How is the community doing? [2021] [duplicate]

Question

Ok, no points for guessing why last year's slipped, but we'd like to get back to doing this.

We, the elected moderators, wanted to take a minute to check in and see how the community feels things are going on the site.

This community check-in has been done for the last three years (ignoring 2020), and it was very helpful. As such, we'd like to share our thoughts and also get your feedback on what is going well and what we could improve. The process is modeled heavily on previous years', but for everyone's benefit:

How this specific Q&A is run so that we get good value out of it

One clear premise per answer

1. We'll post some of the things we've done/observations we have/things we think still need improvement. Please share your thoughts as well! Make sure to note whether you think the thing you're writing about is an improvement, a problem, or some mix of the two (one person might see the same change as bad that you see as good, or vice versa)...

2. Post only one kind of thing per answer, so that when people upvote/downvote based on whether they agree or not, it's more clearly actionable. If you write an essay about 4 different things, it's not going to be clear what part(s) people agree or disagree with and thus it becomes difficult to act on that feedback. You can, of course, contribute multiple answers.

3. Upvote or downvote the answers based on your agreement with whether you see that thing happening and whether you concur with the answer's premise (that it's good or it's a problem). (In other words, if someone says "We get too many new users and I hate them," you would upvote if you agree, and downvote if either you don't think we get too many new users or if you don't hate them.)

No long comment threads

1. If you disagree with an answer, post your own answer; don't argue in comments. If you post more than one comment on an answer, you should consider whether having that discussion in a comment thread here is useful at all. We're interested in overall community sentiment as shown by votes, not so much that one person is so irritated they post 10 comments.

2. This post isn't the place to workshop solutions - if a particular problem gets a lot of votes, we should open a new meta question to do justice to that issue. Solutions hidden in a comment thread on one of these answers can not be clearly vetted and voted on, so they will tend to remain undone.

As usual, the Code of Conduct, which we’d still like to summarize as Be Nice, applies to meta as well as the main site.

You may strongly disagree with other users or with the mods or whoever, but we trust that you can find ways to express what you like or don't like without being hostile or insulting to others. Focus on actions, rather than characterizing people.

While we may have thoughts on things to bring up, in the interest of actually getting this started they're not gonna be here right away (read: we didn't want to delay this further in order to get those written). Hopefully others have noticed them too, and can beat us to it as well as bring up things we haven't picked up on.

Answer 1

We seem to be closing questions we wouldn’t have before, for reasons we wouldn’t have closed a question for before

It seems to me that a lot of questions that would, in the past, have been deemed fine—and would likely have received perfectly-fine answers—are getting closed.

Specifically, more often than in the past, I see comments claiming that votes to close have been cast due to minor violations of some policy or another, rather than substantive issues with the question that prevent it from being answered well within the site’s format. Often, when I see such questions, I see nothing in the question that prevents it from being answered, and such comments both don’t point me in the direction of something that I should consider, and also give me the impression that the closure was incorrect.

Even if there are also substantive issues with the question that mean it should be closed, such comments make it more difficult to review the question for serious issues and make it harder to moderate the site.

Answer 2

We have become D&D (-ish) SE

Right now, of the 50 latest questions, only two are not about D&D or D&D clones (D&D 5e and 3.5e, PF 1e & 2e). That is 96% D&Dish.

It's been that way in the past but I think we all hoped it would be a hype phase after launch. But it's way past launch now.

For me that's sad because there are so many other systems out there and reading questions about them is sometimes the way that I get interested.

It seems the effect is maybe self-reinforcing. Good answers attract more questions of that kind. A Catch-22.

I don't know how to solve it, but I see this kind of one-sided eco-system as a problem.

Answer 3

The Don't Guess the System policy is still an issue.

The don't guess policy discussion has gone to ground after resurfacing in spring of 2020 but I think it continues to be a divisive issue behind the scenes (how can a topic with that kind of answer, comment, and view load not be?) and opinion may be shifting.

