-7

How do I deal with a situation where I am /trying/ to ask a question, but everyone is telling me I'm not?

I mean, clearly, I am asking a question. I can see the question, I can see how it is answered if I had the knowledge, I just don't yet have the answer.

Then people come in, and they, also not having the answer, tell me I'm not even asking a question?

Then, instead of helping me redefine my question, they just tell me I'm wrong. Sometimes they offer alternative questions, but those are usually entirely different questions that would have different answers than I am looking for. Then, once I explain that their questions are NOT going to answer what I'm actually asking, they just flag me, accuse me of all sorts of nefariousness, and my question goes unanswered.

So I can't ask perfect questions that are can be understood by literally everyone. Yes, I admit, that is one of my weaknesses. I don't think that should mean that the ONLY reaction I get is basically being told not to even ask the question, because I couldn't ask it in a way THEY wanted me to ask it for THEM to be able to answer it within THEIR knowledge set. AS IF I SOMEHOW ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING THEY KNOW?

How am I supposed to ask so specifically, when I am already here because of the point that I don't know, which is why I am asking a question?

What is the point of asking questions to answers I don't know if all anyone here does is fight over if it is a question or not? It is pettiness? Are they upset that since THEY can't personally answer it and get rep that it somehow is no longer a valid question?

Even now in this post I am not sure what my question is, but obviously I am without an answer. Perhaps I need help asking my question, but that doesn't mean I don't have a question. What the heck? :(

This meta post is basically a duplicate of my situation. Based on the answer I have made my own question:

You did exactly the right thing: if you think a question was closed incorrectly, coming here and creating a question explaining clearly why you think it should be re-opened is the appropriate thing to do.

Except I already covered everything I possibly could in the original post, which is now deleted, and I don't feel like arguing all that crap again because it seems like it would fall upon the same deaf ears.

  • 1
    I'm very confused. What question are you referring to? – Josh Dec 15 '15 at 23:01
  • 6
    For a point of reference, here is the question asked. – Frank Dec 15 '15 at 23:01
  • Here...we go...again. Don't change the subject? – ZealousHypocrites Dec 15 '15 at 23:01
  • Oh hi Frank. I have a question for you. When did you give me "Contructive Criticism?" From what I could tell, I was being asked to ask a different question. I have no idea how that relates to constructive criticism, or destructive criticism, or criticism at all. Basically I was asked to change the subject, to change what I was asking for. If I was going to ask for something different than I was asking for, then why wouldn't I just ask for that different thing? Mostly I am utterly confused by the "support" that was being given to me, because all of it was just trying to change the subject! – ZealousHypocrites Dec 15 '15 at 23:05
  • 4
    From what I could see, there was a ton of help in the comments, trying to guide you towards an acceptable question. Then you arguing with them. Word of advice: if people are trying to help, automatically assuming you're right isn't going to get you a very good reception. – Frank Dec 15 '15 at 23:15
  • 2
    "Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one. The purpose of constructive criticism is to improve the outcome." The "help" Frank was trying to get me to ask a different question (outcome) than I was asking. HOW is that helping me AT ALL? Why even ask questions if the community will just step in and say "No, instead of asking that, you are going to ask this."? – ZealousHypocrites Dec 15 '15 at 23:18
  • 1
    I am one of the people who voted to close your question as "unclear what you're asking" and the reason that I did this is because it was unclear what you were asking. In the instance you make it clear what you're asking I am more than happy to vote to reopen said question, but have noted that you have deleted it. – kalina Dec 15 '15 at 23:25
  • 4
    The outcome for constructive criticism doesn't have to be beneficial to you. We try our best to make that happen, but we're focused on building a high quality repository of gaming knowledge. That outcome takes precedence over all else, really. – Frank Dec 15 '15 at 23:26
  • 8
    Having read the original post/commentary, and the points raised here, I'd like to offer some constructive criticism: It's good that you wish to ask questions here, and that you care enough about your posts and the site in general to seek clarification on meta, but it's not good to reply to people snarkily/angrily or "shouting" (for lack of a better term) through liberal use of bold font, exclamation points and caps lock. We're all people here - keeping calm and civil will mean other people will be more likely to respond to your post(s) and this meta inquiry in a positive way. :-) – Robotnik Dec 16 '15 at 0:03
  • 1
    How are we suppose to help you with the question when you remove the question? This seems more like a rant, which has no place, here. – user106385 Dec 16 '15 at 0:38
  • 1
    @Timelord64 It wasn't clear enough. I could make out the question from the wall of text but I could easily see how people could actually not see the question in there. Despite the bolded text Here's the question..., which wasn't even the actual question you could come up if you read all of it. It was unclear what the question was and the question actually wanted to be asked was too broad. I tried to tell Corinne to clear up the question, reduce the wall of text and make it stand out what was asked... to no avail. – Jonathan Drapeau Dec 16 '15 at 12:43
  • 1
    @Timelord64 - More specifically, any question/answer/comment posted to Stack Exchange is considered to be 'owned' by Stack Exchange: "You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. You grant Stack Exchange the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to use, copy, cache, publish, display, distribute, modify, create derivative works and store such Subscriber Content and to allow others to do so in any medium now known or hereinafter developed..." – Robotnik Dec 17 '15 at 0:03
  • 2
    (cont.) - The aforementioned quote . We can (and will/have in the past) override a user's changes to their 'own' post, including undeletion of deleted posts and rollback of destructive changes as you've mentioned. A user can request to be disassociated with their posts, in which case the user card will not show their name nor link to their profile, and they will lose any rep (both past and present) earned on those posts. But the posts themselves will remain. – Robotnik Dec 17 '15 at 0:04
  • 2
    We haven't dismissed anything; we just closed an unclear question. If you think that undermines our goals, I don't know what to tell you. At the end of the day, attempts were made to help you. You discarded it, so meh. – Frank Dec 17 '15 at 15:52
  • 3
    This site is a metaphor for existentialism. Spend all the time asking "why" instead of just "doing" it and getting things done. It is WAY TOO STRESSFUL and "shoot ourselves in the feet constantly" for me. – ZealousHypocrites Dec 17 '15 at 15:57
15

I am a non-involved user. The way I interpret your question is as follows: "I noticed that you can apparently achieve temporary invulnerability in VATS. How else can this mechanic be used?" (If this isn't quite right, feel free to correct me).

The way I am reading it, you essentially want people to come up with situations that this game mechanic could be useful (and try it out to make sure that it works in that scenario). In this sense, from what I understand, the question is too broad. There are too many possible answers, since the mechanic is fairly free-form, there are likely several dozen possible scenarios. You name three possible scenarios yourself, even. It's the kind of question that doesn't work as well in this format as it does in a traditional forum format.

It's not so much as nobody in the comments understood your question, it's that the people in the comments were trying to come up with an alternate question that could work in this format. That being said, I am honestly not certain of a direction the question could be edited to work for this site. The best I can potentially come up with would be asking about the actual value of the damage reduction, or something along that line. Yes, this would be a deviation from the original question, but please understand, your original question is too broad.

  • Perhaps it is more along the lines of "are there any known exploits utilizing this mechanic?" There are likely NOT many answers to the question. If you can imagine an answer to it, you would likely see that answer at the bottom of a Wiki page saying "During this quest if you use X technique it does all this crazy stuff it isn't supposed to do." Problem is I'm not omnipotent; I haven't played every scenario yet, so, how can I TEST every scenario yet? Maybe if I asked "1000s of hours of experience that I don't have (other people and their exp.)" that one of them /might/ know. – ZealousHypocrites Dec 17 '15 at 16:12
  • Basically if this had an ALREADY known answer, the question would have appeared to be viable, because someone could have just linked to the wiki and stated "Yep it can be used here, as has been documented because a lot of people know it already." But in this case we don't know a lot about it already...that doesn't mean it couldn't have a simple answer. How can we judge if the answer is simple, if we don't HAVE an answer yet? So, we can either choose to find out more about it, or, we can choose not to find out more about it...based on if it fits into a Question / Answer format? Seems thin... – ZealousHypocrites Dec 17 '15 at 16:15
  • I just don't think I'm a fit here. That's all. It's too confusing, and despite how much I want to contribute, I also don't want to get bogged down in bull like this. It isn't worth our mutual time. – ZealousHypocrites Dec 17 '15 at 16:18
  • @ZealousHypocrites, it may not have many possible answers, but it is still not a a good fit for the site. – Rainbow Dash Dec 20 '15 at 18:36
10

As a general rule, assuming commenters don't understand your question is a non-starter; you often don't need domain knowledge of the game to understand a question is problematic. A question meeting the most technical definition of such doesn't automatically mean it's something we can support, or allow.


Now, to specifics:

For a point of reference, here is the question asked.

Full disclosure, I voted to close it as unclear. I had trouble figuring what it was you were looking for. Confirmation you were correct? More uses for the bug/glitch/mechanic you had observed? It wasn't very clear. And I said as much:

We're getting into a bit of of an...XZ issue? Sorry, not sure how to define it. You're essentially stating a certain action, making an assumption on the mechanics behind it, and then positing how said mechanic can be used. If you could focus your question on how this mechanic works, you could A) See if your hypothesis is correct, and B) Get examples of how it can be used. Right now, you're not even sure how what you're observing works. That's the critical assumption we would excel at correcting.

You've made an observation, assumed knowledge of the mechanics behind it, and instantly leaped to additional uses. We're not really about making lists of things; we can, but it's not really how the whole SE network works. We're about specific, concrete issues gamers have with games. There's a bit of overflow into lore and other related areas, but compiling a list of X isn't really our strong suit. There's no way to write a complete answer to that sort of question, especially when the core assumption may be faulty. That's why you were being guided towards focusing on the mechanic itself.

That is what we excel at; figuring out how mechanics work. We're great at telling you exactly how something works, and why it works that way. We can correct assumptions, and give some examples of how to use the mechanic. That's a clear, concrete question that's useful to the internet at large.

Which is what users were trying to guide you towards: a specific, focused question we could actually help with, that would still help you. Here at SE, we try not to radically change a question beyond what the asker intended, so that's why no one took it upon themselves to make the edits for you. It's not quite what you were asking, that much was clear, but that's the salvageable part for us.

If you want to try again, focus less on building a list of things, and more on a problem you are facing. We not only work much better that way, but we can still hopefully help you with your main issue.

  • 3
    "That is what we excel at; figuring out how mechanics work." How can we figure out how the mechanic works if we don't test it? How can we test it unless we know situations in which to test it? I was asking for that. I was asking for exactly what you are telling me to ask, but in a way that would produce viable results. You are basically telling me that I'm not asking pretty much exactly what I was asking for. You know what? Maybe I just can't communicate in general. I'll stop trying. Thanks, everyone, I guess. – ZealousHypocrites Dec 15 '15 at 23:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .