12
\$\begingroup\$

We have a great FAQ Index post here on the Role-Playing Games Meta Stack Exchange, but our current process for adding things to that list is a little lacking. Currently users add the tag to their question, then at some point in the future once the post is mature a mod will add the tag to it. This good in theory, but in practice has a few problems.

  1. No one gets notified when the tag is added.
  2. There is no good place to discuss whether a question should be on the FAQ list or not
  3. Proposals remain as proposals for months until a mod gets around to it

So I'd like to trial a new solution. Introducing the FAQ proposal index:

How it works

We'll continue using the tag on FAQ candidates. In addition, post an answer to this meta with a link to the question to be added and an optional justification for why it should be added. User can then use votes to indicate if the question is a good candidate and comments to discuss if required changes are required.

Highly voted questions indicate that the community has reached a consensus and the question should be added to our FAQ. What counts as "highly voted" is open for discussion, but for now, let's trial the following threshold: the post must have a score of at least +5, with at least a 2:1 upvote-to-downvote ratio.

After a reasonable period to collect input (let's try one month), proposals will be actioned. If they have sufficient support, a mod will add the tag and update the index accordingly. If not, we will remove the tag from the question. Either way, the answer post here will be deleted once acted upon.

If you want to propose removing a question from the FAQ, please ask a new question on meta tagged discussion proposing the removal.

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I've gone ahead and posted some of our faq-proposal questions as example answers to trial this system. If it works well we can persist with it. If it doesn't we can close this question and go back to the old way, or try something else entirely. \$\endgroup\$
    – linksassin Mod
    May 27, 2020 at 15:01
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'd also suggest that after some period of reflection--say, a month?--any "answer" here is acted upon. Either it's added to the FAQ and retagged accordingly, or it's got the -proposal tag removed. And either way, the "answer" here ends up deleted. \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60 Mod
    May 27, 2020 at 15:33
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @nitsua60 Deleted or status-declined? I can see benefits of going either way. \$\endgroup\$
    – linksassin Mod
    May 27, 2020 at 15:36
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ My thought behind deleting is that it doesn't visibly prejudice the system against a future -proposal of the same meta, perhaps in response to different circumstances or improvement in the meta or a better argument for its inclusion. \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60 Mod
    May 27, 2020 at 15:39
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @nitsua60 My thought for status-declined was exactly the opposite. To prevent repeatedly declining the same question. Though now that I think about it that is probably preempting an issue that may not even happen. If it does we can address it on a per-question basis. \$\endgroup\$
    – linksassin Mod
    May 27, 2020 at 15:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ Related past question: What's the actual process around [faq-proposal]s? \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    May 28, 2020 at 2:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm not sure having a single post for handling this as a continuous process is going to work long-term. New answers to old questions simply aren't going to get the attention they need to see a consensus. We might want to do round ups in this style on occasion (this also lets us just mark old suggestions as completed/rejected and leave that history visible). \$\endgroup\$
    – Someone_Evil Mod
    Jun 14, 2020 at 11:20

10 Answers 10

5
\$\begingroup\$

Is there a rule or guideline stating that each post should only ask a single question?

A good question about avoid asking multiple questions in a single post. However it has been somewhat mitigated through updates to the "too broad" close reason.

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

Should question titles be formatted as a question?

This has several answers that some good advice on how to create good titles for the questions on our site. It also hosts some discussion on some of the more nuanced parts of editing question titles that is valuable information. It makes a decent candidate for the FAQ list.

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

I have some information to add to help someone solve their issue, do I answer or comment?

This question is really more about partial answers and how to handle them. There is some valuable points and discussion but I don't know how useful it is for a new user.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Seems useful to have as an FAQ, if at least to head off people leaving partial answers as comments (or as incomplete answers). \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Aug 7, 2020 at 7:10
3
\$\begingroup\$

Why do I need to specify my game system, and how do I best do it?

A good concise Q&A on why we ask for the game system and a discussion on the available methods to do so. Useful to link to new users confused as to why we close a question without a system.

\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

What does it mean for a question to be closed?

Another help-centre question, this one is about question closure and explains what it really means for new users.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

What are the rules and policies of RPG.SE?

A solid explanatory Q&A that looks at how we use terms like "rules" and how that differs from "policies" or the way other sites might use them. More helpful for catching users up on meta discussion or helping them learn the more nuanced parts of site expectations.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

Why did another user edit my post?

One of our help-centre targeted Q&As that aims to explain the basic approach to collaborative editing we have as a community.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

Why are users saying my answer isn’t an answer?

This help-centre extension Q&A focuses on what "not an answer" means and touches on some of the common terminology used to provide feedback on answers.

\$\endgroup\$
-1
\$\begingroup\$

What Do We Do With "Read The Book To Me" Questions?

A discussion on a commonly problematic question type where users ask questions that can be simply answered by duplicating content from the official rules.

\$\endgroup\$
-2
\$\begingroup\$

How to deal with answers based on the wrong system/edition?

This is something that occasionally happens: people answer with 3.5 for Pathfinder, Pathfinder 1e for 2e, CoD for WoD. Having a handbook what to do then can be helpful.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • \$\begingroup\$ Hmm, I think the entry is not good enough. I think it takes a very simplistic stance on whether or not "mixed edition" content is acceptable. Things are more nuanced. Pathfinder should be compatible with 3.5 rules. At the very least it was intended to be in the beginning. Whether that intention worked out might be another matter. I also don't know if this approach changed at some point. Some oWoD/nWoD concepts can also be compatible. Or even oWoD 1/2e vs oWoD Revised/20 vs oWoD 5th ed. More in terms of fluff than rules but crossovers can be done. So, it depends more on the games, I'd say. \$\endgroup\$
    – VLAZ
    Feb 1, 2023 at 13:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ @VLAZ Whiel Pathfinder can be compatible, it isn't in general - a lot of 3.5 material is underwhelming compared to real PF material. In any case, it's more like trying to discuss a D&D 5e material using D&D 4th edition rules. For WoD, the question was promoted by the absolute system mismatch, resulting in the equivalent of trying to argue a D&D question using Shadowrun rules. \$\endgroup\$
    – Trish
    Feb 1, 2023 at 13:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ On the Pf/3.5 and mixed content being underwhelming: Yes. IMO, the design goal for compatibility failed very early on. Yet, it was touted as a design goal and there were promises that you can still use your 3.5 books to play Pf. That was one of the big draws. It was unofficially dubbed "3.75e" to show it's closeness to 3.5. And the term "3.X" tended to refer to "all of D&D 3rd edition, 3.5 edition, and Pathfinder". I don't know if the stance from Paizo and the community changed later on. Point being that some material is intended to work cross-version. And that's not the only such game. \$\endgroup\$
    – VLAZ
    Feb 1, 2023 at 14:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ So, it's more nuanced than "it comes from a different edition". Yes, sometimes that leads to a wrong answer, as in your example. I fully agree there. But not always. A lot of material from, say, 1st edition oWoD is applicable to Revised or even 5th. Yet, some details did change. Malkavians used to be directly linked to the Fae, which was dropped later on. Same with Gangrel and werewolves. In Typical WoD fashion, though, all of this could be true or none of it. \$\endgroup\$
    – VLAZ
    Feb 1, 2023 at 14:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ @VLAZ indeed, and that's what the answer there tries to say. You might add your stance to that question, expounding on that. WoD had little mechanical change from 1 to 20th, but 5th is a different system. Fluff from 5 can conflict but is at least mostly compatible but for the last decades game-time. L5R has nigh no rule untouched from 1 to 5, with 3, 4 and 5 were major system revamps in large parts, 5 is even an entirely different underlying mechanic, but the Fluff is directly applicable from 1-4 while 5 is a reboot and tunes of 1-4 can be still used. \$\endgroup\$
    – Trish
    Feb 1, 2023 at 15:11

You must log in to answer this question.

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