Making CharOp Great Again

@Mala Due, there is no mod war against RAW. There was a concerted effort to fix a tag that was being badly used, and causing lots of strife on mainsite. The only reason that looked like war is because one user basically declared war on anyone who touched the subject without their permission. There's no war on RAW, and please stop spreading that idea.

So far no one's bothering to define that and just handwaving, so it's not super actionable. Some questions obviously need support. Back It Up! does not require personal experience - it requires that or something citable (as that aviation answer has). But if you're just making something up, then it needs at least experience.

@KorvinStarmast Probably. Except not fully abandoned, if it keeps coming up.

@KorvinStarmast It's possible that Back It Up is being applied too narrowly (disregarding some valid forms of support) or too aggressively (missing the forest for the trees and applying a guideline for subjective answers to answers which already have objective support). Either of those cases wouldn't make Back It Up a bad thing, but would cause our implementation of it to strangle the site's topicality.

To be fair, inflammatory language was used all around, so it's not hard to read hostility on the part of any participant one's already inclined to suspect.

@Mala Exactly. It's harder to write a good charop question according to those guidelines. The more we understand the benefits of the guidelines, the more questions get closed, and charop questions get hit harder because they're harder to write well in that way.

@Mala You're right, as a community we seem to have raised our expectations for that kind of thing. Part of the motive there seems to be that whiteroom analysis can be so often wrong when tested in actual play situations… There are so many places that already cater to esoteric whiterooming, too.