text:
Let's get critical: Oct 2013 Site Self-Evaluation
We all love Board & Card Games Stack Exchange, but there is a whole world of people out there who need answers to their questions and don't even know that this site exists. When they arrive from Google, what will their first impression be? Let's try to look at this site through the eyes of someone who's never seen it before, and see how we stack up against the rest of the 'Net.
The Site Self-Evaluation review queue is open and populated with 10 questions that were asked and answered in the last quarter. Run a few Google searches to see how easy they are to find and compare the answers we have with the information available on other sites.
Rating the questions is only a part of the puzzle, though. Do you see a pattern of questions that should have been closed but are not? Questions or answers that could use an edit? Anything that's going really well? Post an answer below to share your thoughts and discuss these questions and the site's health with your fellow users!

Final Results

Can both monsters in Tokyo yield at the same time after an attack?
Net Score: 5 (Excellent: 5, Satisfactory: 6, Needs Improvement: 0)

What is needed to play X-wing with 4 players?
Net Score: 5 (Excellent: 5, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 0)

Countering the enchanting of a creature
Net Score: 5 (Excellent: 5, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 0)

Do the Saar need to wait a whole round to build a Space Dock?
Net Score: 1 (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 3, Needs Improvement: 2)

Properly choosing a random discard
Net Score: 2 (Excellent: 2, Satisfactory: 6, Needs Improvement: 0)

Removing to Reapply Decals
Net Score: -1 (Excellent: 0, Satisfactory: 6, Needs Improvement: 1)

Is it possible to have more than one active artifact in Redemption?
Net Score: 3 (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 0)

Do I need to buy data packs to be competitive?
Net Score: 2 (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 3, Needs Improvement: 1)

Choose from discard pile ability: put into play simultaneously?
Net Score: 4 (Excellent: 4, Satisfactory: 3, Needs Improvement: 0)

In bridge, if a 1 NT bidder is doubled, is it right to "redouble for rescue?"
Net Score: 0 (Excellent: 0, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 0)

I thought these questions were a lot better than last time, but the scoring doesn't agree with me! Does anyone have suggestions for how they would like to see us improve? (or maybe the difference in scores isn't significant?)

@BlakBat I think the question's fine, it's just the only answer we've collectively come up with doesn't really give you the help you wanted.

@tttppp, "Do the Saar need to wait a whole round to build a Space Dock?" This one looks potentially incorrect. Do I need to buy data packs to be competitive? This one has a title/body mismatch, competitive vs chance to win. I personally put little weight in these evaluations. There is an issue with comparing the Q&As on the whole. How do you score a good question with a poor answer or visa versa? How do you rate one with a correct answer, but an incorrect answer equally Upvoted (down by 1, 3, 5)?


text:
Let's get critical: Jan 2014 Site Self-Evaluation
We all love Board & Card Games Stack Exchange, but there is a whole world of people out there who need answers to their questions and don't even know that this site exists. When they arrive from Google, what will their first impression be? Let's try to look at this site through the eyes of someone who's never seen it before, and see how we stack up against the rest of the 'Net.
The Site Self-Evaluation review queue is open and populated with 10 questions that were asked and answered in the last quarter.
Run a few Google searches to see how easy they are to find and compare the answers we have with the information available on other sites.
Rating the questions is only a part of the puzzle, though. Do you see a pattern of questions that should have been closed but are not? Questions or answers that could use an edit? Anything that's going really well? Post an answer below to share your thoughts and discuss these questions and the site's health with your fellow users!

So, err, anyone want to take a stab at interpreting these answers?

Final Results

During battle can I play a one-shot card?

Net Score: 8 (Excellent: 9, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 1)

What are the qualities of a successful beta testing session from the player's perspective?

Net Score: 8 (Excellent: 8, Satisfactory: 7, Needs Improvement: 0)

Selling to external market in Brass, is benefit salary or cash?

Net Score: 7 (Excellent: 7, Satisfactory: 2, Needs Improvement: 0)

In Settlers of Catan: Explorers and Pirates, who gets the gold when the pirate is paid?

Net Score: 6 (Excellent: 9, Satisfactory: 2, Needs Improvement: 3)

Can you attack again after I decide not to block?

Net Score: 6 (Excellent: 6, Satisfactory: 11, Needs Improvement: 0)

Hokusai and Bernice Mai timing

Net Score: 5 (Excellent: 5, Satisfactory: 2, Needs Improvement: 0)

Missile rule clarification

Net Score: 4 (Excellent: 6, Satisfactory: 6, Needs Improvement: 2)

Are there any cards that turn creatures into land?

Net Score: 3 (Excellent: 5, Satisfactory: 9, Needs Improvement: 2)

Does a cafe card bonus apply to all players?

Net Score: 2 (Excellent: 4, Satisfactory: 7, Needs Improvement: 2)

Can the Mermaids create towns with +1 shipping bonus?

Net Score: 0 (Excellent: 2, Satisfactory: 7, Needs Improvement: 2)

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Let's get critical: Apr 2014 Site Self-Evaluation
We all love Board & Card Games Stack Exchange, but there is a whole world of people out there who need answers to their questions and don't even know that this site exists. When they arrive from Google, what will their first impression be? Let's try to look at this site through the eyes of someone who's never seen it before, and see how we stack up against the rest of the 'Net.
The Site Self-Evaluation review queue is open and populated with 10 questions that were asked and answered in the last quarter.
Run a few Google searches to see how easy they are to find and compare the answers we have with the information available on other sites.
Rating the questions is only a part of the puzzle, though. Do you see a pattern of questions that should have been closed but are not? Questions or answers that could use an edit? Anything that's going really well? Post an answer below to share your thoughts and discuss these questions and the site's health with your fellow users!

Final Results

Playing Cards from Unhinged and Unglued

Net Score: 5 (Excellent: 5, Satisfactory: 2, Needs Improvement: 0)

Can I tap a creature in response to an instant?

Net Score: 4 (Excellent: 6, Satisfactory: 2, Needs Improvement: 2)

Is a card that was played and immediately trashed "in play"?

Net Score: 4 (Excellent: 4, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 0)

Draw a card when my deck and my discard piles are empty

Net Score: 3 (Excellent: 4, Satisfactory: 2, Needs Improvement: 1)

How much replayability can I expect from a core set LCG

Net Score: 3 (Excellent: 4, Satisfactory: 1, Needs Improvement: 1)

Can you force a player to **Bang** themselves when Dorothy Rage is in play?

Net Score: 3 (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 0)

Do cards that say "creatures you control" trigger Heroic?

Net Score: 2 (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 1)

Multiple melds for the same card

Net Score: 2 (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 0, Needs Improvement: 1)

What are the odds of getting a double run in four-handed pinochle?

Net Score: 2 (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 0, Needs Improvement: 1)

Exceeding the monster limit due to an encounter

Net Score: 0 (Excellent: 0, Satisfactory: 5, Needs Improvement: 0)

Can I tap a creature in response to an instant?
I think my Needs Improvement was too harsh, but I do think it could've used a quote of Crypt Sliver's ability, even if it was just an example. - SQB.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Let's get critical: Oct 2014 Site Self-Evaluation
We all love Board & Card Games Stack Exchange, but there is a whole world of people out there who need answers to their questions and don't even know that this site exists. When they arrive from Google, what will their first impression be? Let's try to look at this site through the eyes of someone who's never seen it before, and see how we stack up against the rest of the 'Net.
The Site Self-Evaluation review queue is open and populated with 10 questions that were asked and answered in the last quarter.
Run a few Google searches to see how easy they are to find and compare the answers we have with the information available on other sites.
Rating the questions is only a part of the puzzle, though. Do you see a pattern of questions that should have been closed but are not? Questions or answers that could use an edit? Anything that's going really well? Post an answer below to share your thoughts and discuss these questions and the site's health with your fellow users!

Final Results

Does a exiling a creature after being destroyed or dealt lethal damage still count as if it "died"?

Net Score: 12 (Excellent: 13, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 1)

Odd Monopoly situation: rolling doubles to get out of jail is ALSO third double in a row!

Net Score: 12 (Excellent: 12, Satisfactory: 6, Needs Improvement: 0)

Does destroying a server mean the run is unsuccessful?

Net Score: 12 (Excellent: 12, Satisfactory: 3, Needs Improvement: 0)

4-4 high approach joseki incomplete?

Net Score: 10 (Excellent: 11, Satisfactory: 2, Needs Improvement: 1)

Is it ever a good strategy to discard cards in Race for the Galaxy?

Net Score: 9 (Excellent: 10, Satisfactory: 3, Needs Improvement: 1)

Do I lose the "High" or "Dark" modifer if I gain a race?

Net Score: 6 (Excellent: 6, Satisfactory: 9, Needs Improvement: 0)

Is there fan-made version of gbc-version exclusive pokemon cards?

Net Score: 2 (Excellent: 4, Satisfactory: 8, Needs Improvement: 2)

Risk - Play by mail/email

Net Score: 0 (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 8, Needs Improvement: 3)

Is checkers just tactics?

Net Score: 0 (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 7, Needs Improvement: 3)

What's a fair handicap?

Net Score: -5 (Excellent: 0, Satisfactory: 9, Needs Improvement: 5)

I came across the site for the first time a month ago. I was quite excited about joining in, but I found the barrier to entry (in reputation) a bit challenging. I'm not a magic player (I prefer Eurogames) and so the unanswered questions were about games I wasn't familiar with. It felt a bit fake to just come up with a question for the sake of gaining reputation. I finally came across a situation where I could post a question, which is why I'm able to post in meta what I wanted to post in October.
I understand and respect the reasons for the reputation threshold, but if there were more compelling and obvious ways for people to invest time to gain reputation, that might make for repeat customers. Once you pass 15, then the scope for participation becomes much greater and people can become active members of the community.


text:
Let's get critical: Apr 2015 Site Self-Evaluation
We all love Board & Card Games Stack Exchange, but there is a whole world of people out there who need answers to their questions and don't even know that this site exists. When they arrive from Google, what will their first impression be? Let's try to look at this site through the eyes of someone who's never seen it before, and see how we stack up against the rest of the 'Net.
The Site Self-Evaluation review queue is open and populated with 10 questions that were asked and answered in the last quarter.
Run a few Google searches to see how easy they are to find and compare the answers we have with the information available on other sites.
Rating the questions is only a part of the puzzle, though. Do you see a pattern of questions that should have been closed but are not? Questions or answers that could use an edit? Anything that's going really well? Post an answer below to share your thoughts and discuss these questions and the site's health with your fellow users!

Final Results

"Whenever you draw a card" - does that include the beginning of each turn?

Net Score: 13 (Excellent: 14, Satisfactory: 8, Needs Improvement: 1)

How many Tokens does Sidisi, the Brood Tyrant make when multiple creature cards enter the graveyard simultaneously?

Net Score: 13 (Excellent: 13, Satisfactory: 5, Needs Improvement: 0)

Does Seeds of Strength trigger Heroic three times?

Net Score: 12 (Excellent: 13, Satisfactory: 8, Needs Improvement: 1)

Will Enduring Ideal and Dovescape played together leave Enduring Ideal countered?

Net Score: 12 (Excellent: 13, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 1)

When does "at the beginning of the next end step" trigger?

Net Score: 9 (Excellent: 9, Satisfactory: 10, Needs Improvement: 0)

BSG Exodus: What happens with a damaged base star on launch raiders?

Net Score: 7 (Excellent: 7, Satisfactory: 9, Needs Improvement: 0)

Navigator Role ability

Net Score: 5 (Excellent: 6, Satisfactory: 11, Needs Improvement: 1)

Is it better to close gates or save up clue tokens to seal them?

Net Score: 4 (Excellent: 6, Satisfactory: 8, Needs Improvement: 2)

Can a Rummikub tile be moved

Net Score: 4 (Excellent: 4, Satisfactory: 9, Needs Improvement: 0)

Deriving statistics from original card games

Net Score: -7 (Excellent: 0, Satisfactory: 6, Needs Improvement: 7)


text:
Poker - is it on topic?
Is poker - while I readily acknowledge that it's a popular card game - really in the realm of what we want this site to be about?
I'm seeing a bunch of questions about poker and it made me wonder about their topicality here.
EDIT: The creation of the poker proposal makes the fact that poker was on-topic here irrelevant. Poker has its own SE and is now no longer on-topic here. That's why I'm selecting an answer besides the highest-voted one as the answer.

Poker technically belongs on this site, but I feel that there is very little overlap between poker players and the rest of the community. I vote "off-topic".

Just because there is another site, doesn't mean that poker is off-topic.  What makes it off-topic is that poker players are a completely separate community.

Right. Whatever the reasoning you use, the conclusion reached is that poker is off-topic here. I don't have anything against poker...really...I just never thought this was intended to be a poker community. I'm really ready for this thread to close.

While the game of poker is certainly on-topic for this site, I would urge folks interested in poker to support this poker-specific proposal: Poker.
Beside the questions regarding strategies and rules, poker talk will include gambling techniques, celebrities, tournaments, personal habits and tells, online play... all questions probably outside the scope of this site.
It would be unfortunate to splitting up "poker talk" (based on the context of the question) longer than necessary. Support poker game questions here for the time being, but vote to give all-out poker Q&A its own home.
Poker Proposal

Given the current flood of poker non-questions, I'd rather not support poker here for the time being and still support the Poker Proposal!

Agreed, and it's only four off-topic votes from the commitment stage.  Two people could cast the votes needed to get it into commitment.

Followed and voted since I do have some interest in poker. It should be able to move onto the commitment phase now.

Although I admit it has a different "feel" to it than the games I would expect to see most, I cannot think of any objective reason not to include it.
So I'd say it's in.

+1 There's certainly a ton of game theory involved in poker, which puts in into the same category as other strategy games in my mind, and makes it totally worthwhile of inclusion.

Agreed, although if it becomes popular enough it may be worth breaking out into its own SO site

Done: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3425/poker. Please support the creation of this poker site.

I would say that it's primarily a gambling game - that is, a mechanism for moving money around - and that objectively it's different from games which are played primarily or entirely for the experience of playing them.
So I'd say it's out.
How about some votes on these questions so we can get a consensus?

Actually, although betting is involved, it doesn't have to be for money. I find it's as much fun just learning to compete with your friends as it is to do so for money.

I'd like to restate and refine @tryaria's point as follows: poker happens to be played for money in many cases, but that's not an essential feature of the game. Similarly, you can play any other game for money. We should not base this on how people happen to play the game - it should be based on the game itself. (Platonic ideal anyone?)

I happen to think that when you're not playing for money the game gets pretty broken, but I think that's beside the point.  Poker has enough inherent complexity involved with its odds and game theory that it definitely seems deserving.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/


text:
What's the best way to describe our hobby's games?
I have heard the object of our hobby's affections called a number of things, none of which quite work for me. Failed descriptors include:

Boardgames
Eurogames
German-style board games
Hobby games

What do you call the games we love, the ones we mean when we talk about boardgames?

This seems like you just wanted to talk about the term "modern boardgames", and you tossed in a question at the end when you realized there wasn't one

Basically, you're right. I kept trying to find the question in this topic as I was typing. Whoever migrated this to meta - good job, thanks. I would have made it CW if I had the power, but I think this is a better solution!

np, I would still suggest rephrasing this to feature the question.  "Modern Boardgaming" feels like the answer that you would like to see to a question like, "What is the best name for our hobby?"

@Pat - Is that better?

@gomad - yes I think so, and I think this is a good question to ask.  I usually use "German-style" games, but would like something better.

Why was this moved to meta?

Two of your four options make me think that you are referring to only a subset of modern boardgames, but it's not clear what you mean.  Not all modern boardgames are German (or otherwise European), nor are they necessarily in that style.  Please list some games that you would include in the category you're trying to name.

Boardgames
Plain and simple. Though over here in Switzerland that term probably holds a much broader meaning in people's minds because we've known this type of games for decades now.
Thus the questions is highly dependent on your location. Overseas I'd probably use the term "German style boardgames" if I wanted to distinguish from games such as Chess or Monopoly. If that puts people off then that is unfortunate but ultimately their problem. This type of games was internationally popularized through German boardgames - a feat that justifies the naming. French cuisine is called as such even though it is now served all over the world.

Interesting points, thanks!  It's always great to get a wider perspective on things like this.

Agree.  With people who "know" what I mean, I say "board games" here in the States, but I am usually quick to clarify "German-style board games" if my audience is the type who will probably think of Monopoly or other family games (which then usually requires a 5-second definition).

Here in Italy they are just called "giochi da tavolo", i.e. "boardgames". Yes, the same term is used for the old-style boardgames, but this is not an issue. I also sometime call them "giochi nerd" ("nerd-games"): this might be instead confused with RPGs, but, again, that's not an issue.

As a former retail store owner, I actually like the term hobby games.   It references the stores that these games first got their American foothold in (hobby stores), and the kind of store they're most often found.
I'm not as big a fan of calling them eurogames or German boardgames because a large number of them don't have those origins any more (Ex.: Most of the games coming from Z-Man).
On the use of "modern boardgames": Although this has a nice ring to it, I feel that "modern" is subjective. Is something that's been around for 20 years "modern"?  Talisman, Illuminati, and Cosmic Encounter are certainly hobby games, but they're also about 25 years old.

