Not a bar, but plays one on TV - 2016-02-26

« first day (689 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2811 days later) »

1:03 AM

0

Q: Does stabilizing a character in combat provoke an attack of opportunity?

We had a session recently wherein a character went down in combat due to a creature attack. Two other characters stepped up to engage the creature while a third attempted to stabilize the downed character and thus help/circumvent the character having to make his death saving throws. Our DM stat...

dnd-5e rules-as-written opportunity-attack

@BESW I responded to you; let me know if you want to chat about it or think there's a problem with the way I've framed this

or if you think my position is unfair

Oh, I think there's a ton of problems with it. But right now I think it'd be best for me to walk away for a while before I say something pithy and sarcastic.

← 3 messages moved from RPG General Chat

fair enough

I have dinner in any event

1:24 AM

STOP CITING FRANK MILLER AS A SIGN OF POSITIVE INFLUENCE!!!

Tweeted by KyleKallgren on February 26, 2016 at 12:37 AM

Context is... unnecessary, really.

hah

also, hm

my response to you also mispoke

my answer said there had to be "change"

in theory, unlikely though I think it be, that could be a personal change rather than a personnel change

And yet, you are actively opposing a golden opportunity for moderators to demonstrate such a change, despite the fact they're making visible efforts toward it already.

This makes you sound like your objections are simply filibustering in a petty vendetta against folks you dislike, and I should ignore them entirely because you won't change your mind or be persuaded until one of the exact specific things you've pre-decided will satisfy you happens. Which is the kind of narrow-minded dictation you're accusing the mods of.

@BESW I don't agree that they are making visible efforts towards it

I really, really don't

yes, mxyzplk has gotten in my face less frequently recently

and as appreciated as that is, with respect to my not liking him in my face, it doesn't really address the issue of trust

even if he's keeping his opinions to himself, I see no evidence that he doesn't still have them, and doesn't still act on them with respect to how he will moderate this

Of course he has his opinions. That's unlikely to change, and it's ridiculous to set that as a standard for trust.

there's a reason I added the second clause

1:39 AM

Okay, rein it in.

I know you're frustrated. But that's for the CMs at this point, not for chat and not for meta.

fine

So, you've been complaining for years that it's hard to collect enough data for the CMs to take seriously. If you really think someone's going to behave spectacularly poorly as the result of a meta decision, why not say "Yes, let's do this!" and then profit either way?

@BESW because I do not want to do that

I don't like the drama, I don't like the arguing, and I don't like having to defend my participation in the site

In favour of... what, exactly? A constant low boil that's driving folks away anyway?

which is what it feels an awful lot like

also, I don't expect a "spectacle"

objections that come to mind immediately to the suggestion that it's time to trust mxyzplk, or at least give trusting him a try include, 1. the way this discussion was brought up and pushed forward does not inspire confidence, 2. there has never been any apology from him, and 3. there has neither been any ownership of responsibility for the problems caused

1:46 AM

I've seen both of the latter, multiple times, and never an apology or ownership from you.

that doesn't suggest someone who is trying to change

@BESW I would be interested in seeing that, though it seems rather odd that these have apparently taken place in places where I haven't seen them

as far as apology from me, I'm quite certain I have done so at numerous points

I've got nothing. You object to every constructive action I've seen anyone ever proposed, and no sense that your constant personal attacks are not only useless bombast when not directed at a CM, but they're an integral part of the toxic nature of the whole thing.

I was literally in the middle of responding to that

Reasonable proposals are shot down because sometimes people involved do unreasonable things.

If you want to address the meta question, address the topic and not the people. If you're convinced it's the people who are the problem, take it to the CMs.

have done

1:50 AM

That's not rocket surgery.

and was happy to leave it with the CMs, except that we got another push to change things prior to that completing

and yes, I absolutely do understand that my venting and defensive behavior has been problematic and conducted in the wrong places

A push that was phrased poorly, but instigated some excellent conversations that have, I think, moved the mod team's positions and efforts in significant positive ways.

