-1

This question was closed as per the FWP.

The question was about a scenario which has not occurred yet, but is extremely likely to occur in the upcoming season.

One of our Mods, Rand al'Thor, took the position that it should not be closed, as per the clarification to the FWP:

Per this clarification to the FWP, a question like this isn't closeworthy: it's asking about the canon as a whole, and could reasonably be answered based on current canon. "No answer known yet but may be revealed in future works" is an excellent answer but NOT a valid reason to VTC."

It is my understanding that the FWP clarification post applies this to the questions which:

  1. Do not have a canon answer currently but are expected to be answered in the future.
  2. Have enough data on the question subject to speculate in an educated manner.

The post in question, in my opinion, does not qualify for this exception. We do not have a canon answer but it is expected to be answered in the upcoming season and there is no precedent or data based on which we could speculate. Some other users agreed. Quoting TheLethalCarrot, a subject expert on the tag:

This is a bit difficult to do with precision in all cases, as some questions may be borderline (in a sense of, it may ask about something technically about Episode 8, but to any canon expert, it's clear that the answer will be unknown till Episode 9 - personally I'd be OK with FWPing such a question but wouldn't be heartbroken if it stays open). is the clear part to me. The answer is clearly going to be addressed in Season 8 so FWP. So according to policy you shouldn't really have overridden the communities votes on the review.

For complete discussion, please read the comments thread on the post.

The question was closed. But was then put into the queue for reopening where it failed after gaining at maximum 3 votes. The question was then reopened by the mod himself. Why?

  • 3
    I think it's worth pointing out that the post was closed by the top 2 users in the tag, 2 additional users who are active and show great experience in the tag and are members of the dedicated chatroom and myself, active in both the tag and the chatroom. – Edlothiad Aug 6 '18 at 9:56
  • 2
    The timeline for the question if anyone is interested: The close vote review where it got 2 CVs and then a mod used their binding vote to leave it open, then closed outside the queue as per above comment. Was then a 3 to 2 split in the reopen review but was left closed (here a top user in the tag voted to reopen but someone with the highest scored GoT answer left it closed). It was then hammered open by a mod later on. – TheLethalCarrot Aug 6 '18 at 11:05
  • 3
    but is extremely likely to occur in the upcoming season. "Extremely likely" isn't FWP. This is covered in both of the highly upvoted answers in the FW definition post. We have no guarantee or promise that such a scenario will ever happen or be addressed, just an assumption. – phantom42 Aug 6 '18 at 12:49
  • 2
    @phantom42 Under that definition then nothing is really FWP because no one can know for sure what is in the new material unless they are writing it. – TheLethalCarrot Aug 6 '18 at 13:07
  • 4
    You're missing the point that as you've said yourself that this is a scenario that has not occurred and you're only assuming will occur in the future. – phantom42 Aug 6 '18 at 13:08
  • 3
    The result of the more recent FWP discussion absolutely scaled back the definition of FW. You're more than welcome to continue that discussion and try to sway it back, but that IS the current definition/policy. – phantom42 Aug 6 '18 at 13:11
  • 4
    @phantom42 Any works that aren't available to pull canon from are FWP. Every single variant listed in the question (Is it works that we know for sure will exist/be released? Things we assume will exist/be released? Things that just maybe will exist/be released?) are FWP. The current top answer seems to contradict that in the very first point if I'm not mistaken – TheLethalCarrot Aug 6 '18 at 13:13
  • 3
    Along with this point, as shown in the question above: This is a bit difficult to do with precision in all cases, as some questions may be borderline (in a sense of, it may ask about something technically about Episode 8, but to any canon expert, it's clear that the answer will be unknown till Episode 9 - personally I'd be OK with FWPing such a question but wouldn't be heartbroken if it stays open). – TheLethalCarrot Aug 6 '18 at 13:14
  • 2
    Yes, and that's why I took issue with some of the wording of DVK's answer. But keep reading down to ""No answer known yet but may be revealed in future works" is an excellent answer but NOT a valid reason to VTC" which brings it back. – phantom42 Aug 6 '18 at 13:14
  • 4
    /shrug, to me, this is fuzzy and I fall on the opposite view. but again, the question here is why a mod acted a certain way, and I'm just saying that the based on the existing definition/policy, that action is pretty well justified. – phantom42 Aug 6 '18 at 13:22
  • 3
    This is already covered in the existing policy. Specifically, questions of the form "in [future work], does X happen" are closed while questions of the form "in [ongoing franchise], does X happen" are left open: "No answer known yet but may be revealed in future works" is an excellent answer but NOT a valid reason to VTC. I'm duping this so that voting on answers here doesn't confuse the status of the already-established general policy (as you probably know, we've had trouble elsewhere with such policy confusion). If you want to change the policy, you need a new meta as @phantom suggests. – Rand al'Thor Aug 6 '18 at 21:44
  • 3
    @Randal'Thor you seem to be confused as well, that meta isn’t a “new Future works Policy post” it is merely a clarification of the term “Future Works”. That is what the title and body of the question says. The original remains DVKs original answer. Stating otherwise would be an abuse of the votes cast on that meta as it very explicitly asks for a clarification of the term future works. As such, I have voted to re-open, as this post has nothing to do with such a clarification, and the answers on the other post don’t answer why this mod decided to carry out said action. – Edlothiad Aug 7 '18 at 4:40
  • 3
    @Edlothiad I'm not confused at all. That meta is our new policy on how the FWP should be applied. Since the question on main was closed against policy, I fixed the mistake by reopening it. As for this question on meta, it's clearly answered by the current policy, as phantom42 already pointed out, and I'd rather not have the possibility of answers being posted here which could confuse the current clear consensus on the FWP. – Rand al'Thor Aug 7 '18 at 11:58
  • 5
    @TheLethalCarrot Sometimes people try to use a policy to justify doing the exact opposite of what the policy says. shrug – Rand al'Thor Aug 7 '18 at 12:03
  • 4
    @Randal'Thor Well I personally quoted complete paragraphs in context to how they are used so not sure how I'm justifying the exact opposite... – TheLethalCarrot Aug 7 '18 at 12:04
4