I have experience with the games you cite. I'm a huge Illuminati fan. I own and pretty much loathe Cosmic Encounter, and got rid of Talisman when I was in college. "A bag of gold!" is still an expression in my family that means, "Thanks for nothing!" Sure, they're not Monopoly, but I would never describe any of them as 'modern'. Illuminati comes closest - it has the use-it-to-build-it-as-you-use-it mechanic you find in Puerto Rico or Agricola. And like 'modern art', the phrase can cover a significant period of time and reflect philosophy as well as chronology.

"Hobby games" is my favourite suggestion so far.  Currently on the site we're discussing the likes Werewolf, Race for the Galaxy and Bridge... none of these have boards and they by no means all come out of Europe!

Modern Boardgames
I was watching the excellent "[beyond Monopoly][1]" themed video from [Boardgames With Scott][2], when I heard him use this new (to me at least) term to describe our hobby. I liked it a lot and I'm going to start using it regularly. Here are some reasons why:

If you don't differentiate from regular old boardgames somehow, people think you mean Monopoly and Sorry.
Hobby Games doesn't quite capture it for me. Chess and Go at the very least are long-standing hobby games, neither of which is what I mean.
Eurogames / German Boardgames have a couple of problems.

It's not accurate any more - Lots of games are from the US now.
It sounds snobby and puts people off. Seriously, I've seen it.

I tend to call the games I enjoy as Euro Games. Whilst I appreciate that the origins of games are no longer purely european, the style and nature of these games definitely have evolved from the classic euro games, and have origins from UK, France and most predominantly Germany.
Although, your question is quite broad. Whilst the games I play are certainly in the Euro Game category, this site is for all board games, including the likes of monopoly, cluedo, pictionary and other younger audience games, but they certainly fall within the remit of this site. So I don't think you can categorise the whole site in any way other than saying Boardgames.
Boardgames to most people means Monopoly-esq games. But we know better in that it is the top of the taxonomy tree.
EuroGames/German Style/Modern boardgames means puerto rico / power grid style games, and is a subset of boardgames, and the ones most discussed in this site.

Boutique Boardgames
Boutique: a business that serves a sophisticated or specialized clientele
Considering the small print runs of the games we are talking about, isn't this the best definition?

Magic the atheling and Dominion can't really be called small print runs

Designer Boardgames
Since the games designer is featured proudly on the cover.
Since the games seem to have more thought devoted to the design (mechanics, theme, otherwise)

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/


text:
What to do about our low acceptance rate; or, are we asking too many open-ended questions?
I'm not trying to imply that the sky is falling, but I checked the Area 51 site for Board and Card Games, and we currently have an 84% answer rate.
For some reason, I thought that was our acceptance rate (reading is fundamental).  My real concern was the lack of accepted answers, so I did some counting.  There are:

142 total questions
8 closed questions

This give us 134 available questions, with only 43 accepted answers (I went page by page and counted them).  That's a 32% acceptance rate.
I have noticed that a number of the questions I have answered, as well as questions I have simply browsed, have been open for a few days.  This is in contrast with the couple-of-hours turnaround time I've seen at StackOverflow.
Yes, the site has only been up for a few days, but I'm wondering if we are asking too many open-ended questions, or questions that belong as a community wiki?  Or do you think that by the end of the week, we'll start seeing more answers accepted?  Are people just waiting to see if a better answer comes along?

It's only been a couple days.  82% seems pretty good to me.  I assume that many of the list questions will be CW once we have our own mods.

I don't see anywhere that mentions the acceptance rate on the Area 51 site. That 82% is the answer rate; that's how many questions have at least one answer with at least one upvote. The acceptance rate is much lower.

@Brian Campbell -- you're exactly right, I had a brainfart and misread that.  I've edited my question as such, and calculated the current acceptance rate.

We only have 84 users at this point and many of our questions are pretty niche.  I'm curious to see what the public beta looks like.

I think there are few issues at play here.
For one, the answer rate (the 82% you're quoting is the answer rate, not the acceptance rate; the percentage of questions that have at least one upvoted answer) will be a little low in the private beta, as lots of people ask questions on a variety of topics to probe what is on and off topic, and there is a somewhat more limited userbase who might not have the specific expertise in question. I suspect that will rise a bit as we close off-topic or bad questions, and as we go into the public beta and can widen our userbase a bit.
Now, the acceptance rate does seem to be a bit low, too. I've answered a bunch of questions, and none of those questions have had any answers accepted. Likewise, I've asked a few questions, and haven't accepted any answers on them. In some cases, we might need to just gently remind people to accept answers; on SO, I will frequently remind users that they should probably accept an answer that they found useful (I frequently see people post a comment saying "that's it, thanks!" without checking the checkmark). So, on questions that are clearly asking for a single answer, and in which there is at least one reasonable looking, upvoted answer, we should probably encourage users to accept those answers. Users will probably be reminded a bit more once we've had enough time for people's personal acceptance rates to start showing up; then people will see that they have acceptance rates of 0% or 10%, and be motivated to accept more answers.
One issue is that many questions on this SE are asking not for a single answer, but a list of answers. I've addressed these types of questions in another thread on meta; so far, it seems that people think these kinds of questions are OK, but not many people have chimed in yet. This type of question can't ever really have a single accepted answer; if there are 10 or 20 games which meet the criteria, then there's no reason to accept one over the other, unless you happen to have a very specific situation in mind (the very next game you buy, or the very next game you play with your niece).
A possible solution would be to make these sorts of questions community wiki, as I don't think community wiki questions are expected to necessarily have an accepted answer; but that's recently been disabled, except for moderators, and we don't have moderators yet.
tl;dr Go out and encourage people to accept more answers, and we need to figure out what to do with all of the questions for which a whole list of answers are a good response.
Here's a template for prodding people:

You might want to accept an answer for this question, if there's an answer that meets your needs. If not, I'd recommend asking for clarification in comments, or editing your question to be more specific, so people can edit their answers or write new ones that will better answer your question.

edit to add Oh! And another possible reason we're seeing this problem here is that for game recommendation questions, you can't just test out an answer to see if it works for you, as you can for a programming question on StackOverflow. Most of the time, to see if a game is good, you need to actually find some other players, or wait for your regular game night, convince them to play it, and then do so. It might be pretty hard to figure out in a timely manner if a game recommendation works for you.
I suspect, though, that many of the current recommendation threads are not because people are actually looking for a game to play in a particular situation that is likely to come up soon, but are intended as "example" questions to help start the community going, for which it's even harder to actually test and decide on which answer is best for the person asking the question.

I'm torn on the "What's the best game for X players" types of questions -- I feel they belong as a community wiki, but like you said, that feature is gone (which I completely disagree with, but that's another matter).  I appreciate the effort you put into your answer, and I think I am personally going to start poking people to accept answers.  I've even accepted one that I wasn't quite sure about, but is too narrow to be answered any time soon.

It's kinda inevitable, especially in the beginning. There are simply too many games that nobody except the asker knows. Maybe this problem will disappear when have a couple of thousand users.
Also, many questions are subjective, and don't lend themselves to a single accepted answer. I think that's OK. The acceptance rate isn't a sacred metric.

Yeah, I think a lot of the subjective questions should or will be converted to community questions. And, they'll be good resources for users to see what others think on a particular game, game type, or aspect of a game.

Encourage people to accept more answers.  As of writing this, I have answers on 10 different questions, NONE of which have accepted answers.  Since some board game questions are going to be for uncommon games, it could take longer to get answers.  I don't know when the answer acceptance rate statistics kick in during the beta process, but hopefully once those kick in, people will start accepting more answers.
To be a team player, I'm going to go accept answers on three questions I still have outstanding.  I had been hoping to see some more answers, but the one I've I've gotten so far are really good.  We want questions to be open long enough to get good answers.  I think once we enter the public wiki, the answer acceptance rate will pick up.

I agree, I'm hoping for more answers to my questions. Some questions are hard to accept an answer when there has ONLY been one answer.

Sometimes one answer is all that's need.  Questions that encourage multiple answers are better though.

+1, plus I think that often an inexperienced community can contribute to having a low acceptance rate.  It may just take time on the part of the people using this site.  Only the asker can accept an answer & sometimes it takes people a while to figure this out.


text:
Beta badges not visible with name
Because of the public beta, the beta batches are awarded. But I can't see them on the top row. They also don't appear with the username.
I see that they are visible with users already having a silver badge but not with other users.
Is this as designed or is it a bug?
Update
I got another badge today and it shows up. Maybe the beta badge is a bit shy.
Anyway, this one seems to be resolved.