I have seen movement and progress in the last few weeks, in meta and on main site.

ok, I will get back to that, but first

I think in light of that, SSD's proposal is excellent and excellently timed. If you weren't concerned about behavioural problems, is there anything about the proposal itself you object to? I don't see it in your meta posts.

@BESW Yes, I'm concerned about implementation, how comments seeking clarification will be phrased

but first

you claim you haven't seen me take ownership, which may very well be true, and I think you are certainly due that

so I wanted to do that: yes, I didn't trust the CMs to take up the investigation just on my word (and I wouldn't fault them for that), and I was afraid to try for risk of it setting a precedent that would impede any future contact with the CMs if things got worse

this fear was unfounded, it seems, and also resulted in behavior from me that was not helpful regardless of how well founded or not it was

I very much felt cornered and defensive and helpless

and very much vented those feelings here and in comments, which were wholly inappropriate places for those feelings

1:56 AM

Yeah--if you'd asked, anyone would've told you that an accumulation of complaints makes them more concerned, not less. Greener emailed them himself asking exactly that and they were quite explicit. See where this "Inventing reasons not to do anything" impression is coming from?

I've got an email to write them that's been sitting half-formed in my mind and on paper while I've been variously sick / exhausted / taking care of medical appointments / sleep deprived / other stuff for the past two weeks. I think I'll be able to send it through this weekend.

@doppelgreener I sent mine last week; they were, if nothing else, very concerned

@BESW in my defense, though I may not be due one, this feeling came up through chat

this was the impression I was given, starting from very early fights here

that this is what I could expect

> Don’t wait until you have some mountain of evidence you think is sufficiently compelling. One instances of unacceptable behavior is still unacceptable; 1000 instances of triviality dispersed over months is still trivial. -- from the email reply from SE

well, that line gave me pause, because I felt that the real problem was in a pattern of behavior more than individual occurrences

etc etc don't just hoard it because it prevents the problem getting solved, & don't be an archivist

1:59 AM

but yes, I absolutely handled how I felt about the situation in entirely the wrong fashion

and that has been deleterious

But it's not me you should apologise to. It's the chat users you've driven out of the chat, and the folks you've insulted, and the metas you've derailed, and the folks who tried to stand next to you only to be tarred by the same brush.

This has gotten way out of hand and it takes two to tango.

I would not know who those people are, since, with the obvious exception, I neither intended those nor was aware of the effect I was having

What you need to do is change. Model the behaviour you want, not mimic the behaviour you despise.

Words are pretty easy. I've had this conversation with you before, almost word for word. By your own logic, I shouldn't be trying again.

on the one hand, I wouldn't call that my logic. on the other, I don't feel that I'm in a position to judge that at this point

I do not remember a conversation that was almost word for word this one

0

Q: Would an attacker have advantage over someone who is stabilizing an unconscious creature?

Asked in a different way: Can I still protect myself while taking an action that requires some focus of your part on what I am doing? (i.e. it is probably not limited to stabilizing someone) So the scenario would be: Two players are fighting one foe One of the players reach 0 hp Second player ...

dnd-5e rules-as-written advantage

2:05 AM

(I'm not doubting that it took place, mind you, I'm doubting my memory)

Have you seen the nice, polite disagreements SSD and Mxy have been having in the migrated comments? It's quite lovely. SSD is talking with mods from other Stacks about ways to avoid the kind of presentation errors made in the "is RAW junk" post and others, and is also actively implementing conversational de-escalators.

@BESW no, I have not seen that

where is that?

I'm going to be spearheading a meta for writing new/better/more pro-forma comments because mods and citizens alike find those are good seeds for neutral tone even if they have to get modified for individual applications.

Mxy's been making chat rooms out of migrated meta comments. He's been leaving comments with direct links to them on the recent meta posts for the last few days, or you can find them on the site chat rooms page.

It's helped de-escalate some very fervid confusions.

just following things directed specifically at me has been utterly exhausting

And when someone made some rather vicious ad hominem attacks against him for doing it, he remained quite calm and civil.

