Hot answers tagged

60

Let experts make expert decisions. This is the essential premise of Stack Exchange. People come here because they expect experts to be equipped to solve their problem - and they are right. We have an active community of RPG experts engaging with questions to provide expert guidance for solving a broad range of RPG problems. Our experts do not need a rigid ...


30

Yes, mostly Changing "him" or "her" to "them" without really strong reasons should be declined during review as "no improvement whatsoever". If done by an user with editing rights, it should be rolled back and commented with the appropriate meta link. but sometimes Sometimes gender of the character or person in ...


25

Recommendation: Rescind the policy - Guessing the system is permissible, but you do so at-risk Going forward, we will adopt a policy to allow experts to be experts, but in that vein, we will expect that they be correct. This recommendation puts the burden of guessing upon the respondent: Don't edit the question tags: Do not edit tags into the question ...


23

I believe changes to scores in policy metas should be observed as reflecting the ongoing, developing will of the community. Leaving these metas open and unlocked is useful for gauging that will, and I believe it's important for telling us when we need to take another look at something and have another discussion about it. I'll get to a generalised proposal ...


23

Citing materials is a way for someone who doesn’t know there are different editions of the game to tell us what edition they’re using. When I got into Dungeons & Dragons, I didn’t know there were editions. I went to my local game store and said “how do I get started with D&D?”, and the clerk said “Buy this” and handed me the Player’s Handbook. I didn’...


21

Yes we can, and we shouldn't even need to ask this meta in order to do that. We already discussed that we should "let experts be experts". Stack Exchange isn't meant to run on absolute objective rigid adherence to black-and-white law, we're meant to be the people synthesizing our available guidance into considered and careful subjective judgement. ...


20

I present exhibit A: Do Kaladesh Dwarves get +4 in Constitution? The most recent example of how we make this site a worse place by having this rule. This question was not unclear. It could be answered. And yet, we deleted the answer (don't know what actually happened, but our community acted in a way that in the end as a result we had a deleted answer). Why? ...


12

Once a re-re-revisit is posted, lock it for a week. This lets people draft up answers and prevents things like Fastest Gun In The West. It means that there will be an exact time at which the question will be unlocked and answers can then be posted at roughly the same time. People will probably have free time somewhere within a week to draft an answer, so ...


11

Yeah, I think we're due a discussion about the state of rule intent and designer reasons questions I'll start with a minor disclaimer that this my personal opinion, not a formed stance by the mod team. In case that matters to anyone. I think there two primary reasons for that. Firstly, the FAQ question has votes over time which imply a change of opinion. And ...


11

Wait an arbitrary (at least a month) amount of time until a clear winner emerges Obviously, having voting end after a day or two is nonsense. Some people, who are active community members and have seen DGtS and formed opinions on it as it applies to this site, are not active every single day, or even each week. I suggest at least a month of time (which is ...


10

On second thought... is this important? Don’t Guess the System is almost certainly due for a revisit regardless, and not only is it the only example of this that we have—it’s also just about the only conceivable controversy where this would even be a concern. We simply don’t have policies as described in the question for much of anything—all of it is either ...


8

How shall we frame our upcoming revisit...? With an eye toward the actual stakes. Frankly, which way we end up going with DGtS isn't a huge matter for site health. Montagues argue that one way of handling it causes net good for the site while Capulets argue that's a net harm. If we change the practice those will swap. (I'm a Montague, by the way. Forrealz: ...


7

If nothing else, we need to clarify the rule to stop misuse There are users who seem to want to over-use the ban on designer-intent questions to close an enormous swath of questions that we can, have, and should handle quite well. (For instance, some seem ready to close any and all questions that include the word “why”). I have several times considered ...


7

I think this is very much an important subject. I also think that trying to raise it at this point—when we have only one example of the problem, and it’s this example, and that example is very much currently unresolved—is simply not going to work. The arguments are not going to be appropriately separated from the specific example; the highest-rated existing ...


6

(Non-D&D answer since this question is no longer D&D5-tagged.) I think we've hit a point where different game systems have different standards and your answer should reflect that. E.g., Modern D&D has a lot of rules, written by multiple authors, which accumulate over time. There are official channels for rules updates and clarifications, which ...


2

Note: This represents my idea as a user, not a mod. Don't take this as any kind of official stance or suggestion that this is something the mod team are planning to do. Don't make it a re-visit Clearly this will be a re-visit, this is ground we have discussed before and it is impossible to pretend that hasn't happened. However I would like to propose we ...


1

Those numbers don't seem to justify revisiting the topic. Note that this is my personal opinion, not a mod consensus. While doppel is 100% correct (as would be expected) that we should be willing to revisit decisions that have lost majority support, I think we should set a slightly higher threshold than "16 > 12". One thing that is important to ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible