Board and Card Games

« first day (1644 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3580 days later) »

Rainbolt

13:05

@Pureferret It's generally pretty quiet in here on the weekends.

Pureferret

13:42

@Rainbolt because everyone's it playing wild boardgames?

Rainbolt

@Pureferret I can't speak for everyone, but I'm usually playing Magic: the Gathering or video games.

Lately it's been Cities: Skylines

Pureferret

@Rainbolt I hear that's a good game

Rainbolt

14:15

@Pureferret I'm enjoying it. But I also enjoyed SimCity2013, despite the many complaints it had. Here's a comparison of the two: imgur.com/2LxwXm7

Pureferret

15:00

Cool

1 hour later…

murgatroid99

16:10

I'm here, now

Expanding on what Rainbolt said, this room is quiet almost all the time, with bursts of activity here and there

2 hours later…

Pureferret

18:25

I was going someone could have answered my question by now

murgatroid99

@Pureferret Unfortunately, questions about less-popular games take longer to get answered

I personally don't really know anything about Warhammer Fantasy, but I suspect that if you get a rule book, the answer is either "The rule say yes (or no)" or "It's your house, you can do whatever you want"

Or, possibly, both

2 hours later…

Rainbolt

20:39

@murgatroid99 Whoah I have to ask you about the comp rule link changes you are making

When I link to comp rules, I link to the version as written at the time of posting

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt I thought it was better to link to the correct version

Rainbolt

That would allow the link to remain up to date but the content of the post to grow old

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt And that's worse than having both the content and the link be out of date?

Rainbolt

Depends on who you ask. One way is more consistent, and the other way is at least up to date if you click on the link and find the rule

I'd prefer them to either both be broken or both be right

But I have another idea that would allow you to make your change without affecting the consistency

Alter the wording so that it doesn't imply that this quote came from that link

murgatroid99

Can you give one example where I changed the link, but the rule is out of date or incorrect?

Rainbolt

20:43

Nope

murgatroid99

So, now we have correct rule quotes and correct rule links, instead of correct quotes and incorrect links

Sounds good to me

Rainbolt

Except that the wording implies that the quote came from that link

And that may not always be the case

The moment the rule changes, the link now points to something totally different

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt If you go to the link, and the text is there, what's wrong with that?

@Rainbolt The rulebook that people were linking to was also getting updated continuously, until the middle of last year

It's not like people were linking to a specific dated archive. They were linking to archive.wizards.com/Magic/tcg/article.aspx?x=magic/rules

Rainbolt

The rulebook I link to has the date in the URL

And it changes every few months to a new url

murgatroid99

OK, I honestly don't see why it's better to have a reference be old and potentially incorrect than recent and correct, but I won't change any more specifically dated links in your posts

Rainbolt

20:49

Well, then you haven't been paying attention to what I said, and you can continue changing all of the posts except for mine.

I did specifically point out the benefit of consistency (both wrong or both right). I don't suppose that counts in your book.

murgatroid99

OK, I'll be more specific. I understand why you think consistency is valuable. I don't understand why you think it's more valuable than correctness.

Rainbolt

Like I said: it's a trade off

murgatroid99

I said I'd stop changing your versioned links. But in general, it's hard to tell whether someone linked to a specific version because they wanted that specific version, or because those are the only links available (for the PDF, for example)

However, after this conversation, I'll err on the side of intent, and not change those links

Rainbolt

I was about to suggest a third version before you ask me to provide proof by example

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt "asking for proof by example" is a mischaracterization. I wanted to know if any of my edits had actually created inconsistencies, instead of just hypothetically doing so

Rainbolt

21:00

It seems to me that the point of the quote is to avoid the need to open the CR at all. If the link is unnecessary, just remove it. If the link is necessary, then it must serve a purpose. Separate that purpose from the actual quote, and determine whether a new link or an old link is intended.

murgatroid99

That's nice in theory, but I'm not sure how I would actually characterize the "purpose" of the link in any of the posts I edited

Rainbolt

[link] - Rule that came from a totally different link is just about the only way I wouldn't want to do it

murgatroid99

If the rule hasn't changed since the answer was posted, then the quotation does come from that link.

Rainbolt

That's why I protect my answers with links to specific versions. Because of that big "If the rule hasn't changed"

murgatroid99

I already said that I would stop editing versioned links. What else do you want me to say?

Rainbolt

21:07

@murgatroid99 I don't understand where the attitude came from. I don't want anything from you. I'm simply discussing the best way to handle links to the comp rules because I'm not satisfied that we've entertained all of the possibilities. If you want to stop speaking, please do.

murgatroid99

OK, sorry. This conversation started with you criticizing my edits. I didn't realize we'd shifted away from that

« first day (1644 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3580 days later) »

all rooms