank Ciaralli Aug 30 '18 at 2:21
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I’m not trying to do that. The question is avoiding non-hypothetical context, site members know there’s more non-hypothetical context, there are arguments about the question leaving out that context. None of that required me to interpret it or apply its content to anything else. There is an overt dispute about the current content of the question and what it should be. That’s simple tea leaves for deciding moderator action, which is a lock and instructions to discuss it on meta until there is consensus. (This meta here obviously does not accomplish that, since that is not its subject.) \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Aug 30 '18 at 3:09
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Put another way: I am not engaging in the substance of your (plural) dispute. I am observing and describing its structural relationship to the site. Then I am doing a fairly pedestrian mod task with a standard mod tool used for its intended purpose: insulating the main site from harm due to a content dispute that is not using our dispute-resolution site. I will not engage with the dispute itself here in these comments either, as the dispute itself is off topic to this answer and question. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Aug 30 '18 at 3:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ok. I'm saying your interpretation of my question is wrong and I've clarified it numerous times. If you're unwilling to budge on it, we're at an impasse and it's going to remain locked. Oh well. \$\endgroup\$ – Lino Frank Ciaralli Aug 30 '18 at 3:49
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I don’t need to interpret your question, or pick a side. If you think I do you’re not catching why moderation is happening. If the others are wrong or right doesn’t matter—you and they are disputing what should be in the question. I can accurately see that. If the others saw this thing in the question but didn’t care, there wouldn’t be a problem for moderation to deal with. If you accepted the objections there wouldn’t be a problem for moderation to deal with. The fact is that regardless of who is right, y’all are ripping up the smooth operation of this site and I have stopped y’all. Sort it. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Aug 30 '18 at 5:05
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This is a point I would be happy to see understood because it will save me repeating the explanation next time something like this comes up. It may even save having to intervene at all to force following procedure. Understanding the standard site role of “Taking it to meta” when a dispute rises to the level of mod intervention is an expectation the site has of active high-rep users. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Aug 30 '18 at 5:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ "If you accepted the objections there wouldn’t be a problem for moderation to deal with." - So how am I supposed to do that other than modifying the question in accordance with the comments which placed it on hold? That's exactly what I was doing when you locked the question in the first place. Why is there a need to take it to meta for clarification when I was already reformatting the question to address community concerns on clarity? I didn't ignore the community or argue with them over the question, go take a look. I addressed the On Hold status by refining it, including an example. \$\endgroup\$ – Lino Frank Ciaralli Aug 30 '18 at 11:17
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @LinoFrankCiaralli I think there is still a significant group of people that is still confused about the premise of the question. If you want the question reopened, you can easily start that dialog by starting a meta focused on how to reopen your question specifically. Without that, there is no way forward to resolve the issues that are present here. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose♦ Aug 30 '18 at 11:45
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If you want to inquire into how to get the question reopened, please ask a new, different meta specifically asking about that, as was already suggested. That way answers can be posted and discussed and voted on in full visibility of the members interested in that question. This meta is about the accusation about honesty that was made, and has been answered, and its comment sections are not an appropriate place to try to resolve the larger issue of that question's closure. These comments are getting way off topic so I'm locking them (and I recognise the irony of doing so). \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Aug 30 '18 at 14:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ @LinoFrankCiaralli You can't resolve the dispute via edit now because that ship has sailed. Me taking a teachable moment to explain that you (plural) could have done stuff differently in the first place isn't suggesting you go do the impossible now. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Aug 30 '18 at 20:47

You must log in to answer this question.

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