Return to Answer

I disagree with the closing of the question. It came off as ranty, but was asking for a objective answer of things to do. The user may have taken the objective answer and decided that none of the activities were worth his time, but that's okay. He never actually asked the answerers to decided for him what kind of activities he'd like. His complaints about the activities he already knew about read to me as just some context for why he was looking for other options... the current ones he was aware of did not interest him. A question should probably not be closed simply because context was provided about why the person was asking. That said, such context is not really necessary.

I also disagree with the argument that the author was already aware of all the possibilities... just because he knew some doesn't mean he knew all. And even if he knew all, it doesn't mean he knew that he knew everything. We shouldn't be closing a question based on what we think the author knows.

That said, your meta seems to really be about the editing of the question. Regardless of the reason for it, I feel Wipqozn's edit improved the question by removing the unnecessary clutter of the author's opinion about the activities he was already aware of. But even ignoring the "why was it edited?" issue, I don't see how it fundamentally changed the question in the manner you describe. I don't even see the "Hellfire Ring" mentioned in the original question, so I'm especially confused by your assertion that it's original form was a duplicate of the question about crafting the Hellfire Ring.

You seem to be saying:

1. His question mentions, as an example of end game goals, Uber-Diablo in Diablo 2.
2. Crafting the Hellfire Ring is a similar goal in Diablo 3.
3. A question exists for "How do I craft the Hellfire Ring?".
4. Therefore, this question is an exact dupe.

So even if we make the leap that the Hellfire Ring was the only thing he was interested in, which I don't think is the case, that's not how exact duplicates work. Exact duplicates don't work by presuming knowledge of the answer... they need to actually be the same question. You can't turn a question of "What is there to do?" into a question of "How do I do it?" because What and How are two different questions with two different answers. This is important because you can't guarantee that there is or always will be a single answer to the "What?" part of the question. Maybe two patches from now there will be a PantsOnFire Ring to craft or something.

I disagree with the closing of the question. It came off as ranty, but was asking for a objective answer of things to do. The user may have taken the objective answer and decided that none of the activities were worth his time, but that's okay. He never actually asked the answerers to decided for him what kind of activities he'd like. His complaints about the activities he already knew about read to me as just some context for why he was looking for other options... the current ones he was aware of did not interest him. A question should probably not be closed simply because context was provided about why the person was asking. That said, such context is not really necessary.

I also disagree with the argument that the author was already aware of all the possibilities... just because he knew some doesn't mean he knew all. And even if he knew all, it doesn't mean he knew that he knew everything. We shouldn't be closing a question based on what we think the author knows. In fact, who the author is, what they know, and what they believe should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the question is suitable for the site. This is why it can often be better to leave out some of the personal context about why you're asking.

That said, your meta seems to really be about the editing of the question. Regardless of the reason for it, I feel Wipqozn's edit improved the question by removing the unnecessary clutter of the author's opinion about the activities he was already aware of. But even ignoring the question of whether or not it should have been edited, I don't see how it fundamentally changed the question in the manner you describe. I don't even see the "Hellfire Ring" mentioned in the original question, so I'm especially confused by your assertion that it's original form was a duplicate of the question about crafting the Hellfire Ring.

You seem to be saying:

1. His question mentions, as an example of end game goals, Uber-Diablo in Diablo 2.
2. Crafting the Hellfire Ring is a similar goal in Diablo 3.
3. A question exists for "How do I craft the Hellfire Ring?".
4. Therefore, this question is an exact dupe.

So even if we make the leap that the Hellfire Ring was the only thing he was interested in, which I don't think is the case, that's not how exact duplicates work. Exact duplicates don't work by presuming knowledge of the answer... they need to actually be the same question. You can't turn a question of "What is there to do?" into a question of "How do I do it?" because What and How are two different questions with two different answers. This is important because you can't guarantee that there is or always will be a single answer to the "What?" part of the question. Maybe two patches from now there will be a PantsOnFire Ring to craft or something.

I disagree with the closing of the question. It came off as ranty, but was asking for a objective answer of things to do. The user may have taken the objective answer and decided that none of the activities were worth his time, but that kind of subjectivity is okay. He never actually asked the answerers to decided for him what kind of activities he'd like. I also disagree with the argument that the author was already aware of all the possibilities... just because he knew some doesn't mean he knew all. And even if he knew all, it doesn't mean he knew that he knew everything. We shouldn't be closing a question based on what we think the author knows.

That said, your meta seems to really be about the editing of the question. Regardless of the reason for it, Wipqozn's edit improved the question by removing the unnecessary clutter of the author's opinion about the activities he was already aware of. I don't see how it fundamentally changed the question in the manner you describe. I don't even see the "Hellfire Ring" mentioned in the original question, so I'm especially confused by your assertion that it's original form was a duplicate of the question about crafting the Hellfire Ring.

You seem to be saying:

1. His question mentions, as an example of end game goals, Uber-Diablo in Diablo 2.
2. Crafting the Hellfire Ring is a similar goal in Diablo 3.
3. A question exists for "How do I craft the Hellfire Ring?".
4. Therefore, this question is an exact dupe.