I've noticed this also.  I wonder if it will show up after I earn another badge.

I got another badge today and it shows up. Maybe the beta badge is a bit shy.

I've got the same problem... my status bar at the top (and my Flair) only shows my copper badges (on the main site, not Meta) and not my Beta silver.

I'm still not seeing my silver badge beside my name.  Guess I just need to work on getting a new badge.

This is marked as status-completed now, but mine is still missing.

Mine showed up today.  Probably just need to update the cache somewhere along the way.

Mine appeared on the parent site once I had received another badge.
I assume as I haven't got another badge yet on the meta site, it's still missing here.

Nobody has a beta badge on Meta so I think there aren't any to get.

It appears when you get any notification, regardless of whether it's a badge or not.
I got mine when someone retagged one of my questions.
Edit:
Correction, I got awarded the badge, but my top row and Flair are still missing it.


text:
Problems with the CAPTCHA?
I got disconnected last night when I was trying to post an answer to a question, but the answer was saved, as it's appearing in the textarea when I go back to the question.
... unfortunately, every time I attempt to submit it, I get a 'hello fellow robot', and it claims it's a captcha, but I just sit and wait, and after a few minutes, it presents a box that says 'I'm a human being', but when I click the button, it sits and waits for a few minutes, then complains that I didn't give the correct response.
There is simply no CAPTCHA, so there's no way for me to give a correct response.
Is there any solution?  I've tried turning off my pop-up blocker, ECMAScript is enabled, etc, but the connections to 'http://api.recaptcha.net' keep timing out.

I added the bug tag.  One of the SO moderators will probably follow up within a day or two.  You could also ask this at meta.stackoverflow.com  That may result in a quicker answer.

Try this
https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/captcha
.. in a different web browser than you normally use (I recommend Chrome).
I suspect something in your browser or network configuration is blocking the recaptcha from working.

Strangely, it's working today ... I have no idea what might've been wrong, but I had tried multiple times over a 12 hr period before posting ... but it's working in Safari (what I had used), iCab, and Firefox


text:
Should the threshold for suggesting tag synonyms be lowered?
I believe the current rep threshold for suggesting tag synonyms is 2500. That's excessive for our current site, and I think aliases can be quite useful. Should we try to get the admins to lower the threshold for (the private, and maybe also the open) beta?
I suggest we try and form an opinion by voting for a "yes" and a "no" answer, which I'll create as community wiki so that I don't get any rep for the votes.

Typically (on other metas) people just up or downvote the question itself to indicate agreement; meta questions don't generate rep for exactly this reason (amongst others), so CW doesn't matter. Posting yes/no answers gives people multiple votes

I think after the first week or so we will have mods and they can begin the cleanup.

@Michael: makes sense. Won't do it again. I guess I can't easily take it back.

No, don't lower it.  This will be solved whenever we get some pro-tem Moderators.

Yeah, I think it's one of the first things pro-tem mods do (add synonyms and merge tags)

Yes, this would be a good idea.

No, this would be a bad idea.


text:
Big opportunity for BCG.SE? Snipe the recurring threads on BGG and answer them here beautifully?
I frequent the Race for the Galaxy and Dominion forums on BGG.
Both have some recurring questions that are often adequately answered, but which still pop up constantly.  Further, every time they are asked, they cause new discussion that says basically the same thing as the previous 10 discussions.  But individual posts are always missing some points, they degenerate into calling the OP a noob, etc.
For example, both using tokens for goods in RFTG and big money too effective in Dominion come up very frequently.
Is it okay to ask these questions here for the sole purpose of trying to produce one beautiful answer?

Yes, I think this is a good idea so long as your intent is honorable -- to create the one great canonical answer that everyone can find.
Be sure to give credit and links to sources, of course!

And don't plagiarize!

I think its accepted as good practice to post a question for the sake of posting an answer;  its typically considered "polite" to wait a bit between question-post and answer-post to give others a fair shot at the answer;  but you can certainly post your own, complete, beautiful answer to your own question.

I would further suggest that once we've given some reasonable period of time for anyone who's interested to offer their best attempt at consolidating the ample source material and we've separated the best answers with voting we should make the highest ranking answer community wiki.
Also, there's a Dominion big money question that would probably work for one of the two examples you cite.

One similar thing we can do is to make sure we revisit questions and edit them for clarity.
Questions can be edited to be more generic, so that they are worthwhile for a greater number of people.


text:
What's the appropriate way to debate a closed question?
Recently, Pat closed a question, someone put a comment on the question, asking why it was closed (but didn't vote to reopen) and I responded to the comment saying that I agreed, but also voted to re-open.  Pat said to take the discussion to meta, but I see no obvious way of referencing that question here.  What's the recommended process for this look like?

A reasonable workflow would be:

Create a new question here in meta, entitled something like

"Why was my question closed?"
"How can I fix this question so that it is acceptable?"
Preferably not, "OMG, teh m0ds are jerks"  :)

Include a link to the question being discussed.
Post a link to the meta discussion on the closed question.

You do not need to be the person who asked the original question to ask about the closing.
Doing it in meta provides a much nicer focal point for the discussion and encourage more people to contribute thoughts.  Once a question is closed, I'm guessing that many do not look at it any further.

Bit tricky for new users who do not have the reputation needed to post in meta.  Not a nice way to welcome them.  See it from their point of view: They ask a question about board games, it gets closed, they're told to take it to meta, they don't really know what meta is but they try, they get told that they don't have the rep needed to post in meta.  I'm guessing they go and never return.

@DanBeale How often has this happened?  Using the search it is pretty easy to figure out.  My initial impression is "very little".


text:
Tag Synonym Request
I'm so far away from even suggesting synonyms that I'm going to buck convention and start here...
Can someone please make elder-dragon-highlander and edh synonyms of commander?
Commander is the modern name and was probably adopted to avoid copyright issues with the Highlander movies (since both are focused on the tag "There can only be one")
Thanks

I'm moving the commander to mtg-commander.
We should avoid using generic terms as tags when we only want to represent a subset of a particular game.

https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms for those with enough rep to create/vote on tag synonyms.
At this point it looks like we're only talking about a few questions, so I'm not sure that a global synonym is required.  Can this be handled by just retagging the affected questions?

Don't have enough rep or I'd have already been there :-)  We are looking at a few questions but I think both terms are so ubiquitous  that retagging means committing to a lifetime of retagging.  Additionally most Magic the Gathering questions generally only carry 1 tag ... the MTG tag.  As the topic expands I'm certain we'll see more use.

While we're at it, just for brevity and convenience perhaps an [mtg] tag could be created as a nice synonym for [magic-the-gathering]?


text:
Tags: game-design vs. game-development
We have both of these tags floating around, with game-design having more questions.

Are they synonyms?
Are they related but distinct concepts? (If so, let's define game-development.)

My first impression is that game-development is the practical stuff related to creating a game that's not quite "design", such as printing or patent/copyright issues. I don't know how to succinctly describe that, though.

In the game design circles I've been in, anyway, game development is testing and refining a game design, something performed by the publisher, usually (though not always) in conjunction with the designer, after the game has been purchased.

It seems game design is very clear.  The issue you have is with the confusing definition of "Development" which could include design, but may not.
It seems like simply changing the tag from game-development to something clearer like game-manufacturing would solve the issue.

We also have a "Prototyping" tag, which seems like it could be a synonym of "game-manufacturing"

I feel like game-design could be for questions about game design, regardless of whether or not one is making a game. Don't gamers love to discuss differences in mechanics between one game and another? Game-development, on the other hand, could be geared toward answering questions specifically regarding producing a game, from concept to prototype to finished product. Protoyping could then theoretically be merged into game-development, but prototyping is a very specific part of the game-development process.


text:
Are computer Go questions on topic?
In the earlier Game of Go proposal, all computer Go questions were on topic, but I'm not sure if they are on BGSE, too.
Computer Go basically refers to two things:
Algorithms and knowledge related to writing computer Go software
Explicitly not using Go software. This includes for instance Monte Carlo, the SGF file format, a memory structure to store a goban state or using telnet to connect to IGS.
From my point of view, this case is clearly off topic and should be asked at, say, SO instead.
Practical use of computer Go programs and related research
Case 2 would be my main question. This consists of, for instance, playing games against GnuGo, using MoyoGoStudio for pattern search, android clients for Go servers, game theory.

