« first day (3572 days earlier)      last day (1243 days later) » 
00:00 - 19:0019:00 - 00:00

12:01 AM
RPG Museum has begun a page on burnout.
> it is particularly common among GMs and game designers, who may work on role-playing in their free time and are more likely to consider it to be an obligation or responsibility.
I'm in this wiki and I don't like it
Denizens of Mountains and Seas vol. 1 by Daniel Kwan is his first OSR zine collecting 8 creatures from Chinese classical texts. One of the creatures has already appeared in an Asians Represent game.
Etched in Stone by Max Kämmerer is a live-action story game in which two people tell each other stories inspired by stones they find on a beach. Written for the Bookmark Game Jam.
12:17 AM
Upcoming Kickstarter (13 Aug): Gun & Slinger by Nevyn Holmes is a game of mystery, hope, and finding your way in a world twisted by the forgotten child of a god that ate the sky.
Mercy's Angels - A Bundle to Fund Action Medics! by Mercedes Acosta, Allie Bustion/Mad Pierrot Games, Caro Asercion, KiennaS, nell raban, pidj, Samantha Day, and Takuma Okada. A new street medic collective is being started by Mercedes Acosta in Tennessee where it is sorely needed, and we are raising funds to dress out our angels with appropriate gear and stock their kits.
Squeakeasy! Graffiti Speak! some really good stuff in that bundle.
12:41 AM
I don't understand why meta is getting behind the idea of simply not having protection on the questions we got repeated spam on and will get more repeated spam on, but I'm washing my hands of it.
@doppelgreener Not wanting to go to the effort of re-protecting the questions?
@doppelgreener Seems to me to be the assumption that more spam won't be a significant enough problem, and if it is they can all be reprotecred at that time. Or the assumption that there simply will not be any more spam on the posts which multiple people seem to suggest and agree with
@Yuuki There's no effort since the staff would do it with a button-press (or not much more)
I'm just sitting here thinking that somebody has to be wrong between the paraphrased statements "at most 5 will get more spam" and "hundreds of these are repeat spam questions"... At the very least, doing nothing lets you see why protection works if there is more spam or why the number that were protected didn't need to b if more spam doesn't happen
Vince Smith breaks down why WotC's response to Orion D. Black's statement is, and I'm paraphrasing here, inadequate. (Twitter link)
All of the questions that received spellcaster spam in the past are guaranteed to get more spellcaster spam in the future. That's how they operate. They will keep delivering the same spam on the same questions because it will keep turning up in their keyword searches—until we protect them.
@doppelgreener That's why I liked the partial reprotect but apparently many others don't
12:47 AM
@Medix2 I'm not sure "break it again because I don't believe you that it needed fixing" is a great take.
At this point I'm just like... Well, I'll learn something from this eventuall
@BESW Agreed, absolutely agreed
I really don't see what protecting 'em hurts any
Because new users who want to answer them couldn't answer them
Meanwhile Stack doesn't have an auto-unprotect so like... I wouldn't say they particularly care how long a question stays protected
Right, but if they're being spam targets, that's not great.
@Medix2 the site might spot why we went and protected so many questions over the years, and why just going "yep! Let's throw that work away because we don't believe it has any reason to need to be there and we're ignoring the people who did the work" maybe isn't true best plan.
12:49 AM
I read a lot of Metas and if I learned anything it's that people don't agree what protection is for nor whether it should exist :(
(that seven hundred isn't the sum total of what was protected, that was with people unprotecting stuff sometimes)
@doppelgreener Yup I'm very much seeing positives in all sides and thus finding myself at the "Stack should have some of the features people have requested" side of things
@Medix2 Speaking as a person who was specifically involved in hammering spam—and even helped front a spam wave of *six hundred spam users in one year*—me saying there's several hundred spam target questions is not hyperbole. The people saying "at most 5 will get more spam" don't know how the spammers work and are flatly wrong.
I looked at some other site Metas and only learned even more that people don't seem to agree about protection questions which is... idk, weird?
@doppelgreener As someone who has done similar on other sites, I am right there with you
12:53 AM
@Medix2 Most people don't get what it is or why it can help or how much of an annoyance spam is, they just see "new users can't answer" and think we gotta make room for that and just that I guess
@doppelgreener Yeah I flatly disagree with the idea that so few could get new spam. Like maybe it's possible but I would be beyond surprised
@doppelgreener As someone who automates stuff on an off-and-on basis, those people definitely don't know how spammers work.
"I've seen spam you people wouldn't believe. Revenge voodoo on fire off the shoulder of . I watched vampires glitter in the dark near . All those protections will be lost in time, like tears in rain."
I'm probably going to leave a grumpy meta post on this tomorrow to get it off my chest.
@Ash Yeah I read 120 (give or take 5) posts on protecting questions and discussions on it and feature-request and it became very apparent the confusion and lack of agreement or at least lack of guidance
@BESW Beautiful reference
12:56 AM
Because I know if I don't I'm going to be brooding on it.
@Ash Which is a good sentiment, I suppose, but also... 🤷
And then I am going to simply not visit main or meta because I don't want to wind up brooding if people downvote it.
@doppelgreener tbqh I've been waiting to hear your thoughts and take on it all, so if that does happen, I'll certainly appreciate it and probably agree with it too
@Medix2 Stack meta tends to bring out the Roy Batty in me.
Jun 11 '18 at 6:35, by BESW
> I've seen posts you people wouldn't believe. Frame challenges on fire off the shoulder of rules-as-written. I watched house rules glitter in the dark near the D&D tags. All those questions will be closed in time, like tears in rain. Time to vote.
in The Ink Spot, May 15 '18 at 10:39, by BESW
> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Elected mods on fire off the shoulder of christianity.se. I watched CMs glitter in the dark near the Mos Eisley chat room. All those moderators will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to resign.
@Medix2 I appreciate that
12:59 AM
I wish I had a Roy Batty in me.
I've been busy this week with study for a game jam that's happening now this weekend
In my experience there are three reasons questions get protected.
1. A question hits the HNQ list and lots of people start pouring in to answer it without understanding any of the site's expectations or context. It should be unprotected when it drops from HNQ.
2. A question is controversial and attracts a lot of steaming-hot bad takes, like the time somebody asked about the use an ethnic slur in a setting guide. That's unlikely to ever fully settle down; it might eventually settle down so the protection isn't strictly necessary--but the chances that the protection is blocking Good Takes is so small, and the potential for bad takes rekindling the controversy is so great, that I'd be inclined to keep it protected.
3. A spam bot algorithm has latched onto keywords in the question which make the bot think it's a good target for "do you want to cure your erectile dysfunction by becoming a vampire?" ads (I'm not joking, this is a thing we get). Bots never give up, this question should be protected forever.
The third instance is by far and away the most common, in my experience.
The second is rare enough to be lost in rounding errors.
And the first happens on questions that are high profile enough they usually get unprotected when appropriate and don't languish with an unjustified protection.
1:28 AM
Jay Dragon shared the cover art for Wanderhome (Twitter link)
Adam Baffoni wrote a twitter thread about "the effect tht the primary dice used for a game actually have on that game."
1:46 AM
@BESW I do like the talk about how the physical feeling of rolling a number of dice works but now I'm also interested in how that translates to online play, given quarantine and whatnot.
Kazumi Chin is looking for "games that begin with the presumption of your cultural belonging to a group."
@Ben is it morning for you yet?
2:17 AM
Phreshxbear is inviting people to share their non-white elf cosplays.
2:36 AM
@Ash Jonaya's purple degree-havin' elf is goals.
> So someone told me only white people can be elves because the word elf means "white being".
say what
Does that mean only skydivers can cosplay Luke because his last name is Skywalker?
@Yuuki The line between white supremacists and Tolkien nerds is often as thin as psychic wire.
(There's receipts in the comments and the person was trying to argue for modern cosplay limitations based on literal translations of the Germanic root word Tolkien cited for his elves.)
To which I think the only dignified response is this.
Q: Is this 9th-level spell Find Greatest Steed balanced with respect to other 9th-level spells?

Thomas MarkovSince the paladin gets the spells find steed and find greater steed, it only seemed natural to take this theme to its logical end: find greatest steed: FIND GREATEST STEED 9th-level conjuration Casting Time: 10 minutes Range: 30 feet Components: V, S Duration: Instantaneous You summon a spirit t...

@BESW that is the best response.
Plus that makeup is just yes
2:53 AM
@doppelgreener I was kinda wondering if you'd have some time to chime in. Hope the prep/study's going well. I do find it a little amusing, given our protection-disagreement, that I'm the one arguing "no, re-protect it all and deal with it from that direction."
@BESW I and my experience agree with all this.
@Ash Like, if that's the root for elf, it's almost certainly not meant literally; "white" probably means "beautiful" in context with an implication of otherworldliness, like how "green with envy" is not an actual color phrase. And the connection of elf to that root is purely speculative. There's other possible roots which don't have that connotation at all.
@BESW I love it. Although now I am going to have to look up green with envy because I am curious why that is
(also I almost wrote green with enby which is likely something very different ;))
@Ash I believe you have, on occasion, been green with enby.
I suspect yes you are correct
3:07 AM
(And yes there's some potentially messy stuff going on with Nordic/Germanic associations of white with beauty but modern white/black race structures don't apply to that era/society's conceptions of race anyway so tbbbt to Mr. White Elves even if his entire frame of hIsToRiCaL aCcUrAcY wasn't farcical.)
2 hours later…
5:06 AM
Hey, I’m looking at the review queues, and I’m not sure how to phrase a comment on mjornelle’s answer to this question
Is there standard wording for basically “look, glad you want to contribute, but you need to think about a) giving more details, b) does this question really need another answer, and c) is this answer actually answering the question
Or is no action needed
Thomas Parrott reports (twitter link) that Black Library (a publishing division of Games Workshop) terminated their association with him for calling out bigotry on Twitter.
Nvm @linksassin just commented with a welcome
But I can’t tell if it needs improvement, my wikisense is out of date a bit
@BardicWizard For the future you may find this a helpful resource to build your own collection of comment forms:
Q: Pre-made comments: A resource-gathering & workshopping thread

BESWPre-made comments are awesome. They're also super powerful tools. Let's workshop some new ones and improve the old ones! You've probably seen pre-made comments[i] used across the site by moderators, both diamond and not. They're efficient and help reduce the busywork of moderation[ii], but they'...

@BESW thanks
5:24 AM
@BardicWizard I was having the same problem. They aren't wrong and I didn't want to discourage them but I couldn't find a succient way to say what was wrong with the post. I decided to leave a blanket welcome and then come back to it.
Your comment was good. I think that basically covers it.
@linksassin thanks. I stole from the link BESW posted for it so it’s not all my own work
@BardicWizard I think if the goal is polite encouragement, some slight stealing is acceptable :)
2 hours later…
7:03 AM
@BESW I for a minute there thought it was folks cosplaying colorful elves that the thread was referring to, not colorful folks cosplaying elves...challenge time: colorful folks cosplaying differently-colorful elves?
3 hours later…
10:17 AM
A: Should we reprotect the 700 or so questions that were unprotected in the last few weeks?

doppelgreenerYes, we should absolutely reprotect those questions. We didn't protect them for kicks, and having all of them become unprotected is actively harmful for us. As BESW summed up in chat, questions tend to get protected for one of three reasons: (1) a question hits HNQ and attracts nonsense, (2) a qu...

I made that meta post. @nitsua60 @Medix2 @BESW @Ash
10:34 AM
I don't really see why it was put up for debate in the first place.
I mean, the whole thing here is that someone did something major without doing a temperature check on how the community as a whole feel about it; checking where people are at, and having a record of how people feel for future similar occurrences, seems like a good plan to me.
And there are a few different responses getting support on the meta, which I think solidly justifies making a meta post to discuss it.
Even if it's an issue that should be re-visited, the time for that debate is not in the immediate aftermath of a stealthy mass action. Take the temperature, sure? but that's very different from putting the very concept on trial.
And I think it should be the mods who made the choice about how to frame the discussion.
at the time discussion about it started I think it was unclear how easy it would be to undo what was done and something had already kicked off about in chat? (I wasn't there and haven't read the logs)
11:20 AM
@Carcer Stack Exchange staff can just go ahead and reinstate literally every protected question provided mods simply ask them to do it.
Mods say so and it's done. We don't even need to do anything ourselves.
Zero effort on this community's part.
I've added mention of that to my answer.
11:37 AM
It definitely seems like something that shouldn't have been done in the first place
If only because of the sheer number of posts it was done to
11:54 AM
I'd also like to point out that a simple principle of the Internet is that everyone has been trained to Have An Opinion.
Bring up a subject, ask a question, and everyone will come flocking in to share their view regardless of whether they have any actual knowledge or understanding, or if they've ever thought about it before they saw the post five seconds earlier.
Loudness and popularity of a hot-button topic doesn't mean it's a question that was festering in the community's soul unspoken.
(Oh, and I think that auto-protected questions will never be auto-protected again once they've been manually unprotected. That's an automatic defense system which can't be relied on after it's been overridden.)
Apr 1 '19 at 6:46, by BESW
"After all, in my experience, one wizard's lonely, two's an argument, and three adds up to two bitterly opposed alliances and a splinter group rapidly gaining in popular support."
("Time Shall Not Mend", AJ Hall)
@BESW I would have guessed so as well, but would appear not to be true:
Q: Make unprotection disqualify questions from further auto-protection

ArtOfCodeWhen Community Wiki status is removed from a question, it makes that question ineligible to be automatically converted back to wiki status again. (Ignore the fact that auto-CW doesn't exist any more for a moment...) This functionality should be extended to protection as well. Auto-protection doe...

Not that I think we should lazily rely on the autoprotection to do this, and I'm not sure that's anyone's suggestion
(this being whatever we end up doing)
12:28 PM
@doppelgreener I apologise if I've hit a nerve or similar on that meta, btw, it feels like the tone of that conversation is... bad
I'd be frustrated, at best, if I'd spent years as one of the most active spam-smotherers on the site and then a whole bunch of people ignored my testimonials and hard evidence because they want to see for themselves the spam that I'd worked so hard to free the site of.
12:42 PM
@Someone_Evil Well it was that one person's suggestion to just completely remove protection voting and people did agree with it
@BESW tbqh there wasn't any hard evidence given that I was aware of, and the only thing I have heard is KorvinStarmast going through 120 of the unprotected posts and saying only 4 should be reprotecred
Um. Charcoal and our own meta year-in-review stats?
Yeah which nobody linked to or mentioned until today
And that's a problem.
I'm very glad it has been now
this is very frustrating
12:49 PM
If the mods, or somebody like Greener, had been involved in composing the question on meta, then we wouldn't have all these answers that are based on memories of the years before the spam bots hit, or low-rep impressions of spam curation frequency, rather than the post-2018 spam reality.
And then they wouldn't have to deal with being told they're wrong and choosing to either take their lumps for jumping the gun, or try to defend their hot takes.
Instead it's all hasty shotgun pellet debate and the tone will be bad because the debate wasn't opened carefully.
@BESW Aren't the current answers all from past and current mods?
@Medix2 "I was a mod for nearly ten years" carries a lot less weight as an expert in site spam when the reality is they were a mod for only one year after the spam bots started really targeting us.
(as is the question itself. nitsua might not be a mod anymore, but they're hardly an unthoughtful user)
Drawing on memories of the years before the spam wars actually weakens the argument because they're using the before times as evidence for the now times.
@Carcer I'm not saying Nitsua is generally unthoughtful, but that particular pair of questions seem hasty. Uncharacteristically so, but that doesn't make them not.
Everything changed when the spam nation attacked...
12:56 PM
I mean. Yes. SIX HUNDRED AND SIX users were deleted in 2018.
@BESW maybe so. The point there perhaps is just that it wouldn't automatically be better just because a mod asked.
@Carcer A mod probably would have consulted with the other mods before posting, giving the subject a chance to breathe and suggestions for context to be made.
@BESW and this is my disconnect again - I don't want to wade back into it in the meta itself but that is a number of spam accounts I look at and go "okay, that's some spam"
We destroyed 165 in 2019.
but it's not a "huge" amount of spam
based on my previous experience in other parts of the internet
so I have a hard time empathising here with the analogy about tearing down the walls of a fortress
1:00 PM
BESW can I use your thing about old mods not being here for the important history?
Only if you verify it yourself instead of quoting me.
I'm just gonna drop it. I did not like being talked down to like I don't have any relevant experience but I don't want to perpetuate this either
I'm gonna stop talking about this because I don't actually much care about the spam issue, the Stack Overlords don't deserve any of my time. I just sympathize with Greener for all the work she's done being treated as disposable.
I need lunch
And I just. I have no printable response to "it could be worse."
1:04 PM
but that's not my point, and I'm not saying that we should just tolerate more spam
only that validating whether or not those old protections are still necessary exposes us to a very small amount of additional spam, at which point we just trivially reprotect them!
on top of which, spam-prone question protection is just one part of SE's full anti-spam defence suite, and likening removing those protections to being completely defenceless is unfair.
Just saying: we made the choices we made here consciously and intentionally and with input from CMs.
@Carcer Go tell Greener all the things she's wrong about. I only started the conversation to point out that she's not unreasonable to be frustrated, and suddenly people started expecting ME to be the expert, and it's my fault for not stopping that immediately. I'm stopping it now.
I'm only having this conversation here because I can tell she's upset and I felt like continuing to argue about with her directly would be unhelpful and expressing it here allows me to do it not-there
but ultimately it doesn't matter and I regret getting into it at all
@BESW Apologies if I contributed to that feeling. I have appreciated the input you (and honestly everybody else) has given on the matter and will continue to think it over
1:27 PM
I'm honestly curious to see how many of the posts that were protected were protected due to spam.
That could be a piece of hard data that could shed a lot of light on this issue
And once again I lament the fact that I am abysmal at SEDE queries...
1:45 PM
Q: What opportunities exist in D&D 5e in order to turn into beasts, while maintaining personality and mental abilities?

ben-benWhat opportunities exist in D&D 5e in order to turn into beasts, while maintaining personality and mental abilities (Intelligence, Wisdom and not necessary Charisma)? As far as I can see, one of the obvious solutions is Wild Shape. Are there any other options?