So even if we make the leap that the Hellfire Ring was the only thing he was interested in, which I don't think is the case, that's not how exact duplicates work. Exact duplicates don't work by presuming knowledge of the answer... they need to actually be the same question. You can't turn a question of "What is there to do?" into a question of "How do I do it?" because What and How are two different questions with two different answers. This is important because you can't guarantee that there is or always will be a single answer to the "What?" part of the question. Maybe two patches from now there will be a PantsOnFire Ring to craft or something.

I disagree with the closing of the question. It came off as ranty, but was asking for a objective answer of things to do. The user may have taken the objective answer and decided that none of the activities were worth his time, but that's okay. He never actually asked the answerers to decided for him what kind of activities he'd like. His complaints about the activities he already knew about read to me as just some context for why he was looking for other options... the current ones he was aware of did not interest him. A question should probably not be closed simply because context was provided about why the person was asking. That said, such context is not really necessary.

I also disagree with the argument that the author was already aware of all the possibilities... just because he knew some doesn't mean he knew all. And even if he knew all, it doesn't mean he knew that he knew everything. We shouldn't be closing a question based on what we think the author knows.

That said, your meta seems to really be about the editing of the question. Regardless of the reason for it, I feel Wipqozn's edit improved the question by removing the unnecessary clutter of the author's opinion about the activities he was already aware of. But even ignoring the "why was it edited?" issue, I don't see how it fundamentally changed the question in the manner you describe. I don't even see the "Hellfire Ring" mentioned in the original question, so I'm especially confused by your assertion that it's original form was a duplicate of the question about crafting the Hellfire Ring.

You seem to be saying:

1. His question mentions, as an example of end game goals, Uber-Diablo in Diablo 2.
2. Crafting the Hellfire Ring is a similar goal in Diablo 3.
3. A question exists for "How do I craft the Hellfire Ring?".
4. Therefore, this question is an exact dupe.

So even if we make the leap that the Hellfire Ring was the only thing he was interested in, which I don't think is the case, that's not how exact duplicates work. Exact duplicates don't work by presuming knowledge of the answer... they need to actually be the same question. You can't turn a question of "What is there to do?" into a question of "How do I do it?" because What and How are two different questions with two different answers. This is important because you can't guarantee that there is or always will be a single answer to the "What?" part of the question. Maybe two patches from now there will be a PantsOnFire Ring to craft or something.

I disagree with the closing of the question. It came off as ranty, but was asking for a objective answer of things to do. The user may have taken the objective answer and decided that none of the activities were worth his time, but that kind of subjectivity is okay. He never actually asked the answerers to decided for him what kind of activities he'd like. I also disagree with the argument that the author was already aware of all the possibilities... just because he knew some doesn't mean he knew all. And even if he knew all, it doesn't mean he knew that he knew everything. We shouldn't be closing a question based on what we think the author knows.

That said, your meta seems to really be about the editing of the question. Regardless of the reason for it, Wipqozn's edit improved the question by removing the unnecessary clutter of the author's opinion about the activities he was already aware of. I don't see how it fundamentally changed the question in the manner you describe. I don't even see the "Hellfire Ring" mentioned in the original question, so I'm especially confused by your assertion that it's original form was a duplicate of the question about crafting the Hellfire Ring.

I disagree with the closing of the question. It came off as ranty, but was asking for a objective answer of things to do. The user may have taken the objective answer and decided that none of the activities were worth his time, but that kind of subjectivity is okay. He never actually asked the answerers to decided for him what kind of activities he'd like. I also disagree with the argument that the author was already aware of all the possibilities... just because he knew some doesn't mean he knew all. And even if he knew all, it doesn't mean he knew that he knew everything. We shouldn't be closing a question based on what we think the author knows.

That said, your meta seems to really be about the editing of the question. Regardless of the reason for it, Wipqozn's edit improved the question by removing the unnecessary clutter of the author's opinion about the activities he was already aware of. I don't see how it fundamentally changed the question in the manner you describe. I don't even see the "Hellfire Ring" mentioned in the original question, so I'm especially confused by your assertion that it's original form was a duplicate of the question about crafting the Hellfire Ring.

You seem to be saying:

1. His question mentions, as an example of end game goals, Uber-Diablo in Diablo 2.
2. Crafting the Hellfire Ring is a similar goal in Diablo 3.
3. A question exists for "How do I craft the Hellfire Ring?".
4. Therefore, this question is an exact dupe.

So even if we make the leap that the Hellfire Ring was the only thing he was interested in, which I don't think is the case, that's not how exact duplicates work. Exact duplicates don't work by presuming knowledge of the answer... they need to actually be the same question. You can't turn a question of "What is there to do?" into a question of "How do I do it?" because What and How are two different questions with two different answers. This is important because you can't guarantee that there is or always will be a single answer to the "What?" part of the question. Maybe two patches from now there will be a PantsOnFire Ring to craft or something.