@Rubiksmoose We could, and they'll be protected next time they're spammed, but it's just, you know, based on their M.O., absolutely guaranteed to happen
Hence why I and others tend to protect a question immediately after just one spellcaster spam post
Since it'll be just a matter of time til the second one
not necessarily after other kinds of spam posts, but those ones for sure
@doppelgreener I guess for me it would matter how soon we could expect the next spammy post. If it was one week or less definitely insta-protect. If it is months or more, maybe worth it to wait. Considering that protection prevents the vast majority of visitors to the site from answering, I think it is a meaningful thing to think about.
And I'd be willing to trade the chance (even a sure thing) of a spam post in a few months for the chance that some new user could give us a quality answer.
It takes one vote on anything to be able to answer a protected question
It's not a big hurdle
And, no, I don't want it to be something we wait for
We put up those protections. Someone removed them without checking with anyone. That shouldn't have happened, and it shouldn't be something we just, you know, chill out on.
3
Work got put in so that additional work wouldn't have to be done again in the future.
@doppelgreener The biggest hurdle for the site IMO is to get people started using it. So getting that first vote, that first post, is significantly harder then me getting an upvote now, for example.
@doppelgreener Now you're shifting the topic. I'm talking about going forward. It has nothing to do with what has happened. I'm assuming that we reprotect all questions here and thinking about how we improve our use of protection going forward. I think every single person on this site thinks that the actions were wrong.
@doppelgreener oh no I see where the wires crossed. I was speaking assuming a new post popped up and got spam. Totally separate from the whole issue of what to do with the unprotected posts.
@doppelgreener (which BTW we do still have to wait on that even if the community decided, the people that are able to pull the trigger on this SE-side are on vacation til sometimes later this week, at least the easily accessible ones)
@Someone_Evil (Because I can check by finding a protected Q on a site I'm such a user on): Those users see no indication on the actual question that it is protected (without checking the timeline). That seems important when considering 15k learning what that tool is. They won't have seen it that much before it's theirs to wield.
@Carcer There does exist such a collection--a whole series of weekly articles by Mearls and Cook that were on the Wizards website leading up to and through the Next playtest. Like 40 of them, maybe. Everything from high-level theories (bounded accuracy, feat trees or no) to consideration of individual classes and mechanics.
@Rubiksmoose User's that are blocked from answering by a protection see an explanation instead of the answer box (even on closed questions, confusingly)
Or, it's possible 10k's see something, but I'd need to burrow one to find that out
Maybe it's just me, but the new "highly-active" banner seems kind of jarring:
It feels to me like the most eye-catching thing on the page, positioned as it is above the question text, and yet it's probably irrelevant to me: the average person to arrive on a question just wants to read the cont...
Wraith: The Oblivion was published by White Wolf Games in 1994, but cancelled in 1999. Many of the books during the run show signs of being compressed together. While White Wolf typically published one book for each clan, bloodline, creed, etc., for Wraith two guilds were often smashed into one b...
I'm writing to a monastery in the Canadian Rockies, and trying to make it clear that I don't want to intrude. (If their _________ would argue against my request.)
@doppelgreener BTW the recent comments were not meant to be argumentative there, just to document what I thought was a salient point in a more visible place (on Meta).
I realize you were here and active for the discussion in chat so just wanted to be sure that was clear.
@HellSaint yeah, it was a bit of a wake up call to me in re one of my early answers when they errata'd that. Kind of bummed me out, I liked the original version better.
@doppelgreener ok sorry, I am catching up, will get back to you. I only got through 160 of the q's, and the "RL spell casting" bait were among those I thought might need a re protect. Not sure how I find them all, though.
@KorvinStarmast I'm not really seeing an insult there. My read is that it's a bit presumptive (and of course we know how experienced HICC is) but I don't read the comment as aggressive at all. Am I missing something?
@Rubiksmoose That comment was asking if HICC understood gaming and what a BBEG is. What you are missing is something inside my head that was screaming "uh, hello, HICC was fighting BBEGs and running BBEG fights while you were an embryo" or something like that. It looked quite "you don't get it" as a comment with a snide tone. To me, anyway.
But, if you see it differently, that's fine. Have not had my sedative yet today (that's what beer is now called) so perhaps my annoyance factor is off of calibration
I'll call the calibration lab, see if we can get it re set ... if need be.
@KorvinStarmast I'll let it percolate a bit and see if I read it differently in a few. I think part of it is that we know HICC and they don't. So it might help to read with that perspective?
yeah, I see that, but HICC was being the usual super helpful, and it just struck me as a cheap shot ... I can see how that was me seeing it through a lens and all that ...
("Unlisted" in the sense that they're not a member of the North American Guild, they don't show in the worldwide database of bell towers, and they don't accept visitors ringing.)
A mod said I should ask if there is a rule that says one single (arbitrarily defined) question per post. Too Broad does not mention it. Is it an actual rule somewhere or a guideline or what?
And how does it define 1 question? Questions can need very broad answers (like explaining how a spell wor...
Actually, I don't think we broadcast it very much, but a bunch more questions were added to the FAQ proposal index. For those who would like to opine, or just vote.
I agree with above post, you can by RaW cast gfb off shadowblade but can't twin gfb as it can hit multiple targets, it should be noted that boomingblade CAN be twinned, as it is a single target spell.
It should also be noted you should ask your DM if you can take both greenflameblade/boomingblade...
I might just leave a generic welcome, but I found it hard to read
The problem to me is that the answer isn't answering the question, but like... it provides a very similar spell that does work.... it kinda says, "unfortunately (as others have explained) what you want to do won't work; however, you can do something similar"
And imagine if the only answer there had exlpained why GFB didn't work and explained that BB was a good alternative; nobody would say "remove the information on BB because it doesn't answer the question" (or maybe they would and I'm out of the loop)
@KorvinStarmast Wayback. I might be able to track down a link, but I think it's buried in a comment on an answer I wrote the mentions bounded accuracy.
So, movement speed is apparently per round, not per turn. So let's say character A walks 30 feet, their full movement speed, during their turn. Then character B casts a spell which forces character A to move another 30 feet due to fear. What happens? Isn't character A's movement speed already use...