@ThomasMarkov Make a meta for discussion mate, I don't want to rehash policy on a question. It's not appropriate.

Please do not create an edit war... I won't participate.

Then stop participating and go reread the policy you are insisting on violating.

Huh? I am not participating. I told you I wouldn't, and I'm not. Edit wars are not acceptable IMO.

That question does not identify the system. We need to wait for OP.

@linksassin thanks mate.

@linksassin The system is clear, as per the meta it can be edited in. This has been discussed a hundred times already.

@gszavae still want me to make a meta post?

Edit wars are not an appropriate way to resolve disputes.

You participated as much as I did...and you were wrong

Yes, if there's a problem with a question make a meta, don't just spam edits and hope the other person will give up... Come on mate

@gszavae The presence of a rule in a single system is not sufficient to identify the system and has never been.

@ThomasMarkov No, I said make a meta, and reverted the questionable edit pending discussion. That's the correct way to resolve disputes IMO, not continual editing.

You made an edit the violated policy which I reverted.

So... I haven't seen whatever post instigated this, but please dial it back or argue in a different room? (@ThomasMarkov and @gszavae)

@gszavae You are both guilty of making multiple edits.

@linksassin There has been numerous threads discussing what constitutes a guess, and the consensus is always that if it is clear then it's not a guess.

Yeah I’ll chill.

I'm making no claims as to who may have been "right" or not, but now you're bickering. Which is fine, just please do it elsewhere.

@linksassin I edited to include the tag, and revert the edit war and suggested to use a meta to resolve the problem. How is that the same?

@nitsua60 Agreed, we have meta, use it.

@gszavae ("Agreed" was fine. With the edit now you're continuing to bicker.)

And with that I'm stepping out. @linksassin @Someone_Evil @V2Blast @Rubiksmoose @NautArch @Miniman @kviiri @BESW there may need to be some message-moving going on up there ^^

← 24 messages moved from TRPG General Chat

@gszavae As much as I wish it weren't so, the current consensus is that experts may not use their wisdom in helping identify system.

I've got a new tack on that particular meta axe to grind that I hope to try some day, but it's been too-recently reaffirmed for me to hope that a different perspective could carry the day.

@gszavae Nowhere. In any meta does it say that using a rule that only exists in one system is sufficient evidence. Additionally, the OP did not actually quote the rule. Only that they know it exists. This could easily be a case where they are confused about rules across editions.

Yeah, I think it’s a silly rule in most cases, but I understand the reasoning and appreciate the consistency and objectivity the rule brings.

And also this wasn’t one of those cases. It was actually conceivably ambiguous.

Question is ready for reopen.

Still, I think the positive reinforcement of editing where things are painfully clear (agreeing that ~this~ might not be one of those cases) is missing from the whole discussion about using negative punishment to teach new users what our expectations are.

I'd eat my shoes if someone could point me to a new user who failed to mention game on an early post that otherwise made it painfully obvious, had someone edit the system in and comment kindly "just be sure to mention what game you're playing, I believe it's $foo and have edited accordingly, make sure to correct it if I'm wrong!", and reacted negatively to such a reception.

Because we've got hella-lotta people who come in, fail to mention system in an early post, get the current policy's treatment, and find it ridiculous/offensive/patronizing/stultifying/rules-lawyering.

@ThomasMarkov I've opened it and re-closed as duplicate since it is an exact duplicate anyway.

@linksassin you deleted the comment I was in the middle of flagging!

@nitsua60 Sorry to steal an accepted flag from you :P I figure you probably have enough flags in your history anyway

@linksassin actually, I was like a dozen or two shy of some badge when elected, and basically didn't throw a flag for three years. (Realized it when we were having that ridiculous badge-discussion in chat the other day.)

That's why I went on that two- or three-day comment-flagging spree a week or so ago.

(Where "spree"=about 10 flags over two days.)

@nitsua60 Is it the Marshal gold badge? If so I do apologise. Though I think you might survive.

@linksassin No need to apologize. I had to go just now and look to see (a) whether I'd remembered any of that ^^ correctly, (b) whether I'd actually already gotten it since then, and (c) what badge it was in the first place. I clearly don't actually care =)

(I did, I haven't, and yes: Marshal.)

(Another month or two and I'll probably grab it. Depends how many new answers come in on old posts where I have some conversation hanging around that I can no longer mod-delete!)

@nitsua60 The high rep mod tools for most commented question might be your friend if you really want to get there.

I'll let it happen organically =)

I think expanding the “what evidence counts as not guessing” would be reasonable.

Such as sourcebook citations.

@ThomasMarkov I'd love to see something charcoal-style saying "okay, but we're, literally, 99.997% sure this is dnd-5e."

I understand that you want to discuss it, but I already said the only place that I think this discussion should take place is meta. Please do not keep pinging me. I don't think I have been disrespectful or insulted any of you, so I don't think it's too much to ask to not be dragged into conversations I said I didn't want to be a part of.

:thumbsup:

@ThomasMarkov There have been discussions on how to manage this. The recent DND-Beyond meta being the first successful exception to the rule.

If I could do (counts on fingers...) anything it'd be cool to look for posts that were posted, closed as unclear, had dnd-5e added, were reopened, and are still open and train some machine on them.

@nitsua60 Problem is that any machine on that would likely results in false positives for 5e that is exactly what we have the system to avoid.

I can count on fingers, what exactly do you want to do?

@linksassin Would it? [cocks eyebrow] would... it?

@linksassin So have [user:5e-smokey] drop a line in chat to say "probable 5e post, experts descend!"

@ThomasMarkov Well, I'm told that all computing is just arithmetic. So, if you can do that ^^ on your fingers--and with that last name, frankly, you should be able to--I'll send you a cookie.

=D

@nitsua60 Hmm.. that could be workable. Though it's a lot of work for something that has questionable benefit.

Oh, it's a terrible technical solution to a social problem. Definitely shouldn't be done.

Ah, program a NLP bot to calculate the probability a post is 5e based on keywords.

@nitsua60 there is a lot of that going around ...