I agree with not allowing questions on the creation of Go software here.
As to using it, that should be fine in the general case.  Go is clearly a boardgame, and as such, we allow discussions of computer implementations.
Questions should be about the game.  Questions specifically about the software, such as "How can I get GnuGo to run on my Windows 95 machine?" might be better off over at gaming.stackexchange.com

Yes, questions about problems installing or running a game would be on topic at Gaming. Questions about algorithms would be off topic at Gaming; better to check with SO or GameDev instead.

murgatroid pointed out that your "specifically about the software" point here appears to contradict the more recent version of this question. Mind editing to clarify? I think maybe you meant to refer to questions about aspects of the software that have nothing at all to do with the game, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I think we should allow some questions in your "Writing Go software" section, and most (or maybe all) questions in your "Use of Go programs" section.
For example I think some of these questions could be well answered by board game experts and might be on topic:

What features of Go make it resistant to Monte Carlo algorithms?
Are there any services to convert my paper Go records into the SGF file format?
Where can I find a repository of Go games/openings/josekis?

Also some questions that come up in Go software creation might actually be about the rules, strategy or analysis of the game, and so these would be on topic.
I would think questions which required in depth knowledge of software creation or artificial intelligence, and only a superficial knowledge of Go would probably be better asked elsewhere.
Generally I would think that questions that can be well answered by board game experts should be on topic here as long as they are related to board games.


text:
Game specific tags
Stackoverflow model disallow user from creating tags belove some quite high reputation level. But this particular site really need specific tags for more or less popular games. I would like to propose to introduce some tags proposing mechanism, because right now there are so many untagged questions and this number will be just rising.

why the downvote? If you don't like the idea then please explain why.

This is by design, and is unlikely to be implemented.
Less popular game tags can be saved by users with even zero reputation by asking a question about the same game that currently has an untagged status. Feel free to take up the mantle, just note in the question that it needs retagging, and please link to the other question about the same game so the tag isn't purged in 6 months.

how do I note? just leaving a comment?

@0lukasz0, You can leave a comment or just make it the last line of the question (since it will require editing anyway)

I think this is a reasonable concern. It seems likely to me that a new user will have a question about a game for which there is no tag, and may struggle to find the untagged tag.
Incidentally Arqade (the gaming stack exchange site) has got the auto-deletion of single use tags turned off: https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5379/3958

you cannot tag a question with untagged, the site will report an error box explaining as much. It is still a concern, because a user cannot create a question without a tag, but probably cannot find the proper tag (if the game doesn't exist), hopefully the will resort to mistaking instead of not asking the question.

@user1873 Thanks, I didn't know that. Also of interest is that you can't create tags from the mobile site (even as a user with enough reputation)


text:
Is "What are resources you'd wish you had seen when starting out?" too subjective/off-topic?
I'd like to ask a question about resources (like blog posts, advice, etc) that would be useful for newer Magic: The Gathering players looking to learn more about the game. (I have one player specifically in mind but I want to keep it generic in the spirit of StackExchange, of course.)
I would imagine it would be a community wiki like this question on StackOverflow.
I've read Good Subjective, Bad Subjective, but I'm still not entirely sure if it would be in the former category.
I think it would be great if there was a resource for new players to find information about intermediate M:tG concepts like card advantage, last responsible moment, signalling in draft, etc, but I'm not sure if everyone would agree if StackExchange is a good place for it.

If you are creating a question with the intent that it will be community wiki it is unlikely to be a successful question.  In fact I tend to close any question that has "this should be CW" or the like so it's great that you are asking in meta.
That said, I think the best approach is to figure out how to phrase a great subjective question to extract the information that you are looking for.  Think about what awesome answers to your question would look like.  It's unlikely to be an endless list of answers that each contain a link to one blog or column somewhere.  That leads to people voting on the link instead of the answer and quickly shifts into the "bad subjective" side of things.
Ideally you'd like an answer that contained something like this (forgive the lack of specifics, I don't keep up with Magic anymore)

First, read this tutorial series, it's five years old so keep in mind that some of the example cards might not be available any more but the series is still the best way for a beginner to get up to speed fast.
Then subscribe to a few blogs

Blog A updates every day with all the latest info about the current Magic scene.  You'll learn about upcoming sets, what's hot and what's not.

Blog B updates weekly or so.  Very deep strategical posts.  A beginner probably can't follow everything but will learn a ton.  This guy is a top tournament player and really knows his stuff

Blog C updates a few times a month erratically with really cool interesting deck suggestions.  They don't always pan out in tournament play but they explore interesting mechanics and are usually great decks to bust out with when playing with your friends.

Also, check out these two forums, the first is the largest  home of MtG players on the web, the second is smaller but a lot Of judges hang out there, if you have a tricky rules question, it is the place to ask it.

When you get an answer like that, all linked up, you have a good idea that the answerer probably knows his stuff.  If the answer is a link to a blog, the answerer might just have googled it right before posting the answer.


text:
When should I accept an answer?
So far, I have a 100% accept rate.  I think I might be slightly overreacting to some peoples' 40% or 50% rates.  I want to know if it's considered impolite (note the first comment) to accept an answer too quickly.  Also, is it ever appropriate just to never accept an answer?  When should I do that?

I don't think I can add much to the standard stackexchange answer except to emphasize that quickly accepting the first correct answer can lower the odds of someone writing a more thorough, thoughtful answer later.  In most cases I think waiting two days gives folks plenty of time to write that longer answer if they are going to.


text:
What is the appropriate level of criticism for a "bad" post on the site
I've struggled to learn the game, Puerto Rico, and several hours of "cramming" the various posts over the internet may have hurt, rather than helped.
As a learning tool, I tried to answer my own question from two years ago. What Makes Buildings Valuable In Puerto Rico?
The key point of my answer (which I got only after several tries), was:
"But large buildings interact with other buildings or other factors, to offer additional VPs. For instance, a guild hall offers four VPs and a large indigo plant two VPs. But if you own them together, you earn an extra VP for owning the guild hall plus the indigo plant (a production building). That's a total of seven instead of six VPs."
That, to me, addressed the key point of the question (about "interaction" effects), that the other, mostly excellent answer, had left out.
It's true that the earlier versions were less clear. But the criticism from one particular user began as follows:
"are you trying to pollute BG.SE with poor quality questions and answers... Providing lots of low quality questions/answers is a very slow way to build up reputation."
In the "..." was a more conventional critique about how this post was downvoted because it was redundant, factually incorrect, etc.
As I understand it, the purpose of commenting and downvoting is to point out errors, and encourage the OP to improve. That's something I welcome because I have an honest interest in learning the game. I did my best to improve that, and other posts critiqued by this user.
But was the first part of the critique using "pollute" appropriate for the site? It seems overly harsh to me.

Would you prefer I address the problem with this particular answer, or the "trying to pollute BG.SE with poor quality questions and answers"?

19 of your last 30 answers have zero or negative scores. That is why I said "pollute BG.SE"

@user1873: Why are you so heavy handed? Why not say soemthing like "Your answers appear to be be counterproducitve. 19 of your last 30 answers have zero or negative scores." Instead of using words like "pollute.

@user1873 - Could you explain what you mean by 'an 8% degradation in quality'? I've looked at the area 51 stats you linked, but I'm not connecting the dots.

@ire_and_curses, I need to revise that calculation, it was a poor off the cuff estimate. If you look only at the surge of questions/answers since Sept 14 (which is what first alarmed me), you will find that 80% of Tom's 10 answers are "bad". This only amounts to 8/49 of all questions since Sept 14 (an 11 day period) and a degradation of about 17% "bad" answers of all answers during that time period. If you instead extrapolate the 2.6 questions at 2.3 answers all the way to April, Tom's "bad" answers only amount to about 2%.

@TomAu, pollute was the right word in this instance. ("the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects:" this isn't English.SE, but I would argue that poor quality answers are harmful to the Q&A format.) I probably overreacted though, the stack exchange model is designed specifically to account for poor quality answers. They usually appear far down the page and are therefore less harmful than I was making out.

@user1873 You've convinced me very well that you were being honest. I don't think your intent was to be mean/personal attack-y/etc., but at first glance, others definitely did. Based on that, I do think you should give more thought to the "Be nice" guideline you quote in your answer.

@user1873 Tone is very hard to judge on the internet. If that comment had been left on one of my answers, I do think I would have been offended. Comments like "You seem to have a lot of recent posts with low/negative score", and "Are you trying to pollute BG.SE with poor quality questions and answers" may not differ much in meaning or even intent, but in tone they are very different and they would probably be received very differently.

@user1873: Past comments by Tom suggests that he is trying to build the site, and in particular is attempting to build the visibility of certain tags such as bridge. This is an admirable goal. However, maybe Tom is trying a bit too hard to be active and contributory. We butt heads occasionally, but I appreciate his presence on this site as well as others.

