TRPG General Chat

12:38 AM

Can somebody help me out with a bit of confusion? I've just had an answer deleted because it was deemed to be commentary on another answer, which I was disagreeing with and providing the supporting reasoning. But I've had comments on answers deleted for the exact same thing. What's the 'right' way to mention why you disagree with an answer and provide the supporting evidence?

It's apparently not by way of providing a different answer, and it's also not by way of providing commentary on the original answer?

Is it really just a comment-free, information-free, context-free down-vote?

BESW

If you can imagine how to improve the answer you disagree with, give a comment. If you have a better answer, provide it as an independent, stand-alone answer to the question.

Comments which disagree without the possibility of providing improvement are poor comments, and answers which can't stand on their own without the context of other answers are poor answers.

So--yeah, there's no room in Stack Exchange for a post which says "You're wrong," however eloquently. Instead, provide an answer which is right and let the contrast speak for itself.

Theo Brinkman

But, like I said, I've had a comment deleted because it was a 'different answer', and an answer deleted because it was 'commentary'. Both for the exact same sort of message. In both cases, I provided the reasoning why, which is what's necessary to improve an answer.

And I've seen plenty of comments (and answers) which included disagreements or comments on answers.

BESW

I haven't seen the specific situation, so I can't speak to it, but telling someone why they're wrong doesn't necessarily give them the tools to make an answer right without making it a totally different answer.

mxyzplk

"So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth."

Theo Brinkman

So... There's no way to let someone know that there's an error in their answer, and give them the information necessary to fix it? Just a down-vote which doesn't leave the possibility of explaining why, or how it could be fixed? That seems counter-productive if you want people to be able to improve their answers.

mxyzplk

12:45 AM

it's entirely possible to post the same hash as a comment and as an answer and have it not be either - tune your comment to be an improvement - and the answerer may or may not incorporate it and it'll eventually be reaped - or make a clearly stanadalone answer. If you really think you did either of those link and people can review but ...

BESW

@TheoBrinkman Can the answer be improved without becoming a totally different answer? If not, then no--the solution is to post the different answer yourself.

mxyzplk

of course complaining without linkies means we can't really help you except to commisserate/say "well, maybe try better next time"

high rep users can see the deleted stuff and can still critique

BESW

I found this deleted answer but naturally I can't see deleted comments.

mxyzplk

Yeah, that's definitely not an answer. Feel free and rewrite as a standalone answer. but you start off with "the problem with the other answers..." and then let's say we deleted all the other answers and your preamble - is the remainder a real full answer to that guy's question? No.

BESW

And, yeah, there are comments and answers which don't really work within the system. If an answer references other answers but can still stand on its own then that's... acceptable.

Otherwise you should be flagging that stuff: moderators don't spend their days looking for problems; they rely on us to flag problems for their attention.

mxyzplk

12:48 AM

Pretend you're the only respondent and answer fully/cleanly and it'll work

No deleted comments on that same Q so can't speak to that part

Miniman

@TheoBrinkman If you don't want to post an answer, would you be happy to tell me what you think is wrong with mine?

Comments and other answers might not be good places for that, but chat certainly is.

Theo Brinkman

@Miniman It becomes a very order-dependent rule. If you attack with the net, you can't attack with the weapon, but if you attack with the weapon, you can attack with the net. It seems really over-fiddly to have something like that, especially in a system where you can mix parts of your action(s) inside movement.

@mxyzplk The deleted comment was from further back. I thought I understood the process, because I was told 'no discussions in comments, post an answer instead'. I got confused when I was told 'no discussions in answers, post a comment instead'.

Miniman

@TheoBrinkman It shouldn't be order dependent at all. 'you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.'

If you attack with the weapon first, you've disallowed yourself from attacking with the net exactly the same as if you'd attacked with the net, you've disallowed yourself from attacking with the weapon.

Theo Brinkman

@Miniman - But until you've made the attack with the net, you don't have that limitation. I attack you with my sword, and have the Extra Attack ability. I have the ability to attack you with another weapon.

Miniman

@TheoBrinkman Of course! - But not the net.

wax eagle

12:55 AM

@TheoBrinkman yes, discussion would be quite welcome on my answer as well here in chat.

Miniman

It's like the limitation on bonus action spells. If you cast a bonus action spell, you can't cast a non-cantrip regular action spell in the same round. It doesn't matter which order you cast them.

Theo Brinkman

But why not? You have not yet used "an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net".

The bonus action spell rule explicitly calls out that it can't be done if you've cast a normal action, non-cantrip spell. The net rule applies a limitation when you attack with the net.

wax eagle

let's move this to 5e room?

D&D 5e Overflow

For when main chat wants to talk about other things too.

D&D 5e Overflow

Transcript for