It is my understanding that the FWP clarification post applies this to the questions which:

  1. Do not have a canon answer currently but are expected to be answered in the future.
  2. Have enough data on the question subject to speculate in an educated manner.

That is not what the FWP Clarification post to which you refer says. It says the following:

  • If a specific canon has some published works already

Check, there are some published works in Game of Thrones.

  • And it also has some future works (planned, maybe, or unknown)

Check, they are going to make more Game of Thrones (unless something catastrophically changes in the immediate future).

  • And, the question is phrased specifically so that it can be answered in the context of already published works

Check, "we don't know" is a perfectly good answer (which we know because it got upvoted and accepted), so this question "can be answered in the context of already published works." In fact, it was answered in the context of already published works.

  • Then, such question is not FWP, even though in theory there are future works that may alter answers to such a question.

So it's not close-worthy.

If you want to overturn that clarification to the policy, fine. But we need to do that by actually having a discussion about why the status quo is unsatisfactory and what we should do about it. Right now, I see a lot of people arguing over what the rules are, but not a lot of argument over whether the rules are a good idea.

  • 2
    That's not the future work policy, though. That post is a clarification of "What constitutes a 'future work'". Which means, which works can be used to apply the FWP to. Which (again) remain the original post. Using the clarification as justification for the future work policy is wrong. It is a different "policy" (The Future Works Term Clarification Policy, if you want) but not the FWP. – Edlothiad Aug 13 '18 at 5:36
  • 3
    @Edlothiad: The part of the question I quoted refers to the "FWP clarification post," which I linked. If you want me to talk about some other post, ask a different question. – Kevin Aug 13 '18 at 5:46
  • And as quoted above even if you are quoting from the clarification post, quotes within it state that this post should be closed. – TheLethalCarrot Aug 13 '18 at 8:00
  • 4
    @Edlothiad It's a policy concerning future works questions. Stop splitting hairs. – Rand al'Thor Aug 13 '18 at 9:50
  • 4
    @TheLethalCarrot The reason for reopening the question is laid out clearly in this policy, which I've quoted ad nauseam already. – Rand al'Thor Aug 13 '18 at 9:52
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Null Aug 13 '18 at 14:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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