Timeline for Do we still like 'Identify This Game' questions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:01 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/ with https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 3, 2012 at 23:48 | comment | added | Wipqozn Mod | Furthermore, if this was a question that was off-topic we wouldn't keep it open since someone would say "I can fix it", we would close it and then re-open it once it's fixed. It's the same thing here. If someone wants to come up with a policy that works, fine, all power to you. But until we come up with that policy, ITG should not be allowed. We can't just allow them indefinitely since "someone might come up with a policy". | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 23:46 | comment | added | Wipqozn Mod | If we need to come up some special policy to allow a certain type of a question, I think that's a good sign we shouldn't be allowing those questions in the first place. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 22:17 | comment | added | Matthew Read | @StrixVaria True. Hopefully it goes better now, if not I'll join you in murdering them. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 21:08 | comment | added | Invader Skoodge | @MatthewRead We've had these arguments for over a year and there's still no such policy. That doesn't bode well. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 18:49 | comment | added | Matthew Read | @OrigamiRobot A policy like "block them" or "allow them" is easy to propose. Anything more nuanced would probably be shot down if proposed as a whole; I think it should be properly developed. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 18:33 | comment | added | user9983 | @MatthewRead - I meant nobody has proposed an actual policy. Lots of people have proposed that a policy be created. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 18:19 | comment | added | Matthew Read | @OrigamiRobot I have -- not fully fleshed out because I'm not about to assume I have the perfect solution and force it on everyone, but the plan is to start doing the fleshing out on Monday: meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/a/4099/6066 | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 18:03 | comment | added | user9983 | @MatthewRead - None of the pro-ITG people have proposed such a policy. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 16:01 | comment | added | Matthew Read | Great argument. I do still think they could work with a strict and enforced policy, but it's beginning to look like that can never happen. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 15:14 | history | edited | Invader Skoodge | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 144 characters in body
|
| Mar 3, 2012 at 14:45 | comment | added | Invader Skoodge | @badp Luckily, ITG aren't subjective, so that specific argument of mine failing hardly matters :P I'll revisit it anyway. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 14:23 | comment | added | badp Mod | "The other three points hold up, but that's not enough. A good subjective question must meet all six criteria. Not three, not four (because two mysteriously don't count), but six. Even if ITGs were considered subjective, they fail." Citation needed - the relevant close reason (only available on programmers for whatever reason, but Programmers is what that post was made for) reads "not enough of the criteria", not "all six" | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 14:23 | comment | added | juan Mod | You have a typo | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 13:01 | history | edited | Invader Skoodge | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| Mar 3, 2012 at 6:06 | comment | added | user9983 | Worth the read. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 4:12 | history | answered | Invader Skoodge | CC BY-SA 3.0 |