Note that the current revision mentions "Wildemount" like the original. The mention of Explorer's Guide to Wildemount has been removed.

Does this answer your question? Re-revisiting the "don't guess the system" policy

@KRyan It looks like there are already links to several threads that are newer than the one you linked, which I believe all link to the policy thread. It doesn't seem like OP is unaware of the policy.

@gszavae That comment is automatically added when you vote to close a question as a duplicate, which this is. Just because you don’t like the policy or the consensus that formed it doesn’t mean you get to start over and try again. If you want to overturn it, that’s the place to do it.

@KRyan I feel like it would be best if you rephrase this comment to be clear that the "you"s don't refer to gszavae (which I don't think they were meant to). It might be better to rephrase without the second sentence entirely so as not to start an argument here.

@Rubiksmoose The Meta discussions around this topic have gotten inappropriate and problematic. There needs to be push-back. Users cannot be allowed to just wear down opposition by constantly starting new discussions on the same topic. It has become more and more clear to me that this is exactly what is happening: having failed to convince the community in one discussion, there is an attempt to wipe the slate clean, and if that doesn’t work, to do so again, and if that doesn’t work, again, until the opposition misses one that can be pointed to as proof of a change in consensus.

@Rubiksmoose This behavior is rude and inconsiderate, but beyond that, it cannot be allowed in a healthy democracy. And while I doubt it was the initial intent in starting these questions, that is exactly what it has become. The highest-rated answer here is completely, and blatantly, contra-indicated by the policy in question. It doesn’t have nearly the same rating that that policy does, and it isn’t held up against the case for that policy, so it’s not a fair comparison, but that comparison has already been made. This a problem that must be stopped.

@Rubiksmoose If we are run by consensus, findings of consensus have to stand. People who still disagree cannot keep pushing back in endless arguments in new threads where the old arguments have to be re-made. And the people doing that need to be called out! The “you” in my comment was certainly generic, but if the shoe fits...

@KRyan "The Meta discussions around this topic have gotten inappropriate and problematic." Which is one reason why I requested you rephrase your comment slightly to avoid more conflict here (due to a misunderstanding nonetheless). I am aware of your thoughts on the matter, but I don't want arguments breaking out in the comments under every single meta having to do with this issue, it's just not going to be productive.

@Rubiksmoose I don’t think it’s intentional, I think it’s a very natural result of dissatisfaction, of being unconvinced, and wanting to have one’s say. The questions were started with good intentions, and it’s reasonable that users see a question and think “well so long as someone’s asking, I’m gonna say what I believe.” But the effect is there regardless of intent, and that needs to be pointed out, and pushed back on. Hence closing this question and others like it, and pointing out to people the deleterious effects their actions are having.

@KRyan I'm sure there is a good way to have this conversation, but in the comments under a random post that few people will look at again isn't it. Frankly there are a lot of balls in the air and voices shouting at each other and it is hard to see any clear way forward out of this mess. But I feel like your original comment is definitely not even starting out that conversation on the right foot even if this was the place. 1/2

@KRyan for one thing, it definitely looks like you are accusing people of intentionally doing that. Or at least it is an extremely easy thing to read into it. Hence one of the reasons I suggested that part be removed or rephrased. 2/2

@Kryan Okay, what I disagree is that your own answer on the policy says that the questions can be edited and reopened with the appropriate system tag, if there is consensus from the community on that question.

I have edited the question to make it clear.

The reason I have opened the meta question was that people were discussing a lot in the comments and editing back and forth the main site question. Even after we explicitly stated the policy, people kept arguing and editing it. I felt the best way to handle it was opening a meta question for that specific question.

@HellSaint Note that they have recently edited their answer to say that people shouldn't do that. I think this was their original intent, but many people took it the opposite way.

@HellSaint This is good history for sure and good to note. In this case, bringing it to meta is what we do.

@HellSaint Yeah, but it was meant very... theoretically. Like, “here’s what it would take, hopefully it’s obvious to everyone this is a bad idea.” I underestimated how committed some were to continuing this argument. I have made it clearer that I think it is a bad idea, and furthermore that the way it’s been happening has been really inappropriate and problematic, because it forces us to re-litigate the entire argument every time.

Which was predictable, in hindsight, but I didn’t predict it so I didn’t write my answer to nip it in the bud.

I furthermore answered that other question with “well, as long as we’re here, why not?”

The results thereafter demonstrates why not

As far as I’m concerned, the edit is a correction of those mistakes.

Anyway, I desperately need to do anything but argue on Meta on what should be a settled topic, so. I don’t anticipate I’ll be responding to much in the way of chat here or comments on things. Hopefully I can do that without having to avoid the site entirely.

@Rubiksmoose See above; I’ve been more curt with you than you probably deserve, and you’re probably right about wording, but I’m pretty fed up with this debate. I don’t think it’s healthy—for me, or for anyone else—and I’m doing something else.

@KRyan I promise you aren't the only one fed up.

@Rubiksmoose I can quote on that. I don't even have strong feelings about the policy, but I think once the policy is set, it should be followed. Period. It annoys me a lot that people keep arguing especially in main site comments. But oh welp.

Does the fact that this continually comes up in various forms demonstrate a legitimate lack of consensus about the policy?

@ThomasMarkov Yes, it generally does. And the scores of the latest meta also back that up. Only about 4 votes separating the top two opposite answers