@PieterGeerkens, I don't have any issue with Tom trying to improve visibility of the bridge tag. I only commented on his [tag:Puerto-Rico] and Catan answers that recently I felt were lacking (and a 80%-50% bad answer rating is troubling). I have already commented that I over reacted. I do not have any issue with his presence on this site or others.

I agree that personal attacks like that are uncalled for, whether to a new user or a long established one.  People should criticize the post, not the poster.  If a user shows patterns of making the same mistake over and over, its fine to point that out, but I don't think there is any reason to accuse someone of intentionally providing low quality posts, regardless of what the vote totals might be.

@user1873 The comments about building reputation are irrelevant, unless you assume that he is adding posts solely to earn reputation.  That, combined with implying that someone's contributions is intentional "pollution" constitutes a personal attack to me, since you're suggesting a lack of good faith effort which I don't think is backed up by the evidence.  It looks to me like Tom is trying to contribute to the site to the best of his ability.  You're welcome to comment on the quality of those contributions, but not to imply that they're intentionally poor.

Appropriate behavior is covered on the help page. The proper behavior is to downvote, add comments indicating what specifically is wrong, and edit and improve the existing answer. I did everything but the last, because I didn't think the answer was salvageable.

Be honest.
Above all, be honest. If you see misinformation, vote it down. Add comments indicating what, specifically, is wrong. Provide better answers of your own. Last but not least, edit and improve the existing questions and answers! By doing these things, you are helping keep Stack Exchange a great place to share knowledge of our craft.
While you’re doing all of those things, we also require that you...
Be nice.
Civility is required at all times; rudeness will not be tolerated. Treat others with the same respect you’d want them to treat you because we’re all here to learn, together. Be tolerant of others who may not know everything you know, and bring your sense of humor.
Please note that expletives are not allowed. If you use expletives on this site, you may be issued a warning or a suspension.

As for the other criticism related to "polluting BG&CG.SE with poor quality questions and answers," it is backed up by the fact that your last 19 of 30 answers have zero positive votes or negative scores. The comment was brought on by my honest assessment of your most recent contributions. Over the last 10 days, you provided 10 answers and 8 (80%) of those answers have a zero or negative score. This rate of "bad" answers was worrisome to me. After looking into it further, I came up with the following information. Since May 2011, you have 185 Answers, 63 Answers with zero/negative score, with net vote total of 277. This gives you a "bad" answer average of 34%,  and an average score per answer of approximately 1.5 votes/answer.
   |Jan|Feb|Mar|Apr|May|Jun|Jul|Aug|Sep|Oct|Nov|Dec|
---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
'11|   |   |   |   | 9 |50 | 6 |14 | 6 | 3 | 2 |10 | Total
Bad| - | - | - | - | 0 |18 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
'12| 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 0 | Total
Bad| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
'13| 3 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 1 |12 | - | - | - |
Bad| 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 8 | - | - | - |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

All that being said, I now think that this isn't a real problem that I need to discourage. The stack exchange sites are designed specifically to solve the problem of poor quality answers reducing the signal to noise ratio for people looking for answers to their questions. Poor quality answers will always (with proper voting) appear at the bottom of the list of all answers where they will do little harm. So, I retract my initial "polluting the site" with poor quality answers, please continue to provide whatever answers you think are best.

I have not looked at the answers referenced, but in general I do not think 0 score answers should be considered 'bad'. How different would your calculations be if you left out 0 score answers.

@ColinD, that would drop the recent string of bad answers from 80% to 45%, which i would still find troubling. The overall rate would drop from 35% to 5%.


text:
Should I "move" my chess and poker questions to the board and games site?
I believe that chess and poker questions would ultimately find a larger audience here on the board and card games (BCG) site, with the larger number of viewers more than making up for the "experts" that do (or don't) populate the other sites just because they are separate.
Why do chess and poker have separate sites even though they are clearly "board and card games?"
As you can see from the above Q and A, the management of the Stack Exchange disagrees with me. That's their prerogative.
What are MY prerogatives? Should I "vote with my feet," by asking future chess and poker questions on this site instead? More to the point, is there a way to move the existing questions I have on those sites to this one?
Apparently one reason why "Magic the Gathering" (MTG) was repatriated to this site, was because there were as many or more MTG questions here on BCG than on the "separate" MTG site, even though it was (at the time) actually larger than the chess and poker sites. Would moving one's questions here from the other sites help to tip the balance?

As one of the temp mods at Chess.SE, I think your use of scare quotes when referring to the "experts" there is both off-base and needlessly insulting. I'm impressed by the chutzpah required for you to pass judgment on e.g. Andrew Ng, Dag Oskar Madsen, Halvard, Andrew (mod), dfan and RemcoGerlich, just to name those who jump to mind as active examples of quite strong chess players who combine great communication skills with the effort and desire that's required to craft answers that will be useful and informative to players who are weaker or more novice than themselves.

@EdDean: "It's all relative." The above-mentioned are experts relative to the Chess site. But I was wondering if, in the absence of a Kasparov or at least a Seiwiran, whether we couldn't enlarge the pool of comparable people by joining the larger site. This was an opinion, and I stand by it. But I did not intend it to be a "judgment."

There is no way to move existing questions.  I don't see any point in asking a moderator of the Chess or Poker sites to move chess or poker questions here.
Those sites exist and unless a decision is made by SE management to close one of them, questions won't be migrated.
You can ask new questions on whichever site makes the most sense to you.  We aren't the only sites facing these questions.  For example, a generic unix question could conceivable be on topic at many different SE sites.
Ask your questions where you feel comfortable doing so or where you think you'll get the best answers. You don't need to be exclusive either.  We'll let you date other SE sites :)

You can choose to ask those questions here or in the poker and chess sites, that's your prerogative. But I doubt you can move already existing questions, you would have to flag your questions and ask a moderator to move them, but that would most likely be declined.
MTG wasn't repatriated because it had less MTG related questions that this site: the MTG proposal wasn't even allowed to start beta and was closed.


text:
(How) Can One Break Up A "Broad" Question So That it's NOT Overly Broad?
The following question was closed as overly broad:
https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/what-unique-mechanics-have-you-seen-in-games-includes-house-rules
I thought this question had potential, but agreed with the closing because it was a multifaceted question that would draw too many, and long-winded answers.
In my opinion, there were actually about three (give or take) separate questions buried under the one framework.
One question might have been, "What mechanics, including house rules, have you seen in games that create scarcities, and therefore keep them tight?" (With examples)
Another question might have been, What mechanics, including house rules, have you seen in games that reduce complexity and therefore speed up the game?" (With examples)
A third question might have been, "What features, including house rules have you seen in games that create exciting asymmetry while keeping "randomness" within a manageable level?
Can a question of this sort be meaningfully broken up into manageable pieces as described above? Or is it necessary to start from scratch?

It's good to break the question apart, but even the smaller sub-questions, it's unclear what the actual problem is that you're trying to solve with these sub-questions.

Apparently I've made some progress, but even the "fix" needs further work.

These seem like game design questions to me, aka http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/game-design ? So you're trying to design a game, and you want to achieve a certain effect.. maybe drill into why you want that effect and ask for concrete examples with justification.

@Jeff Atwood: I wouldn't quarrel with that. Perhaps the question(s) could be "migrated" (in some form) to the other site.

I think you have to look to the FAQ for assistance with questions like this.
Scoping is handled by

Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

You could imagine a book being needed to answer the original question, it is too broad as many have noted.

You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.

It isn't clear what problem your proposed three questions are trying to solve.  If they were posed as written, quite possibly they would be closed.  Perhaps the full question would help specify the problem, and limit the number of answers.  Questions that are answered by an open-ended list just aren't a good fit here.

If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here. However, if your motivation is “I would like others to explain ______ to me”, then you are probably OK.

Further explanation.  We're looking for questions, not discussions.  There are plenty of great forums out there that would be happy to host discussions.  This site does not exist to compete with them, instead it complements them by providing a better system to resolve questions.
If you've ever tried to find the answer to a subtle question on a forum, you know how much better StackExchange is.
Ever read 5+ pages of back and forth discussion about one rule point and still have no idea what the right answer is?