@KRyan That's quite reasonable. After a particularly gruelling talk with SSD and Mxy a couple weeks ago I just wanted to collapse with some ice cream and Pitch Black.

2:10 AM

@BESW I rather don't think that this is how meta discussions about this site are supposed to feel

But if you haven't been observing him, that kinda takes the wind out of the sails of your objection that you haven't seen him change.

@BESW you're talking about a week or two

@KRyan I agree. But we're at that point, and more effort is necessary to de-escalate a tense situation than to keep ordinary situations from escalating.

@KRyan And what a few weeks it's been.

I'm not saying you need to have been watching all this like a hawk.

Just that because you haven't, your view of the situation is incomplete.

but my point is that time is a massive factor here, too

I know some folks have been putting in a LOT of effort to this, more than I have, and understand it much better. (I'm still not really clear on the details of RAW, never have been, because I don't use that part of the site.)

I'm gonna ask you for a really big favour, okay?

2:14 AM

it's certainly OK to ask

Don't obstruct this new proposal. Be active in helping us write new pro-forma comments to use in enacting it, and do your best to keep an open mind. If we act like it's a good idea, then the flaws will quickly become apparent. If we're divided and bickering and opposing, it'll be nigh impossible to tell what problems come from the action itself and what's introduced by our conflict.

Suggest changes to make the proposal as good as it can be, so it has every chance of succeeding.

I agree. If you've got concerns about the tone of comments, the comments are their own issue separate to the principles of the suggestion. Be there to guide the comments into going well.

And I find the principle of the suggestion is sound. Tags aren't a place for communicating new information, they're a place for describing the information already present in the question. I raised as much as a potential issue in meta a year ago.

At the end of the day, it's a proposal for reducing moderator activity in those tags, and the pro-forma comments will help mitigate our history of comment hostility.

ok, so this is entirely likely to be due to my own writing, and even if not considering my history it'd be entirely reasonable to read into it, but

my answer observes three problems with statements made in the question

the first of those was apparently an inaccurate impression of what d7 intended

so that's moot

Your distinction between RAW and RULES is, I think, present in the original proposal as well but could maybe use some clarification.

The "special rules" are clearly de-facto extant from my brief observation of confusion over the tag's use.

2:23 AM

the third is about comments, merely observing a difficulty in implementing the plan

well, "merely"

And comments--well, that's what pro-forma's for. I'm writing an answer to the proposal calling them out as integral.

indeed

as mine does

whether or not the way it does so is appropriate, I don't know

I think the history there is very much relevant

but I'll accept your judgment of that

So, your other objection is to the idea that RAW has any "special rules" at all. And this proposal is to strip the tag of any such rules. If it doesn't have any, the proposal won't change anything, right?

@Shog9 [wave] Is this still the go-to script mods use for pro-forma comments?

@BESW yup

Yey!

Thanks much.

2:31 AM

good ol' Benjol

@BESW basically, I don't agree with that this behavior needs be 'special,' and I don't see the problem with 'meta' tags, but I've clearly got minimal support for that position

Our relationship with meta tags is... weird. yeah. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the base case and the nature of exceptions.

And there is a lot of handwavery re: tags as descriptors vs tags as sorters that I'm also confuzzled about too.

Lord knows I've tried.

by the way, I actually was inviting judgment on the section about form comments

if you don't wish to offer it, then that's fine, but I'd be listening if you did

My position is this: tags describe things the question has said. They're not a stand-in for the question not having said something. The proposal is that we ask for clarification when the question hasn't said something so that it's self-evident the tag should be there. All of that seems perfect. Is there more to it?

5

There's definitely potential issues with comments so I'm hoping we can get your participation in working them out.

@KRyan You didn't say anything about form comments except "we should have them because moderators are mean" and then going off on another rant about that. So there's nothing on the subject for me to respond to.

Instead, here's the post I will be making.

> I like this idea! However, I do share concerns over our history of comments that leave a sour taste in folks' mouths.

