4
\$\begingroup\$

This question How bad is Sunlight Sensitivity (of Drow, etc.), especially for casters? has two questions on it:

  1. How bad is Sunlight Sensitivity, especially for casters?
  2. How to mitigate it?

Now, it seems like it should've been closed as too broad (two questions in one post), but arguably the second question is actually tied to the first: if it is really bad, how to mitigate it?


Reading the answers, there is only one answer that actually address the main question. The rest of them only address the secondary question, how to mitigate the effects of Sunlight Sensitivity. I speculate that the secondary question is easier to answer, so people gives partial answer and ignore the first part entirely.

How should we handle the question now?

  1. VTC it as "too broad"?
  2. Edit out the main question, and ask for how to mitigate the Sunlight Sensitivity?
  3. Other?
\$\endgroup\$
5
\$\begingroup\$

I have edited the question to focus on mitigation where one option is "no mitigation is required." I understand this looks like two different questions on the page but at it's heart it is "how do I balance this", where options include "it's balanced already" and "change it this way." I am confident enough this does not change the question's meaning I've just gone ahead and done it.

In general it is best to engage with the actual question asker than ask (especially unlinked!) meta questions about it. (I've linked the metas to the question in comments now to drive engagement.) Everyone has comment and edit-suggestion privileges, and you say you are aware we don't like multi-part questions, so in general if you're unsure how to proceed, talk to the OP "Hey is there a single question here...". If you have more confidence, suggest an edit, vtc, and so on. Normally I'd expect escalation to meta if engagement on the question failed, but there has been no attempt at engagement on the question.

So how to handle questions like this:

  1. Comment saying "multi part questions often go off track because people just answer one part, is there a way we can answer just one key question for you or split it into 2 questions?"
  2. As you gain insight via interaction with the OP and/or other community members, vtc, submit edits, etc. as seems appropriate - these activities by their nature get more eyes on it (they push the question into the close and review queues so other community members engage)
  3. If that seems to not be settling down, bring it here or, if there's something bad wrong, flag it.
\$\endgroup\$
-2
\$\begingroup\$

There is no "we"; there is only you and I

This community is egalitarian and non-hierarchical - your opinion needs no validation from me or anyone else.

If you think it's too broad, VTC. If you think the answers are bad, vote them down and/or leave a comment. If you think a question or answer can be improved with an edit, make the edit. You have this power - use it as Spider-Man would.

As for this particular question - the OP has answered their own headline question in the body of the question ("pretty bad"). "How bad is this really?" is possibly primarily opinion-based and maybe should be removed - but not by any omnicognizant "we".

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ On the one hand, this comes across as somewhat condescending and should be edited. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk says reinstate Monica Mar 11 at 17:26
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ On the other hand, I largely agree with its content, which is that it's strange there's not much in the way of comments, edits (except for mods) and so on on that question before escalating it to meta. Definitely feel free to use the tools available to you for clarification and improvement before calling in the troops. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk says reinstate Monica Mar 11 at 17:28
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Yep. Content good, delivery unnecessarily antagonistic. If you’re offended by a question, don’t answer it. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 11 at 18:13
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk not my intention at all - the you was intended to be non-personal and non-perjoritive, However, I can see how it can be read that way. \$\endgroup\$ – Dale M Mar 12 at 23:55
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I think this answer is the Rule 0 equivalent for meta questions: it basically always applies, so it's not especially helpful advice in any specific context. \$\endgroup\$ – Bloodcinder Mar 13 at 12:03

You must log in to answer this question.

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