We have 950 caught and verified spam posts in the past 4-and-a-bit years since Charcoal started recording data.
Of those, 403 are answers.
This is only the spam Smoke Detector noticed or that was reported to it.
Smoke Detector only started comprehensively catching spellcaster spam a couple of years ago when I went in there and started tinkering with the regexes used on RPG.SE. And even then, it doesn't notice all of it because sometimes we nuke it before Smokey detects it.
Only diamond moderators get access to detailed per-site stats on Metasmoke, so that excludes me.
@doppelgreener I've been manually reporting all the stuff recently even if it gets deleted first.
So hopefully that helps in the long run SD-wise.
Regarding me being upset—I'm upset about people telling untruths, mischaracterising the situation in spite of the evidence we have as well as mischaracterising what I'm saying, and completely ignoring me and saying untruths in spite of what I'm saying as though I don't know a damn thing.
Most people are not doing that.
I have raised flags however now because of someone going too far with that.
To the point of insultingly lying about what I'm saying.
2:08 PM
That's not an isolated incident either, that's part of a trend: if they disagree with somebody they'll pick a ridiculous straw-man version of it, probably one that ridicules the target simply by being made, then attack that straw-man stance and shut it down. Too bad it's, you know, a straw-man attack.
sorry for any of my part in it.
you have no part in that
what i'm trying to suggest here is that you are not what is making me upset
but I feel like I have to point out - if we're criticising people for strawmanning - your response to my first comment felt a lot like that, to me.
The one where you were advocating for leaving the walls down just to see if we needed them?
We have evidence we do
I am fine with discussing this as long as we can actually discuss the evidence. It's cmopletely ignoring it or dismissing that absolutely nothing will happen that is not okay.
I was asking if the harm that would be caused if there was a brief uptick in spam outweighed the opportunity to show quite conclusively that such protection was necessary, because it could be plausible that it no longer is and some people obviously feel that way
I do believe that those questions that were spam magnets will probably get more spam answers if they're unprotected, and I don't mean to invalidate your experience or evidence there
it's just a good opportunity to prove it experimentially, and I didn't see that the possible harm that could be done before applying the reprotection was big enough to be concerned about.
2:20 PM
Okay, I understand, and misunderstood originally. I thought you were suggesting you did not believe we had reason, and wanted to leave the walls down because you did not think they were needed.
I apologise for that.
I'm sorry for not communicating effectively either
I feel better now
Yeah anybody who discounts doppel's spam fighting experience is just silly.
2:25 PM
I do not, personally, think we should leave questions unprotected just to show evidence, though. That creates work and problems. And Charcoal and highly active members will handle most of it, so folks will continue to believe there's not really a problem. But then we're just creating added work for the people actually cleaning up, with the folks who visit only once a day or so unlikely to see the work that's happened.
@doppelgreener But there is a way to collect that data fairly easily right? I mean whether people see the issues or not, it is detectable.
We already have the data though.
It exists, it's in charcoal's archives and in our archives.
(doesn't discount your "more work" point though)
What we're doing is based on data we already have.
That data will show multiple questions that had multiple spellcaster spam posts, indicating they'll do it multiple times if they can. There won't be many of those because several of us got into the habit of protecting questions straight away each time.
Once or twice we didn't though, and protected it the second time around—or community did on account of multiple low-quality deleted posts.
(I don't remember if Community's threshold for auto-protection is two posts or three.)
those examples definitely exist
2:29 PM
FWIW sadly SEDE will not be able to help us here. No flagging info.
I'm mostly curious if there are existing examples of old protected questions which attracted that kind of spam and continued receiving that spam after being unprotected some time later
I mean, we'd only have that if someone decided to unprotect a spammed question. I dunno if anyone has.
I'd hope whoever has been unprotecting questions hasn't been unprotecting spammed ones.
This gives us, unhelpfully, the number of formerly protected questions with any kind of negative deleted answer which seems like the best we are going to get from the public SEDE. data.stackexchange.com/rpg/query/1261625 CMs can almost certainly give us better data if we needed.
it does make perfect sense that continued spam behaviour would be the case, but plausible that different spam networks/algorithms operating now vs. x time ago would not necessarily identify the same posts
If we had protected spammed questions (which we did), they were unprotected
2:31 PM
I thought they unprotected everything
@doppelgreener Five low-rep answers in 24 hours OR the number of low rep answers deleted + spam flags ≥ 3
@Someone_Evil well, for less than a week. i think we'd need to leave them unprotected for several months to find out what happens overall.
and i'd rather we didn't do that, personally
yeah, months is too long a timeframe for it to be a practical experiment
@Medix2 huh, that's a lot stricter than i thought it was
oh! that OR
Yeah went and capitalized it, sorry about that
2:33 PM
no, thank you :D
is that [low rep answers deleted] + [total sum of spam flags across all answers]?
e.g. one post with three (two?) spam flags would trigger it?
Although apparently sites can customize the number of low-rep answers before auto-protection occurs. It's 3 on ELL and Workplace and 20 on Code Golf
@doppelgreener Yup
that should auto-protect just about every smokey-detected question though
@doppelgreener One deleted low rep post with two spam flags would trigger it
@doppelgreener yeah, was gonna say that seems like almost anything that ever got a single spam answer would be protected
2:36 PM
Well with "helpful" spam flags... Does that mean only after a mod checks them?
That's the list of automagically protected questions
@Medix2 When a post is deleted most flags get automatically marked helpful.
@Rubiksmoose Good to know, thanks!
So there's 109 community-user protected questions. That seems rather low if it should be triggering on every spam post right?
Smokey doesn't miss that many. And we had 600+ users destroyed during the Great Spam War. So I'd think that the number would be higher...
There's the case of one spam answer with 0-1 spam flags getting deleted and then the question being protected by a human, which feels not uncommon but feelings are never statistics
@Medix2 I really wish we had more of the latter in place of some of the former.
2:45 PM
I mean, we can protect them before the spam is deleted too
@Rubiksmoose some of those were questions
@doppelgreener Oh yes, fair point.
But like. We've got several hundred confirmed spam answers recorded by metasmoke, just since 2016-ish. If the number of actual automagical protected questions is less than a quarter of that, that doesn't quite add up.
Did they change the automagical protect threshold recently?
@doppelgreener There was a bug where it protected too many questions which was recently fixed mid-June 2019
But the process seems to have been implemented in 2014
From observation I thought it was three answers deleted as spam that would autoprotect. Without a diamond a spam answer is deleted with 6 flags and it seems weird to set the autoprotect threshold lower than that
@Someone_Evil It won't auto-protect just because the flags exist though
2:56 PM
Ah, well if there aren't other low-rep deleted answers observations still make sense
3:24 PM
well dang. I just can't beat that...
3:54 PM
@doppelgreener I can testify (as, apparently, I'm the majority of unprotections) that I always went down and looked for spam-answers before deciding to unprotect.
4:10 PM
I'm surprised that XP per level question doesn't have less complicated answers... guess I know what I'm doing
I’m not sure how to word a comment on said answer to basically say “you might want to remove the comment at the top of the post and make it more detailed”, and none of the pregenerated comments help particularly.
Advice? I just left a welcome on it
@BardicWizard Maybe pointing us to the exact thing you're looking at will help
They (the OP) left some comment/edit I don't quite understand (assuming I guessed what you were talking about correctly)
This, I assume:
A: Is there a mathematical formula to determine how much XP is needed per level?

scriptmastere02[Non related to D&D 5E, poster's not looking at the tags list.] Works like a charm for me, at least. You must create a default XP requirement for Level 2, though $$N(x)=N(x-1)+\left\lfloor{0.15[N(x-1)]\left(\frac{x}{C}+0.05\right)\times\frac{\log{\{[N(x-1)](x+0.1)\}}}{\log{[x+50]}}}\right\rfloor$...

@Someone_Evil ah yes, that is quite confusing.
4:17 PM
Yeah, not sure what to say about the new comment at the top
Q: Would these official commentary questions be on-topic (and good questions)?

Red OrcaThe question Have the D&D 5E designers ever done an official commentary about why they have designed certain rules the way they did? was recently closed due to lack of focus (the close reason I chose) and designer reasoning being off-topic. I don't pretend to know the asker's intent, but I believ...

@nitsua60 Radical
I don’t want to say it’s not an answer, but it doesn’t really answer the question
@BardicWizard then it's not an answer
not an answer !== low quality
I'm just trying to figure what it does do....
4:19 PM
@Medix2 basically that’s what I meant
I don’t know if it adds anything to the other answers, especially since it doesn’t have enough detail to answer the exact question asked.
It got deleted, nvm
Mod deleted in this case. It was NAA IMO (and presumably Someone_Evil agreed)
@Medix2 It's an idea for how to do it in an RPG you're designing. I dare say it's better suited to cRPG though, as 100+ levels in a TRPG seems... excessive
@Rubiksmoose I think I did :)
apparently you've never played epic epic 3e
(or you have. It shouldn't change that opinion)
Is a question of "Where can I find things the designers of 5e-dnd have said about their game and its rules" too broad or off-topic for being designer-reasons?
Just wanting to hear some words on this recent question instead of just staring at close votes
the question "have they ever produced any commentary about the game design and rules" is answerable by saying "yes, here's some examples"
asking where to find all of that commentary is too broad
4:27 PM
The questions asks the latter, I'm just unsure if that's too broad
"Official commentary" is interesting though, that presumably excludes individual tweets?
@Someone_Evil You can just lump them into "Twitter"
Though it does seem a bit weird to me if we allowed someone to ask about where to find designer commentary but not ask about what that commentary actually says... hmmmm
well, they might be hoping that there's one or two large collections of such commentary
and we've established that rpg.se doesn't accept questions where you actually ask "what have the designers said about this rule"
as previously discussed, the fact that we have that rule isn't because the questions are bad, they just attract bad answers
so asking the question in a different way which doesn't actually invite speculation about the purpose of rules seems reasonable.
if the answer turns out to be that there's a limited number of places you can find most of that commentary, then you can go looking for whatever it was you were interested in yourself.
@Someone_Evil "I love explaining generalities in 5e, because there's gonna be some kind of exception." oh wow if that ain't relatable I don't know what is
4:45 PM
A: SEDE query to find out how many posts have been protected with spam on them

GlorfindelWhile rene is right in that we can't figure out from SEDE which posts have been deleted as spam, we do know which ones have spam flags. This query lists eight questions which are protected (at least last Sunday) and have spam flags on answers: 3.5e Variant Rules What Wizard schools are best to s...

Looks like we might have found a way to get useful data on how many protected questions have a spam flag on them!
As of now, this query shows us 211 protected questions with at least one spam flag on it.
@doppelgreener does that add up in your mind?
There's so many numbers floating about, I need to sit down and put them all together and see what they tell us. But, assuming that that 211 questions represents the entirety of posts protected due to spam over the entire life of the site (~10 years)... that is a surprisingly low number.
@Rubiksmoose Also all those that did not receive a flag but were deleted anyhow (such as after getting downvoted and voted for deletion without flags being raised or just having been deleted by a moderator without adding their own spam flag)
@Medix2 you're saying that those posts are uncounted in that 211 number correct?
@Rubiksmoose Since they wouldn't have any spam flags, I'd assume they are not in that 211
@Medix2 Yeah thats a good point. I'd expect that number to be fairly low because spam flagging is a quick and easy (and preferred) way to delete... spam. So hopefully it is the tool the community has used most often.
Hmm... looking at mod analytics. It doesn't have spam specifically, but does have post deletion. What happened in Aug '18?
@Rubiksmoose How many questions do we have that have had a spam answer ever?
5:02 PM
@Someone_Evil Exactly what I'm trying to find out now!
Hmmmm why does that seem extremely low?
I would guess because there's some history of not flagging spam as such, but such deleting
Q: Does the answer need to be upvoted within 12 hours to qualify for the Illiminator badge?

NathanSThe Illuminator gold badge description says: Edit and answer 500 questions (both actions within 12 hours, answer score > 0) If you post an answer and edit the question, but then the answer goes unvoted for a day, but then is upvoted the next day (i.e. well over 12 hours later), would it then qu...