**I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this proposal may sink or swim on the basis of how approachable our clarification-requesting comments will be.**

Something I've noticed--and several folks have told me they experience it too--is that having a well crafted pre-made comment really helps keep things on a steady emotional keel. Even when I need to modify a comment for a particular post, having that pre-made foundation is very useful.

2:40 AM

@BESW looks good

@BESW the question was whether the relevance of the "rant" made it appropriate to have it; the name given to that section answers my question

@BESW I agree with this

I do not look forward to arguing about the wording of the comments

@KRyan Almost every good point you've ever made regarding these subjects could have been made without the vitriol and been taken more seriously for its lack.

Then do not expect to argue.

This meta post of pro-forma comments cannot be binding.

@BESW then I confuse 'vitriol' for 'being serious'

at least on this topic

That may be a problem for you to reflect on.

Whatever comments we come up with, folks will change 'em, en masse and per use, as they're applied in the site. The meta is just to provide a solid ground for the work.

I see no need to argue, because the stakes will be pretty low: everyone gets to add their ideas, and users can incorporate whatever they like into their own commenting usage.

There won't be winners and losers, it's not a competition.

there are ways those comments could be worded that I would have strenuous objections to

2:48 AM

Same here.

and if those comments were used, I would see that as damaging to the site

We don't always get what we want, but I assure you that at least some of the moderation team is on an active kick to seek out new strategies for facilitating community cohesion.

I don't anticipate major problems with this. I could be wrong, but what I'm asking you to do is to make constructive suggestions, not to rip apart other folks'.

I do; that's why I wrote that answer

(which, if you hadn't noticed, I've deleted)

on some level, I am doing that as a ... I dunno, out of deference to your request, because I am not convinced that this is going to result in change that I consider positive

Oh, I anticipate that if we skip the meta comment workshop step it could easily go sour.

Let me know when you've posted your answer @BESW.

2:53 AM

0

A: A low-intervention approach [rules-as-written]: back to tagging basics

I like this idea! However, I do share concerns over our history of comments that leave a sour taste in folks' mouths. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this proposal may sink or swim on the basis of how approachable our clarification-requesting comments will be. Something I've noticed--...

What timing!

well, whatever happens, I'll have the honor of having been first to upvote it

(tried a joke, didn't think it sit right)

@KRyan Thank you. I'm not convinced either. I just think it has enough of a chance that it's worth not only not actively sabotaging it, but of working to make sure it fails under its own flaws if it does blow up.

@KRyan Heheh.

(And, frankly, at +21/-1, the proposal's going through no matter what we do. Might as well try to help it not explode.)

+21/0; if I'm not offering an objection, a downvote doesn't make much sense

That's your call; you can think it's awful but support it because it's happening anyway.

3:00 AM

@BESW my primary objections were 1. what I thought was an attempt to redefine the standards for including the tag (apparently wasn't intended as such, though we'll see how that turns out in the comments), 2. disagreement about "specialness" (which is a broader disagreement about "meta" tags and doesn't apply so much to this proposal individually), and 3. about the nature of the comments that would be used (which you're addressing)

those were my objections, those objections are either moot, not relevant, or being addressed

That's actually a fundamental principle in some of the administrative groups I've served on: opinions clash during the consultation, but when a vote is called then everyone supports the result regardless of how they voted. It goes back to that "If we act like it's the right thing to do then the flaws will become apparent; if we obstruct it then we can't tell what would have worked" idea.

4

fair enough

@BESW this is important in any cooperative community. If you want folks to respect a decision that goes your way, you have to be willing to do the same.

Yup.

3:37 AM

right, I'm going to bed

possibly after killing some zombies

good night

ttfn

17 hours later…

Joshua Aslan Smith

8:51 PM

I here!

heya

Joshua Aslan Smith

yo

@besw I do think a community approved pro-forma one size fits all comment for explaining ruses as written's best use is a great idea

nicely sidesteps a lot of the flamewar/edition warring that could happen in comments and sadly has happened in the past

« first day (689 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2811 days later) »

Transcript for

Feb '1626

Not a bar, but plays one on TV

I'm not a place to unwind after work, but I play one on TV.

movies ponies splorts tv

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile