2
$\begingroup$

So, here yet again. We have had an erratic month rife with insults that are not needed any more at least. It appears we have had a break through, how this happened however can be disputed until the cows come home.

“the green llama” chat room has been eventful to say the least, with contributions both large and small. From users who both contribute to puzzling and to the rest of stack exchange. From conversing with people such as Emrakul, Andrew Martin and at a stretch maybe Doorknob, it appears we are no closer to finding the identity to puzzling.se than when we were hit with a post banning challenges, which then flip flopped and is quite honestly history.

Moving forward though there are issues that have not been resolved, the word toleration has been branded to how stack exchange is “managing” puzzling.se, we do not seem to fit in with what the site as a whole wants. Some would say that there is an exception that we can strive to imitate whilst others believe that is an exception that proves the rule.

Emrakul has stated that as of yet, no uniform stance has been taking with the direction the site is moving in. Yet the new questions are being flooded with new challenge puzzles, I ask why this has not been set yet? Surely when deciding to create a site called puzzling, the notion that puzzles would be posted came to mind.

Since you have retracted or changed the tag to the banning post of doom. It means this community are all in for having challenge puzzles please state if I am mistaken. So to find a way around the googleability rule is paramount no?

If this is decided the next thing would be to generate a criteria for puzzles. It seems this community loves to say what is bad quality, thrives on it to a degree but what about it is actually bad, what makes a riddle to ambiguous to understand. What makes a cipher based puzzle to googlable and what makes a mathematical puzzle... Maths.

I have heard that knowledge about a certain subject is not liked by some consider this “Conversation between Obama and Netanyahu” Is this inherently bad? I see this as you gotta do some detective work to get what its all about and eventually get the answer. As this one stands I believe it actually answers one of the core philosophies the site is here for and that is to dish out some knowledge, in fact there are many of these who do exactly that, which is someone who knows, gets the puzzle because they have the information which then directly teaches other users. So should having specific pieces of knowledge implanted into puzzles really deserve a down vote.

To conclude. What would be ideal are answers that can be amalgamated describing good quality, decided by the community. Whether or not each one is valid, and maybe some example of where this was done well or expert for a better word considering the site.

If we do not at least try to discuss this then we will never have a decent site. I was told to listen to a reputable user of the stack exchange described as a colossal entity of the stacks, he described the site as a joke.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Re "Surely when deciding to create a site called puzzling, the notion that puzzles would be posted came to mind", they were very much in the minority during the site definition phase. $\endgroup$
    – Peter Taylor
    Dec 20, 2014 at 11:51

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

I've all but given up caring what happens. The community blatantly wants puzzles to be on topic, but meta posts on getting actual policies in place just go dead because no diamonds implement the things the community agrees on. This topic has been posted plenty of times before (I can link to at least 3) and there'll be some discussion then things will taper off and go silent.

I really enjoy P.SE and did my best to improve things. Unfortunately I also have a full time job and can't spend all my time trying to poke, prod and persuade people into talking when the people enforcing the rules do nothing on the back of it.

Good luck.

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Shows no confidence to implement rules, I like the conviction. $\endgroup$
    – Oblongamous
    Dec 18, 2014 at 15:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Oblongamous I'm just being realistic. We've been here before and nothing happened any other time. Why is this time different? $\endgroup$
    – Joe
    Dec 18, 2014 at 15:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Which things have yet to be implemented that haven't? $\endgroup$
    – user20
    Dec 18, 2014 at 15:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A "uniform stance" you said youself $\endgroup$
    – Oblongamous
    Dec 18, 2014 at 16:06
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Emrakul I feel a bit like Joe here. May I please ask you, personally, respectfully, to make a meta post which summarises where we're at. What's in, what's out... what's we're doing in a clear manner - as completely as possible. I think it's pretty clear based on everything what it would look like - although that may just be my point of view $\endgroup$
    – d'alar'cop
    Dec 18, 2014 at 16:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @d'alar'cop This isn't really the job of moderators, honestly. Things are up for discussion right now, and not only do users of Puzzling set policy, but it would feel wrong to clarify policy when it goes against some peoples' opinions. (Yes, I know. That meta post is a huge exception, and isn't something moderators are normally supposed to do.) $\endgroup$
    – user20
    Dec 18, 2014 at 17:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Emrakul What if I do it... and people can vote on it? it would mean a lot more to the casual users if you were to do it though $\endgroup$
    – d'alar'cop
    Dec 18, 2014 at 17:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @d'alar'cop The reason we normally refrain from doing these things is actually because it means a lot more - people have a higher inclination to take the things moderators say as word-of-law, instead of statement of opinion, or personal view, even when it isn't meant that way. For this reason, if you did it, it'd probably be fine. If we did it, it would probably just make things worse. (Especially given that there isn't clear consensus, which makes me all the more wary.) $\endgroup$
    – user20
    Dec 18, 2014 at 17:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Emrakul I'll do it then. We really need 10 more like you mate $\endgroup$
    – d'alar'cop
    Dec 18, 2014 at 17:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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