However, "how many game-rec questions are new users" isn't going to change the on-topic decision whether it's 100% or 0%, but you're still welcome to find out!
I wanted to keep them too. There's a couple popular kinds of threads on forums that are always complete shit - "Sell me on <system X>" and "System for setting: <whatnot>" and I was hoping our format could handle those more constructively. In the end though as a commenter said "this is why we can't have nice things" - the community was not sufficiently bought into doing them "right" and many wanted to do it forum-style, which doesn't fly hereabouts (for anything).
Ended up as a basic "we can do X if you follow these rules" - "I don't want to follow the rules!" - "OK then no X" kindergarten kind of thing
The wording there is confusing, I'm gonna check with the ISWG actually says
So, I checked the guide, it says on grapple, it's 1d4. d20pfsrd probably got the first part confused, and meant to say you do 1d6 as an attack
Bladed Scarf: Knowing that seductive performances can bring out the worst in watchers, some Varisians craft rows of razor-sharp blades into their scarves. The skill required in using such scarves effectively and not revealing their deadly nature makes them exotic weapons. If you are prof icient with a bladed scarf, you deal 1d4 points of slashing damage to any creature that makes a successful grapple check against you while you wield the scarf. You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your
It always bothered me that, at least from where I stand, we can't (or at least won't) allow the community to function as normal for game rec questions. It isn't a very community-defined experience as the way it plays out in the field has proven unacceptable to moderation. At that point, my feelings tend toward "either allow it or don't."
We do our best, but it's not efficient to allow off topic questions simply as teaching experiences. We close off topic questions and direct new users to the rules and chat as teaching experiences.
It was users with at least 4 digits of reputation refusing to follow the Back It Up! principle when answering questions, in my experience, that made game-rec such a nightmare to curate.
I usually wait a week so that the question gets attention from the natural flow of the site, then I start taking unusual measures to get it more attention.
I probably had my first question open for about that long before I ended up just going through HeroLab and searching feats/items/class abilities for keywords.
@Althis We answer these questions based on particular criteria and a defined workflow, however. Fixating on that one statement is missing... the entire site ethos. It's a nice pitch, but it would be better stated as "every question about roleplaying games that is possible to meaningfully answer in our format, which is detailed below."
The Stack disallows questions which experience has shown consistently produce answers that don't fit the Stack's quality guidelines, because the reward for hosting them isn't worth the effort of curating them. This type of banning is done reactively, not proactively: we tried shopping questions and they proved to be too hard to keep at a quality level on par with the rest of the site.
I understand what they want, but by choosing to not alienate the experts instead of newbies they are creating a highly elitist community. Since they think so strongly that curating questions isn't the most productive for the site, they might at least try to make the whole "site ethos" less daunting to newcomers through other means.
Hm. I keep coming back to newbies because, being one myself I have this burning sensation every time I look at stack that it is more focused on validating the holders of knowledge than in actually helping those that do not possess it.
And I think that whole "site ethos" thing is part of that.
I think validating isn't the right word for it, but I'd agree there is a necessary emphasis on people with answers over people with questions, for some obvious reasons.
Which I morally think is bad for the whole system, every good system should be designed to be approachable. But that is just a personal opinion of course.
That can get elitist sometimes, but historically it's a reaction to very loud voices demanding that the Stack prioritise courting new users over having high-quality content.
I don't think I can comment on the dissidence of high-rep users, because I've honestly never paid much attention to that fact.
But I would imagine that if that happens, it is because the rules and guidelines are not inherent to the answer itself, but actually require some effort to follow. Which might or might not correlate to the usefulness of the answer itself.
To figure that out it would be a great idea to see how many questioners actually came out satisfied from a question asked in which the question "didn't meet stack standard".
Honestly, that's not a metric the Stack is very interested in: answers should be good for more than one person.
(Which is another reason shopping questions are so quickly banned on most Stacks.)
This is why voting and accepting are different mechanics.
The opinion of the groupmind (through votes) is more important to sorting the quality of answers than the approval of a single user (through acceptance), even if it's the user who asked the question in the first place.
@BESW (I agree on the hostile front. But not on the approachable one. We have to separate one from another and realize that while a forum can be pretty hostile, it doesn't become any less approachable because you that.)
@BESW But forgetting all the good things a forum does, also means that we learned nothing from that concept. As the great bunch of smart people the makers of stack are, they should recognize the worth of previous systems and still try to incorporate them in their own, even if it is not a priority.
That is saying: "-Boats, great. Let us make one that goes under water! -Do we want it to be able to sail on the surface as well? -Of course not, why would we do that, boats already do that and they are boring!"
The Stack is just one part of an array of online tools and communities.
If the Stack tries to be an all-in-one site, it starts competing with other sites in areas where competition isn't necessary. It's filling an already-filled niche.
It's more effort to re-design the voting system and interface, and a LOT more effort to curate.
@Althis There it is.
The Stack isn't interested in doing everything because it'll become a cul-de-sac. The Stack wants you to participate in other communities.
One of the reasons we're limited to a certain number of actions per day on the Stack is that the Stack wants experts in fields, which means it wants its users to step away from the Stack and do other things, to participate in wider communities of experts and gather their learning to bring back.
(The way we are talking about it reminds me of that old Uncle Sam poster. Stack wants YOU to post in other places!)
I guess it makes sense.
Still, I think the barrier of entry is too high. There should be ways to lower it. Make it a more inclusive system without making the ones already in place any worse.
Why do you think would happen if the devs implemented that rep filter I mentioned?
Mmm. I've got my browser set up so that typing into the address bar is also Googling, and any site whose internal search box I've used gets added to the bar so I can use their own internal search again without going to the page first.
I've always had this feature in mine and was quite surprised when that didn't work on my friends laptop.
@BESW I do, but a lot less often than I should, probably because it doesn't open a new tab, so I can just tab select the address bar and google something.
I've once faked my sex in a chat for almost a year. All the admins were really nice to me, someone almost fell in love with me and at one point I had to quit and rejoin with a different identity to be in peace with myself again.
Later on though the question asker changed the second answer from accepted to mine though
So now the only badge I can get from that one is Great Answer
I need 12 more rep in 22 minutes to cap off for today
I wonder who downvoted my answer
I didn't have any incorrect information in there
I even specified that "In order to cure the poison Black Lotus extract requires two consecutive saves. If someone affected by it makes the first but fails the second, the poison stays in effect until they make both saves consecutively."
@Sandwich I didn't downvote, but judging by the other answers there it's probably because you didn't address the issue of the initial save to be affected by poison in the first place.
