Is focus on a question's title rather than the text acceptable?

Question

I feel that some of our users have taken the change in norms with subjective questions too far.

This comment is the last straw.

Any actual experience with allowing players to vote what can or cannot be killed? – {Mołot 22 mins ago}

It reflects a complete misunderstanding of the answer, and it misrepresents the text of the question in terms of addressing the actual problem. A GM and all of the other players see the game one way, and one player is trying to do something different that the other players do not agree with.

The problem in the question header, about "killing the unkillable," isn't the issue that needs to be solved. We have X-Y problem questions arise with some frequency. The problem is (1) getting the other player to stop being disruptive and (2) the GM's frustration with the same. As I see it, a GM needing to learn how to say No and to stick to their decision (and to apply basic small group consensus building) is what's at stake. And that snarky comment gets added under the answer that addresses the X-Y problem. I just discovered that the answer was accepted by the person asking the question - this lends support to my point that the text of the question lays out the problem, not the title. I now discover, a day later, that the querent changed their mind and chose another answer.

At some point, before deciding to throw that "Do you have expereience with {X}?" line out, I ask anyone pondering such a comment to think first, read the whole question, sum up the whole problem, and then look at the solution being offered to the problem.

I am not convinced that all of our users are going through that process before raising that objection in the past few months. (Though some certainly are).

Answer 1

I get the frustration, but I'm not reading snark in that comment

The push for better subjective support definitely can ruffle feathers, but I'm not reading snark in that.

In fact, that section of your answer is a proposal for a specific course of action. And it's a course of action with potential consequences beyond resolving the situation. By creating an open vote like this, you may be alienating that player. You may end up alienating the DM. Adding support that talks about you having done this at a table and how it went really would be helpful, because there are potential pitfalls that could be addressed.

While I agree it could have been worded better, your answer would be improved to include support for that idea.

Snark shouldn't beget snark

The other issue here is your comment in return. You add a line at the end which could easily be construed by another party as snark.

(Was that comment really necessary, or is this becoming a reflex?)

I think the response may actually escalate the situation rather then deescalate. A better option may have been to point out what you were saying and how it wasn't a proposed course of action that needed support. This in turn would have been an opportunity to fine tune your answer so that others didn't see it as an idea without support.

Having said that, this is a very tricky situation due to site norms and where we are at this moment wanting more support for subjective responses. Parties on both sides are getting frustrated and we need to be more open to each other and what we can do to help make the site better.

Answer 2

You’ve assumed that the comment is due to the commentor not reading or understanding the question nor your answer’s point.

I think the related question is 'should we be making comments without bothering to put any effort into the reading the question and the answer' ... but that's just my opinion. [1]

That’s not what I see happening. I see you two honestly disagreeing on what parts of an answer need support.

I have plenty of experience in dealing with small group dynamics, thank you. Try reading this part of the question, again: I tell them no and the rest of the group tells them it is impossible as well Whether or not a thing can be killed is not the problem that needs to be solved. See X-Y Problem, there are metas about it in plentitude. [2]

You’re saying that only the part of an answer that deals with the real problem needs to be supported.

But… that’s just not true.

All suggestions need support

If an answer is suggesting doing something, we want it to be supported.

Put another way: we don’t want unsupported suggestions. That’s the whole point of GS/BS.

Nowhere in the texts, principle, or practice of Back It Up and GS/BS do they say only suggestions meant as the main point need to be supported. Any course of action needs to be supported.

Your answer suggests two things:

1. Have a vote, which will likely just be done to make a point.
2. Put your foot down and insist.

Both are things the answer is suggesting the reader should do. Only (2) is given any support.

If (1) is so important to the real problem that it belongs in the answer, then it needs to be supported. If it’s not important enough to support with evidence that it’s a good and useful action, then the answer shouldn’t be suggesting anyone do it.

It’s entirely reasonable to wonder if doing (1) in that specific way might perhaps impact the effectiveness of (2), or perhaps have side effects the answer is not sharing. It’s reasonable to ask for more information on that issue, to see how and whether that whole, combined approach has worked in experience, and what pitfalls the reader might beware in order to achieve success.

They’re not separable suggestions, when the answer itself ties them together.

That’s why all suggested courses of action in an answer are expected to be supported. Showing that all the suggestions in an answer actually work when used as described is the point of providing support. Not supporting a suggestion described in an answer will naturally attract requests to support it.

It’s just a fact that missing support will draw comments. It’s not something unusual. Nor is it something to take umbrage at. It’s something to accept as inherent to choosing not to support the advice.