@Someone_Evil Interesting. And no real way to figure that out either.
But we can at least say that according to SEDE it looks like 544 questions have a spam flag on an answer. And 211 questions protected questions with a spam flag on an answer. So it would logically follow that about 60% of our spam posts go unprotected?
I feel like there may be a flaw in the logic and or data somewhere, but that's what I'm seeing so far.
5:18 PM
It's messier than that, you get multiple spam per q, but you also have non-spam deleted answer which influence protection
On some level I feel like we're focusing a spot much on spam specifically. Protection is also relevant against other non-answer postings to a q. Say the really basic 5e Qs which get an awful lot of views and I think most of them were protected?
It's just even harder to enumerate that activity
@Someone_Evil The focus on my part is intentional. The only way to learn something is to focus on one aspect at a time since the other use of protection is very different and differently measured. I'm curious specifically about how protection is used on this site, against spam.
@Someone_Evil I haven't come across any posts with multiple spam on them in the list yet so I think they are only counted once per post in these queries.
Assuming I understand the query correctly, we've had 637 spam questions posted
I guess in essence at the moment the questions on my mind are should we be protecting all posts that get one spam answer? Does it help prevent future spam? If not, is there some guideline where it is useful to protect or not with regards to spam.
@Someone_Evil heh, you can see the 2018 spam wave pretty clearly there. There is a difference when talking about questions with a spam flag on the question and questions with a spam flag on an answer though. I think that query is measuring the former.
If I'm right (and I certainly may not be), that's not super helpful for the questions I'm asking, since spam questions are just deleted entirely, no protection needed and no risk of future spam around that post.
I know, but it's relevant for the scale of things perspective
Or at least, the scale of things as we can measure it
Interesting though. I would not have guessed that we'd get more spam questions than answers!
I think that is probably mostly due to the spam wave though if I had to guess.
5:33 PM
@Rubiksmoose it's hard to know how many it would be, but Charcoal has over 400 spam answers and I have 128 spam flags cast just from me on this site. Only 200 questions protected due to spam destruction (and not by community members who saw spam and thus protected the question) seems plausible, but low?
Questions protected by users in response to a spam answer would be counted in that 211
@doppelgreener And that charcoal number meshes with the SEDE query on spam posts (with 544, it makes sense for this to overcount smokey since not everything is detected or not in time) (as you well know)
hmm. if that 211 is every question that's ever been protected after having a spam answer, that doesn't jive with smoke detector giving us twice that many spam answers
@Someone_Evil Yeah it would include automatic and manual protection
unless every question received on average two spam posts before being protected, which doesn't seem super likely? since apparently they all auto-protect after just one
5:37 PM
@doppelgreener I'm really wondering about that last point. Like other users that doesn't jive with how I've seen things work before...
how sure are we that spam deleted answers are all always kept hanging about in the db in perpetuity
@Rubiksmoose yeah i'm wondering about that too
@Carcer I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't, but then again there are many things I don't know about the data storage. My understanding though is that everything is saved.
I'm wondering if the numbers would make more sense if some spam answers are deleted hard
this answer was deleted by me with a single mod spam flag. No autoprotection.
5:38 PM
so the queries being used here aren't returning a complete picture
Isn't it three spam or deleted low-rep answers? but spam from new users (which would be the bulk) counts as double, so most of the time it's two spam?
@Someone_Evil Auto-protection is when the sum of [deleted low-rep answers] and [helpful spam flags] is at least 3. Auto-protection also happens if there are 5 low-rep answers within 24 hours at all
@doppelgreener dangit I just realized I hadn't checked that XD
It wasn't protected in 2018 though, when multiple users flag-nuked another spam answer
5:41 PM
> The number of deleted answers from users with <10 rep, plus the number of answers with helpful spam flags, is at least 3. (Note that spam answers from new users are counted twice.)
@Someone_Evil Yeah that's what I said?
number of answers with helpful spam flags, not number of helpful spam flags
That makes much more sense.
Well I messed up a lot of stuff then, really sorry about that y'all
5:42 PM
so yeah, a single spam answer wouldn't be enough to trip autoprotect
That makes so much more sense
finally, the world makes sense again!
[looks outside]
@Carcer [quickly closes the curtain] the whole world! all of it!
@doppelgreener shhhh shhhh there is no outside, there is no outside.
5:44 PM
@Someone_Evil so, two spam-nuked answers from 1-rep users induces an auto-protect. that makes sense with what i've seen.
@Rubiksmoose i mean, given the current state of things that's not wrong
remain indoors
do not think about The Event
i am hearing that in Cecil Baldwin's voice
So, I think this logic makes sense still?
5:45 PM
that works, although the voice it was originally delivered in is David Mitchell's
29 mins ago, by Rubiksmoose
But we can at least say that according to SEDE it looks like 544 questions have a spam flag on an answer. And 211 questions protected questions with a spam flag on an answer. So it would logically follow that about 60% of our spam posts go unprotected?
@Rubiksmoose that seems like it makes sense, accounting for some posts that just slip by quietly nuked by charcoal (as a one-off at first), and some other posts that are one-off spams like "hey check out my cool app"
or that person who kept advertising their dnd piracy site
Been a couple of those. And their own games on game-rec etc.
@doppelgreener "Advertising"
5:49 PM
now that David Mitchell's voice is in my head too, I'm imagining that farm skit of his, but him discovering spamming. and then getting arrested
Funny enough one of the more recent spammers of a dnd pirate site responded to our mod message with more spam for the site.
oh no!
that's amazing lol
It gave us a good chuckle after a moment of head scratching.
hey @Rubiksmoose, how many questions are there with spam-flagged answers?
@Carcer 544 according to this query
5:52 PM
@Rubiksmoose that's numberwang!
Isn't that just answers with spam flags, not questions with those answers?
@Someone_Evil (honestly irrelevant, I just needed someone to say a number to set up the numberwang reference)
@Someone_Evil I didn't see any duplicates in there so I think it is only per question. And from my limited knowledge of SEDE code I think it makes sense, but I'm not 100% sure.
@Carcer XD
According to this query we have 493 questions with a spam flagged answer
@Someone_Evil also numberwang!
6:05 PM
@Someone_Evil doh! I realize I was looking at the post links when I said there were no dupes..but the post links link to answers...
Anyways seem like we have around 50 questions with multiple spam answers.
(assuming spread evenly two deep)
That probably tells me we could probably get by with only protecting posts if they get more than one spam post.
(with regards to spam, not other issues)
00:00 - 19:0019:00 - 00:00

« first day (3572 days earlier)      last day (1243 days later) »