The last major update to that meta, in April of 2020, stated that the highest rated answer indicated that the policy should not be reverted. Since that April update, an answer expressing the opposite opinion has moved into first place, though only barely.

While the "maintain the policy" crowd had more answers (4 to 2 by my count) and won the early voting on the issue in that latest question, it seems to me that a great many "change the policy" people simply decided it wasn't worth their while to write an answer, voted their opinion, and moved on. Or perhaps I'm projecting.

In light of the fact that about 9 out of 10 questions on the RPGSE are about D&D and nearly 43% are about D&D's 5th edition specifically, I foresee this continuing to be an issue until such time 6th edition is released...and then we'll probably have the same discussion again.

Answer 4

Our community is continuing to struggle with the terms "policy" and "guideline."

We have different community members with incongruent definitions of these terms, and these terms and their application is an ongoing source of conflict between these groups of people.

Answer 5

Meta continues to increase in toxicity

This is a follow-up to my other answer, but I'm watching other answers come in and the reactions within comments and it feels like I need to add this.

We are not treating each other well. We are treating Meta as a place to rant and try to push opinions onto others. It isn't healthy. And it is getting worse.

I'm not sure if it's toxicity from main interactions coming to meta or from meta to main.

But either way, the toxicity with which we deal with each other needs to be addressed somehow. We're all taking things personally rather than through the lens of are we trying to help people and are we succeeding (without making assumptions about what it takes to succeed.)

Answer 6

Not following D&D questions makes it difficult to be in the loop on site consensus

The way I see it, the community mind is composed of conversations. Those conversations happen in chat, on meta, and in mainsite comments. It's through these conversations we collaboratively evolve an understanding of how to operate the site. Most of the evolving discussion occurs in mainsite comments. Big things get brought to meta, but the months of discussion and evolution prior to a meta about a topic occur on mainsite.

Most of that discussion happens on D&D 5e questions. They're about 90% of our activity and contain at least 90% of the ongoing site conversation.

I don't understand or have an interest in D&D 5e, so I don't follow its questions. I can't do much use there, and they don't have much value to me, so there's not much point in me visiting them. But 90% of our site conversation is happening there—and it's conversation I don't see!

Back when I played D&D 4e and it was the latest version of D&D, this wasn't the case. I had a near-encyclopedic knowledge of nearly every site incident and the past and current community consensus on almost any topic. When we moved on toward D&D 5e, I noticed that knowledge declining. When I was a moderator I at least had my attention brought to almost anything significant going on, but I was still aware I wasn't as in the loop as my D&D-playing-and-answering peers. Now none of those things are going on for me.

Right now, I don't get to see our site conversations evolve. I have almost no visibility into where our “don't guess the system” policy discussions are at, or into several issues I see brought up on this meta (e.g. lack of trust, the policy vs guidance discussion). I've only got the visibility I've caught from my activity in chat.

This matters because site curation decisions are nevertheless being made that affect me and the parts of the site I do pay attention to. When meta decisions are made, they are usually made affecting every kind of question from every game, but those meta decisions are predominantly informed by activity in D&D questions.

Not playing D&D 5e myself, I have less influence over those curation decisions, and I'm less informed when site issues arrive at meta. I feel like participation in D&D 5e is an entry ticket without which I am disenfranchised from significant, meaningful engagement and influence in site curation policy, and from affecting the decisions that in turn affect every part of the site including the parts I participate in. I feel this means I and other non-D&D players are further removed from meaningful participation in the ongoing site conversation, leaving it more-than-90% dominated by that D&D 5e entry ticket.

Answer 7

There might be a lack of trust within the community

I'm worried about the community in that our pursuit for curatorial agreement is herding us into corners rather than bringing us together.

Each time an issue comes up regarding something that has multiple camps it seems that each camp is only interested in presenting their opinion. Much like elsewhere on the internet, the desire for bridging, compromise, and agreement is less important than being right.

And we have lots of views here about what is right.

Rather than trying to convince others that you are right (or telling other that they are wrong), why don't we start with the basic idea that the vast majority are here and acting in good faith.

We are all trying to curate this stack to the best of our abilities with the beliefs we have to do so. Those beliefs are going to be different, but I think we need to realize that there is also a difference between perceived problems and actual problems. Our primary focus should be on actual problems: when an action by a user causes a real and clear issue that needs to be discussed.

If there isn't an actual problem, then maybe we should just let it slide. THe majority of actions here still require more than one user, so if a group of users believe something is helpful, and another disagrees - that's okay. The system is working as normal. If we start complaining about how others are performing their curatorial duties and try to change them because we believe they should be doing something else, then I think that creates divide on the stack where there doesn't need to be one.

It's creating multiple issues like the guessing of system, or question closures, etc. What one person believes is helpful another person believes is wrong. And again, that's okay! What one person does really shouldn't be an issue. And if lots of folks are doing it and we're not seeing harm, then it's likely okay (although lack of visible harm doesn't mean there isn't harm.)

We need to get to a point where we can trust each other. And that if a group overrides another group, that is also okay. And we just need to let it go as the community making a decision that is different from our own.

Answer 8

People are exclaiming that we are becoming D&D.se when D&D has been our main activity for many years.

This is an issue because it obscures the D&D focus as a recent development when we have had the D&D focus for many years. When we approach this issue, we want to do so from an honest standpoint. People are hasty to project a trend when the percentage change has been stable during the last three years. The recent slight increase could be due to several reasons, such as being stricter about tagging questions correctly.

This image created by a query by Miniman on the seventh of April 2021 displays the percentage of questions that use D&D tags and their related franchises, it includes all editions of D&D, Pathfinder, and Starfinder.

We should not be too hasty in attributing the recent percentage increase of questions with those tags as a surging trend when we do no understand the circumstances well enough. We have had this D&D focus for quite some time, and we should not view it as a recent development.

Answer 9

RPG.SE is enforcing the use of gender neutral pronouns (they/them) in Q&As despite a clear consensus position that all pronouns are neutral.

Our guidance on pronoun use in Q&As is quite clear, and this highest scoring answer is sitting at +42/-5:

All pronouns are neutral and should be enforced as such.

I personally think that nobody should be harassed, or be in the red for guessing wrong on how someone wants to be called, and this should extend to RPG.SE. no pronoun should have a negative connotation, whether being misused or otherwise.

Unless otherwise stated, all questions are gender agnostic.

This means that 'he/him', 'they/their', and 'she/her' pronouns are correct, and none of them are incorrect. Good answers simply maintain continuity, and don't switch to refer to the same people. The answer may decide to change pronouns if the answerer wishes, but there is no correct gender. An answer should never be wrong because the gender is 'incorrect', because no gender option is incorrect. If the OP puts in the post that this is a gender-issue, then correct pronouns should be used.

The next highest scoring answer (+38/-4) echoes a similar sentiment. The third highest scoring answer (+28/-1) echoes a similar sentiment.

Despite this guidance, community curation frequently sees suggested edits consisting solely of “corrected to inclusive pronouns” approved. And I don’t mean an edit that substantially improves the post while changing pronouns along the way; I mean suggested edits that change as little as a single pronoun and nothing else.

By approving these suggested edits, RPG.SE is enforcing the use of gender neutral pronouns, despite a clear position that all pronouns are gender neutral and should be enforced as such.

Answer 10

There is lack of consensus on what should be done about old, off topic questions.

There are currently 80+ open questions tagged game-recommendation (though if you go through them, some of them are on topic despite the tag). There is a diverse range of opinions on what should be done about them. I have seen it expressed that they should just be left alone until they are bumped to the front page, it has been suggested that closing them if you happen to come across them is appropriate, and it has been proposed that we go on a closure spree and knock the rest of them out. Each of these sentiments seems to have the support of multiple active community members.

I'll keep this one as an observation unless someone specifically requests data. I obviously have my own thoughts on this, and have done some work to consolidate meta guidance on this topic, but I will reserve it for when or if this topic gets its own post.

Answer 11

What makes me grind my teeth: the received 'voice'

It is my observation that we are becoming too proscriptive in how we act on the site, and it's actively hurting how we interact with newer users. (thanks @illustro for that bit of word smithing).

1. I have watched the new user frustration aspect increase.

   This is quite hard to quantify. We had a meta not long ago asking about the tone - which is received tone - of responses to questions, closures, and such. One of the nouns used had to be edited to keep the question open. That's but one example. It's not the only meta or inquiry that has come up asking why this community has a high barrier to entry. That tone is directly related to this continuing community attitude problem:

2. The "I need a rule for this" attitude has increased, both in how Q&A's are handled, and in "but we have a rule for that" discussions on meta. This isn't a new issue, it's a running sore. Between various times in the chat, and meta posts, I've made sufficient input on this before. You all will either accept my observations or you will not.

Those related community problems create frowning face over the past year.

Actionable suggestions

As regards new users, remember that while good Q&A are the purpose of this site, the users matter. Received tone can be tricky to guess, as you don't know who is on the other end of the web, but if you type your comment as though you are speaking to someone sitting across from you, the tone may be received more warmly. It's worth the effort, and can also be applied to the attempt to emphasize rules / policy: best practices and guidelines are how to frame it, in a community of volunteers.

Answer 12

Meta seems less active

It was my perception that activity levels on meta generally seemed to be down.

Thank you you to Thomas Markov for producing the following graphs that add a bit of meat to my hypothesis:

25k rep users can view meta site analytics here.

There are likely a number of different reasons for the reduction in meta activity, and they're not necessarily bad. This post is simply intended as a conversation starter (if anyone wants to pick it up).

This hypothesis is further substantiated by the ratio of views and visits between Main and Meta:

The Main-to-Meta ratio of views and visits seems to be steadily increasing. Traffic on main has started rebounding, but that rebound on Main is not reflected in Meta traffic. Main traffic growth is significantly outpacing Meta since the first of the year.

Answer 13

Bounties offered is trending upward.

Here is a graph of the number of bounties per month for the last 12 months:

I see this as a good thing. The bounty system is being used to target content that otherwise would not receive due attention and to reward good answers.

Answer 14

We continue to get into too many long arguments in the comment section.

Extended discussion, especially when opposing arguments, is better suited to a chat environment, and we should propose to move things to chat sooner than later.

Answer 15

We continue to discuss meta posts in the main chat rooms.

A growing number of users prefer the environment of the main chat rooms to discuss meta to participating in the meta posts. Sometimes workshopped ideas arrive on meta, but a lot of the results of the discussions stays in the chat.

This is an observation of how things are, or as the format says: "observations we have." It is neither an improvement or a problem, but remarkable.

Upvote or downvote the answers based on your agreement with whether you see that thing happening and whether you concur with the answer's premise

Answer 16

What makes me happy as I visit RPGSE?

(This was broken off from the other at the request of a few users)

1. I see a lot of community moderation activity with lots of different names.
   That's good. While this sometimes can lead to a help pile (thanks, @nitsua60)

2. I've seen some new users arrive with good questions, and respond well to and get good answers.

The above observation is based on a year's worth of an active User's Experience, A User who likes this site and who, in the main, likes the people who come here and participate.

Answer 17

There are too many first-time posts by members that do not get a Welcome message.

Though I have seen plenty of Welcome to SE messages in the comments of first-time posts, I have noticed that there are still quite a few that do not have one.

I see this as a collective "responsibility". I would suggest it is important that we get this right as a community (especially the moderators and long-time or active members) - and that we keep getting it right.

I think that in the long-term not providing a Welcome message damages the wealth of experience and knowledge that members could bring to the stack because it puts people off from contributing. This is anecdotal from friends who love RPGs and use RPG SE for answers, but got a very negative response when writing a firt post. Basically, they posted one answer and never bothered again. It's a shame.

When I see a first time post being pulled apart, criticised and voted down lots of times without so much as a simple "Hi" or Welcome message, it makes my skin crawl.

I view this as a problem that requires a collective on-going improvement.

It may help to have a way of monitoring every so often how many first-time posts are getting a Welcome message.

I think in the long run it will pay off to encourage more active members and moderators to make sure a Welcome message is posted for all first posts.

Answer 18

I feel like we need to do a better job formalizing our policies, whatever they may be.

This is a bit of an extension on Akixkisu's response and Rykara's response. But I noted this awhile ago on a comprehensive list prepared by Medix, which detailed all the times we discussed on the issue of guessing the system.

We have all these discussions and side discussions and additional discussions and so on that I feel like at some point, we need to make a firm decision on the matter and codify it in a way that's traceable. My recommendation is closing a bunch of those old meta posts as duplicates and linking them some sort of overarching [POLICY] post or something. Heck, make it a tag or even a Moderator-Only tag if it needs extra protection.

Quite frankly, I don't really care so much on the matter anymore. I just want to know what we're doing so I can advise people correctly or edit based on my gut correctly.

Right now, it feels like we're setting ourselves up for a 3.5 style failure wherein somebody cites a meta thread which says one thing is policy, they're countered by a meta thread which says a contrary stance is policy, then a third person points out that both of those threads are outdated and here's the real Player's Handbook which was drafted by wizards, is written in True Speech, and is thus devoid of all errors and vagaries!

Sometimes you just gotta make a decision and live with it to see if the fallout is as bad as you expect.

Answer 19

In a unique and untimely action, moderators influenced a discussion and a majority vote by making an faq-proposal during a close voting period on one of, if not the, most contentious topics.

The Re-revisiting the “don't guess the system” policy is the most recent discussion place in a long list of meta-discussion on the topic. Two opposing answers received an unusually high amount of votes for meta as this is one of the most contentious topics. When the answer in favour of reverting our current policy eventually was ahead by one score, moderators proposed the second-highest scoring answer as the former status quo community consensus and future waypoint for discussion in this faq-proposal. Since then, the lead of the answer in favour of reverting our current policy extended and currently stands at a score of 33 (+57 -24) while the second-highest score is 27 (+58 -31) and represents the group that is in favour of keeping the old policy.

A few things about this are additionally remarkable:

1. After an unannounced, and to the onlooker arbitrary, voting period of 3 months, the moderators decided to announce that the voting failed to achieve a consensus and that the moderators thus would enforce the old policy.

2. After the proclaimed voting period, the keeping the old policy answer was in the lead at several points in time. At none of these opportune points in time did the moderators decide to go ahead with the faq-proposal.

3. The faq-proposal claims that we should use it as a waypoint for discussion moving forward that clarifies the moderators understanding and enforcement of the policy. Instead of leaving it as a moderator statement on the topic, they decided to make it into an faq-proposal. That it is a proposal would mean that if the faq-proposal is successful, it would be a codified part of our faq.

4. Our faq, see FAQ Index for Role-playing Games Stack Exchange lists our most dominant guidelines. If a meta post is part of our faq, it gains or has a high degree of authority. To place such a controversial policy in the faq, when the concurrent discussion leans towards the answer in favour of reverting our current policy is an untimely influence when it directly opposes the majority vote of a concurrent community discussion.

This usage of moderator authority is worrisome, even when it comes from a desire of helping us by clarifying moderator actions and enforcement. A mere statement that explains current moderator actions and enforcement that would have deliberately put forward that we currently lack a community consensus on this topic would have been good, but this untimely change was wrong.