OK, I may have addressed the "broadness" issue, but there may have been others, like clarity and relevance that I didn't address.


text:
Are Some Games Too Elementary to Be Considered on the Site?
I'm talking about games that could be euphemistically classified as "children's games."
This is a reference to this question, which appeared on the site, and which I helped to close.
Russian Roulette Alternative?
Technically, it can be played with cards or dice. But it was about how to simulate the "randomness" of Russian roulette, and how to produce a "bad outcome." As such, it doesn't seem very challenging or interesting to most members of the site.
Another example would be tic-tac-toe. It "could" be a board game, but there are only nine possible moves between two players, and (with best play) it trivially results in a draw.
There's no reason we should allow questions about such "games" on the site, is there? And, to clarify the point, I'm NOT talking about Candyland or other genuinely challenging games (that an adult might enjoy playing) even if they were meant primarily for children.

I was worried this was about Candy Land. Glad you're not so bitter...

@shog9: This was an example of the community working with a mod to close a question. Something like three community members, and a mod for the "fourth and fifth" vote.

I've won many games of tic-tac-toe, I'm not sure it's the best example of a trivial game.  Snakes and ladders on the other hand is definitely a board game, but the outcome is just as random as russian roulette (assuming randomized starting players).

It was partly bad wording on my part. Today, I would word the question as something like, "are there "elementary" games that are unlikely to generate good site questions?" That would leave open the possibility of a game variant, or a brilliant observation.

Children's games are fine.
We have questions on candy-land and pokemon as well as some tags that may cover similar games like kids and family-games.
As long as the game meets the criteria set forth in our FAQ, they are fine.

Be playable on or around a table
Have objective rules of play and win conditions
Offer dynamic challenges, either through other players, randomization, or both
Be playable by hand, by human players implementing all of the rules

Of course the question must also be a valid question for this site.

I didn't mean TRUE "children's games," which may be genuinely challenging. I was using a euphemism for games I considered overly simple like tic-tac-toe or "Russian roulette." I thought long and hard about voting to close, but decided that the roulette game (and similar constructs) was too trivial for the site. You (and others) agreed.

I think Poker is a silly and trivial game, I'd much rather be talking about things like Caylus, but I'm not judgmental!  Games are games, they come in all different levels of complexity, let's allow people to enjoy what they enjoy.

@the - I confess I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with me or not after reading your comment.

@Pat: Sorry - I should have made it clear that that was a response to Tom's comment, I was definitely agreeing with you!  Just because one person deems game A "interesting" and game B "overly simple" - what difference does that make?  If people enjoy, and have valid questions, about game B, I'm all for them using the site.

@the thanks for clarifying!

@thesunneversets If poker were so trivial, I'd be a millionaire.

@ghoppe I know, I know, it's a good game and very hard to master!  My somewhat hazy point was that, just because a game's mechanics don't inspire or interest me very much personally, it doesn't mean that I should campaign to keep them off the site.  Perhaps a more appropriate example would have been the current crop of Candyland questions...

I think non-lethal Russian roulette is like the chain-letter question about "travel Scrabble": there isn't really a "win" condition. It seems to be more of an activity than a game. (There is, I suppose, also an argument that the name of the activity could be considered offensive to some people.)
Standard tic-tac-toe is simple enough that it's difficult to picture a question of any depth about it (there has been some discussion about whether trivial questions are acceptable) ... but there are variants of tic-tac-toe that are not so simple. If someone asks a question about tic-tac-toe on a 4x4 board, we can always go back to the FAQ and determine whether or not it's a valid question. We don't necessarily have to decide in advance.

You seem to understand why I raised the question.

Sure there's a win-condition.  The last player to roll a 6 on the die being passed around wins.  Yes, it's the simplest game imaginable but we're talking about games for children here.  It's no worse than Snakes & Ladders.  You could even argue that recent award-winning games like Dixit have simpler (core) mechanics.  I agree that there are very few interesting questions that can be asked about Russian Roulette, but not that we should forbid those questions, should they arise.

@thesun, I'm not sure there are questions about Snakes and Ladders that would be valuable here either. I'm not saying I'd vote to close every question about either game, but I'd have to see an example of a good question about one before I'd believe it existed. Some games are simple enough that it's going to be very difficult to ask a meaningful question about one.

@Dave: I just think we can afford to close questions because they're not meaningful when they're asked; as opposed to making rules saying "all questions on simple games must be automatically closed, because they aren't meaningful".

@tom I'd say a few questions like this can be tolerated so long as they are on topic; if the site is overrun with them, then that would be a different matter.

@Dave There's plenty of potentially good questions about Snakes and Ladders - the wikipedia page is crammed with interesting facts that I didn't know before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_and_Ladders

@tttppp, I don't know that there are "plenty" of them: a question about the origin would allow someone to post a link and summary of that Wikipedia content, but there aren't going to be many questions about game play/rules, and none at all about strategy. We might get another Markov-chain question, which would be fun, but that's about it. Again, we don't have to decide in advance. If someone posts a good question, great, but it'll be less likely with that game as a topic than it would be for some other game.

@Dave Ok - I may have exaggerated there!  I was just surprised how much I didn't know about such a simple game :-)

@tttppp, I agree about the interesting information ... that's part of the challenge with a site like this. There's obviously a ton of stuff out there, we just have to make sure it fits the SE model well. (Maybe if we can eventually get the site to go live, Things You Didn't Know About Games could be a topic for some blog posts.)


text:
Can a "Hook" Make an Otherwise "Broad" Question Narrow Enough to Answer?
Early in my participation on this site, I asked the following question:  Why Do People Use "Precision" Bidding in Bridge? which was deemed barely acceptable (not closed). A more seasoned person on the site was kind enough to point out to me that the redeeming feature of the question was: "I was taught that "higher points meant higher bids, a rule that precision blatantly violates." That shifted the focus from the SYSTEM itself (very broad) to this one FEATURE of the system (much narrower).
Today, someone asked a similarly broad question: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/4816/what-are-the-benefits-and-drawbacks-of-this-bidding-system  I considered voting to close it, but instead decided to propose two fixes: 1) ask for the hand in question so we could discuss the hand, rather than the system, (which the OP provided), and 2) added a "last line" (since rolled back) that said that such a system essentially started bidding at the "two" level, by using a "forcing" one.
Was the original question overly broad? If yes, did the provision of the particular hand narrow the question sufficiently to be answered? Did the proposed "last line" sufficiently narrow the question by providing a "hook," (the feature of the "two" level bidding, as opposed to the whole system)?

In theory I have no objection to the addition of a "hook" to improve one of my questions - in this particular case I felt the hook contained inaccurate information which would have taken the question in a direction I didn't want it to go!  I agree that the addition of the hand was a good idea: while it wasn't specifically relevant to my question, it provided some very useful context that could have been useful in formulating an answer.

I think any modification to a question still needs to address the OP's problem, whatever it may be: even if I would vote to close a question as it stands, and if I thought I could edit the question to keep it open, I think it's the OP's right to roll back my edit and explain what it doesn't address.
With respect to this question, I voted to close not because I feel the topic is too broad, but because even if the question is narrowed, I feel it is still asking for opinions. I looked at the link that Aryabhata provided, and (keeping in mind that the link is to a forum, where discussion is accepted and encouraged) saw that comments there focused on what people liked and didn't like about the system, answers that would frame the question as subjective here. More importantly, answers like that really provide no way of knowing whether or not strengths we see would be benefits for the OP or others in similar positions.
A more focused alternative, I think, would be something like "My partner and I usually use Acol, but we have problems with (some specific types of) hands or contracts. Would Fantunes help us address those issues?"
I see this as similar to a discussion we had earlier on meta; this answer by Pat and the resulting comments are what I have in mind. I would like to see questions like this become questions that address the OP's concerns with answers that are supported with specific documentation or first-hand experience; I'm just not sure how to do that.


text:
Is A Question With a Clear, Objective, Expert Answer Likely NOT to be a "Bad Fit" For the Site?"
A few days ago, one of my questions on overcalls in bridge was closed by a moderator, apparently for being "subjective."
What are rules for an overcall that have wide acceptance?
When this happened, I reviewed the entries on the internet that I had consulted. Their generally vague and confusing discussions 1) reminded me of why I had asked the question, and 2) seemed to support the moderator's decision to close the question.
Several days later, I stumbled (after trial and error) on this answer.
http://www.jazclass.aust.com/bridge/br14.htm
It seemed to meet all the requirements of a good Stack Exchange answer: 1) It was "objective" insofar as it not only described the requirements for an overcall but put them into a formula 2) "expert," insofar as it was not a typical "wiki" article, but apparently part of a book and 3) clear, insofar as it created a "light bulb" moment in my head. I would have gladly accepted an answer that was a takeoff on this post as "authoritative."
The question was closed because someone apparently honestly believed that an objective answer based on "facts, references, and specific expertise" would be hard to come by. I have, in fact, found such an answer. Is this grounds for reopening the question?

I would say yes, though I know nothing about bridge, so I'm not completely sure.

