You can't control an area of several million lightyears across if you could only ever travel a few lightyears (or even thousands of lightyears) in your entire life
@overactor You may also be pleased to learn that typing [chat] in a mainsite comment creates a hotlink to the list of active site rooms for whichever site you're leaving a comment in.
a) Handling "What happens if I do this?" ( I have START and CAUSE, give me RESULT ) b) Handling "Where did I come from?" ( I have RESULT and CAUSE, give me START ) c) Handling "How would I cause this?" ( I have START and RESULT, give me CAUSE ) d) Handling "What am I asking?" ( I have PROCESS, give me CAUSE and RESULT )
The Good Subjective/Bad Subjective guidelines talk a lot about what make for great questions and answers for subjective issues, and it primarily falls around Back It Up!: answers need to cite some kind of relevant material (scholarly works, authoritative discussions, relevant personal experience,...
a) i) I have A, give me X and B (bad) a) ii) I have A and X, give me B (cool) b) i) I have B, give me X and A (bad) b) ii) I have B and X, give me A (cool) c) I have X, give me A and B (Too broad) d) I have A and B, give me X (cool)
I think for questions on the second form, we'll need something more like "I have this starting point (however loosely defined) and I want this outcome, how do I get there?". Because otherwise it becomes "propose any X where f(X) = 1 for your proposed f()".
> a) I want this to happen, how could I cause it? > b) It starts a question with a proposed start point and is clear about what you start with, but the intent is also clear "survive", but a bit more open ended > c) Is simply "I have no idea what to do, I just want cool ideas"
If we can find some sort of consensus that idea generating questions are off topic, we can certainly add a site-specific close reason covering that. It would help make the site's scope more clear.
If a question is closed and then reopened (or even approaching reopening) without significant changes, that's usually a sign that it needs to be brought up on Meta for further discussion.
We're working through accumulated flags, by the way. It'll take a few days more, I expect. But just wanted to let y'all know that those are moving now.
Almost certainly. I've had a diamond for almost a year on Amateur Radio and I don't think that's something you ever "fully learn". Every situation is slightly different.
@overactor Indeed. Community moderation is supposed to be what drives the majority of moderation; moderators (elected or appointed as pro tems) should be pretty much the last line of defense. On a healthy site, very few things should require diamond-level access.
Now that we have MathJax, people are editing old posts to replace compromises with clear mathematical notation. I just approved an edit to this answer. In the Review Suggested Edits queue, selecting "rendered output" did not display correctly rendered MathJax. After I approved the edit, I looked ...
Hi. The "what is your process for creating a city" question feels a little like an opinion poll to me; it's asking 'what do you do" more than focusing on the problem to be solved. I proposed an edit that I think fixes it without damaging anything else; I'd appreciate it if people who can review edits would take a look: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/1882
I'll ask again. One problem is that we don't know who specifically is the liaison for our site, so I can either ask the room in general (what I've done so far) or start calling out individual CMs who might or might not be the right ones. I guess it's time to try the latter.
@TimB I've asked in the SE-wide mod room a few times and so far gotten crickets. Most recent was Wednesday afternoon, when I dropped a link to the human-sacrifice question (when it was still pretty young) and said I could imagine stuff happening there that would get flagged -- so could somebody mind the flags? I don't know if flags happened and, if so, if they were handled.