The question, team strategies asks for SC2 strategies for 2X2, 3X3, and 4X4. Based on Manual's comment,

Could you narrow your question a little? What exactly would you want to know? -- right now it's too broad and I fear it's going to be difficult to answer it

I decided to break up the questions into separate questions for each game size, 2X2, 3X3, and 4X4. badp points out that these maybe duplicates (which we eventually agreed upon that it was). What should be the proper etiquette?

  • Alright, do we want to limit this question to talking about "team strategy" type questions, or is that just a decoy log used to mask the much different issue of the etiquette of breaking up a multi-part question that someone else asked?
    – Grace Note StaffMod
    Oct 7 '10 at 15:59
  • "Team strategy" type questions because it is something we need to address, this scenario just inspired me to bring it to meta Oct 7 '10 at 16:03
  • @Grace I think the etiquette of breaking up a multi-part question is definitely on topic. I think that discussion is more correctly suited to meta rather than discussing "team strategy" type questions.
    – tzenes
    Oct 7 '10 at 16:13
  • Well since it seems we reach consensus on that it was a duplicate, lets tackle etiquette Oct 7 '10 at 16:22
  • 5
    You should have first asked whether breaking them up was fine, by doing them yourself you're only taking reputation away from the original author and in this case it resulted in a mess too. Perhaps Juan Manuel suggested to narrow "strategies / match-ups / build orders / resource sharing / tactics" instead of "2v2 / 3v3 / 4v4"... Oct 7 '10 at 16:22
  • @TomWij, I didn't think about the reputation involved, my bad. Oct 7 '10 at 18:30

So this is going to date me on gaming.se a little but, I remember having a similar problem in the past.

At the time we decided that, while individually the questions were appropriate, seeding them all at once was not.

One of the characteristics of a good question is that it actually helps someone. The problem with this kind of seeding is that, while it one day might help someone, having a run of questions all at once implies that that someone isn't really being helped right now.

There is something to be said for collecting that information so the next person that comes along won't have to look for it, but there is no way of knowing that the answers elsewhere wouldn't have also solved that problem (maybe even to another of the seed questions, as is the case here).

Now I'm not saying don't ask question to problems you don't have. I have no issue with that. But if you are going to ask a series of related questions, at least wait until some of them have been answered before posting the rest. There is a good chance that parts of the question will over lap.

When McKay asked for Zerg Strategies, he waited until there was a solid answer before moving on to Protoss Strategies. Even though these topics feel disjoint, it was still worth it for him to wait till he had an answer just to be sure.


From chat this looked like eeevil content seeding... hence why I "merged" things back.

To be honest the questions were pretty wide even when you just focus on one team size, since any "short tip" or "strategy" works. How are you going to choose the accepted answer?

  • Its a valid question but if you can't select an accepted answer, maybe it should be a CW? Oct 7 '10 at 16:01
  • 1
    @Elp, the point of CW is allowing more editing, not allowing mere discussion.
    – badp
    Oct 7 '10 at 16:05
  • @badp, I agree but strategies will change based on patches. For the SC2 example, Blizzard specifically targeted reaper and zealot rushes...player strategies had to change in response to these changes. Oct 7 '10 at 16:12
  • 1
    @Elpezmuerto - That goes for every game.
    – user56
    Oct 7 '10 at 16:37
  • @Arda, I was just using SC as an example but yes you are correct Oct 7 '10 at 17:00
  • @Elpezmuerto - What I'm trying to say is, that reasoning would mean you would have to make almost every question on this site CW because patches might change answers.
    – user56
    Oct 7 '10 at 17:50
  • Then what do you think is the proper mechanism to account for patches? To limit discussions lets say major patches only. Oct 7 '10 at 18:31
  • @Elpezmuerto ask a new question, edit old to mention it is outdated?
    – badp
    Oct 7 '10 at 19:22
  • @badp, no need: meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/946/… Oct 7 '10 at 22:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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