I don't agree that the link you gave is expert standard.
First it clearly says intermediate lesson (if you go to the top page).
Second, it suggests determining the suit quality by adding the length and number of honours which reeks of non-expert bridge.
Third, it does not discuss Lebensohl (or like) which is a common expert defense system when partner doubles opponents preemptive bids for take out.
The fact of the matter is overcalling is subjective (matter of style as they say), there are hands where there will be wide disagreement between experts in USA and experts in Europe on whether to overcall or not etc.
And really, Michael Furstner seems to be an unheard of name. I found no playing record which will confirm his expert status and the fact that he has an online book says nothing.
Besides it seems that the question itself is phrased in such a way as to elicit different opinions, making it subjective by nature.

I would add that the linked article includes several references to quality suits, and as we've already seen, that's not exactly an objective measure itself.

It seems to me (from this and other questions), that you're misreading the nature of bridge.  There is no "clear, objective, expert" answer to "What do I bid with this hand?".  If it were "What does American Standard say I should bid with this hand, assuming Pass from RHO?", then it would probably reach the standard for SE sites, but it's still not Objectively answerable; your bid should be affected by the vulnerability and whether you need a good result or are happy with an average (and probably will be affected by your estimate of your partner's and opponents' abilities).
On the other hand, if you asked "What is the reason you can overcall with a weaker hand than you need to open?" I'd say that's a fair question (although not one I'd be inclined to answer; you really need to read a book on your system).

Actually, I edited the question. http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/3661/whats-the-rationale-for-a-two-honor-requirement-for-an-overcall-suit-vs-an-o. The gist of it is now why you need a suit headed by two honors for an overcall, whereas you can get by with one (sometimes zero) in your suit for an opening bid. On the other hand you need fewer points for an overcall. Maybe one requirement is a "substitute" for the other?

@Tom: No, you still don't get it.  It's not about scientific rules which can be justified with a computer; it's about what bid will give you the best score.  A system works because (if done right) there is a reason for each feature. But if you and your partner dislike overcalling with a weak pointcount, change it and see whether your results get better or worse.  A site like this can't properly explain features of American Standard, because it is a system, and a proper explanation would be booklength. But whether length "substitutes" for strength: that's not even a sensible question.


text:
Is "Experience" at Least Somewhat Authoritative on This Site?
I made an assertion in a post What Makes Buildings Valuable In Puerto Rico? that "many" players win with such and such a strategy, in a particular game which seemed at least plausible to me (a beginner). Whereby a better, more experienced player challenged me by saying "what is your source?"
"My source," I answered, was your post on how you were beaten by this strategy. That's what inspired me to explore its merits.
Board and card games are (mostly) "chance" phenomena, unlike mathematical phenomena, which is to say that you won't come up with the same result every time, even if you play the same way every time (ok, you would in "deterministic" games like chess.)
Given this fact, is it true that "expertise" is worth less in games than in some other endeavors? And can one instead rely more on "experience" in making game judgments?

Generally the strategy here is to provide either

a link with data behind it that acts as a citation, e.g. "based on this link which shows an analysis of 500 Puerto Rico games.."
specifics of experience that go into some detail, e.g. "in our Puerto Rico gaming group, which has been playing regular games every Thursday since 2003, we see that..."

In other words, "back it up"... with something concrete that is reasonably convincing, other than 'cause I said so. :)

Ok, that's helpful.


text:
Should Moderators Be Able to Close Questions Unilaterally?
There's no doubt in my mind that some questions on this site need to be closed. I'm also convinced that we have a "pretty good" closing mechanism, whereby five users can close a question. This mechanism is likely to get better as more people get the 500+ reputation needed to vote to close or reopen.
To fill these gaps, and to move the process along, we also have moderators. That's a good thing. I'm all for giving moderators "supervoting" privileges, under my proposal, three ordinary votes. But I'm not willing to give one five, because I don't think one person, even a moderator, should have UNILATERAL closing privileges.
As I see it, there could be two ways to close a question. The first is when TWO members of the community vote to close. Then a mod comes along and completes the closure with a triple vote instead of waiting for three more from the community. End of story.
The second type of closure could be initiated by a moderator, followed by two additional votes from the community. It would highlighted as a "proposal to close" and would state the moderator's reasons. The proposal would remain open for up to 48 hours to attract two more close votes from the community, or conversely, vote to re-open. This would also give the questioner a "notice," plus an opportunity to fix the question. At the end of 48 hours, it would be re-evaluated as discussed in the closing paragraph.
As a community member, I would likely suppport a moderator his merits. In this example for instance, https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/4061/what-is-a-good-place-to-buy-board-games-in-new-york I didn't exactly vote to close, but did raise a question about its merits (since I'm relatively new to the site).  I would certainly have contributed one of two votes toward a moderator initiative to close this question.
So what would happen after 48 hours? At that time, the close-reopen votes be tallied. To tip the balance, a SECOND moderator could close the question with three additional votes (six in total), unless there were two or more "reopen" votes from the community (which would reduce the tally to minus 4). I understand that there are two types of moderators, those drawn from the community, and those drawn from the site itself. Ideally the two closing moderators would have one drawn from each group.
Your thoughts?

This has previously been discussed in detail on meta.stackoverflow.com. See Moderators closing, moving etc. questions - autocracy vs. democracy ?

But I'm not willing to give one five, because I don't think one person, even a moderator, should have UNILATERAL closing privileges.

Why not? Would you rather moderators unilaterally deleted inappropriate questions? Or would you restrict that too...
We leave moderator abilities fairly wide-open so that they are well-equipped to handle whatever situation comes up. Everything they do is logged, and most of their actions are visible to some or all of the larger community. We trust their discretion, and trust the community to keep them honest.
It's really nice when moderators don't have to do most of the moderation. But this requires a healthy, active community of voters - and it's not unusual to see sites where getting two user votes with a moderator vote is rare. Shrugging our shoulders and letting the site descend into ruin waiting for enough users to take an interest in moderating is a recipe for disaster.
If you feel a moderator - or 5 normal users - have made a bad call, say something! Bring it up here on meta. Frank, open discussion tends to be a lot more effective than increasingly complicated voting systems, especially when getting users to vote is already difficult.

I said that a moderator could START the process with three votes, rather than waiting for the community. And that if the community is silent, the question could be closed after forty-eight hours by a SECOND moderator.

@Tom: so immediately, you need at least two people to handle every question that needs to be closed. Two people minimum, no matter what the circumstances. Moderators need only be involved when the community can't or won't respond in a timely manner - what justification do you have for making it more difficult to do their jobs?

This July 4th, we are celebrating a government "of the people, by the people, for the people," that will hopefully "not perish from the earth." Yes, two people, which can be two moderators.

@Tom: and in these United States, we implemented this ideal via a representative democracy: individuals acting on behalf of many. You may vote for your local sheriff, but once in office he need not wait for your explicit approval before taking action.

@Shog9: Is there a process to remove moderators once they've been voted in?  Last time I checked, in these United States, we can recall people we think are not voting in our best interests.

@power - see the last paragraph of his answer.  Speaking up is the way to go.

This won't be changed as the moderator abilities are identical throughout the StackExchange network.
Dont forget that regardless of how a question is closed it only takes 5 votes from the community to reopen.

In my opinion, a recurring problem on all SE sites is the presence of questions that do not meet the established guidelines for quality. A proposal that increases the amount of time that substandard content is open and available is not something I would support without a strongly persuasive argument.
I'm not sure that argument is present here. I may be missing something, but the point here seems to be "I don't like how this works." I don't see a reason why the current system is hurting the site or how the proposed solution will help the site.
In the absence of a compelling argument, I support the current system.

There is a sense among some (myself included) that questions should be closed with some "help" from the community.http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/319/are-our-moderators-being-too-aggressive That is, if 2 two community members vote to close, a moderator could expedite the process with a "+3." Or a moderator could start the close process, and get two more community votes (not 4 more). But ideally, it should be all community, or community plus mod, in a pinch, two mods, not one single person.

@Tom, I would disagree with your assertion: I think ideally, users would take advantage of existing features to help guide moderators' decisions. There are many, many requests across meta sites that are basically saying "Give me another way to do what is already possible." In your case, you can ask questions on meta to see if you are gauging the support of the community properly. If you are, moderators can learn from those questions, and if not, you can learn from the community ... neither case requires a change to the Stack Exchange system.

While I think the moderators should be able to close questions unilaterally, I like the fact that they can still be voted 'reopened' (unlike deletions in which the community has no power).
What's critical to the process is holding them accountable by giving them feedback through Meta and flagging.  Everyone makes mistakes, and there are hard calls to make, so any input should be appreciated.