-10

My question has a 100 point bounty and the best-voted answer keeps rolling back my edits to hide the non-canonical nature of their answer obscure.

SE defines Star Trek canon on its info page: [star-trek-eu] (novels, comics, video games, and fan fiction outside of the Star Trek canon)

I admit that the poster mentioned the answer is from the EU novel. That fits the letter of the law re: saying it is non-canon, however the fact is unreasonably obscure. A rare minority of voters will see "In the EU novel" and automatically understand it is non-canon. Voters deserve a clear unambiguous announcement that an answer is completely non-canon.

The bounty asks for canonical answers with detail, the poster wrote an Extended Universe answer which is by definition non-canon. My very simple request - the first comment on their answer - was "... It's canon?" The enormous effort this poster is exerting to maintain the ambiguity of their answer has gotten out of hand. The motive seems clearly to just win the bounty at all costs, using their reputation as leverage, at the expense of finding a quality canonical answer.

My very simple edit was to move the existing bounty text from the bottom of the page to the top of the page. The exact text provided by SE was used: "A detailed canonical answer is required to address all the concerns." This was rolled back then I was absconded in comments about "adding info" to the question. I added nothing at all.

The answer is by definition non-canonical and provides inadequate indication that the answer is non-canonical. I have tried at great length to get the poster to very simply qualify their answer with the simple words, "This is non-canon" and they refuse. The reputation of the poster drives voters to believe their credibility, which credibility I think is being abused.

I simply wish voters to clearly understand if they are voting for a valid answer. They can either place the qualifying text into their answer or at least stop rearranging my question to fit their answer. Hiding behind the letter of the law degrades the quality of the site.

  • 2
    It’s not editing abuse, it’s editing to the rules of SE. That said an edit war it not appropriate either so I will flag for a mod to lock the post if possible. – TheLethalCarrot Oct 3 '19 at 14:45
  • TY. I did the same. – Vogon Poet Oct 3 '19 at 14:46
  • BTW there is no rule against moving text from the bottom of your post to the top for clarity. – Vogon Poet Oct 3 '19 at 14:48
  • 2
    That’s not what I meant and I would never say that was a rule. I’m on mobile now though so not got time to explain properly. – TheLethalCarrot Oct 3 '19 at 14:49
7

There was no reason to add the comment in the question re: the bounty because the bounty already contains the conditions for which it will be awarded. IMO you are conflating the bounty with all answers which is incorrect. Thus, the initial edit to remove it was appropriate, and possibly even the next two. I think the original edit you made re: the bounty was removed because it included the words "please only vote for xyz" which is inappropriate. Users can vote for whatever answers they deem useful or high quality, just like you can downvote the same answer.

As you have surely seen, questions can have multiple answers - it is up to you as the questioner to select the one you think best answers the question, regardless of the number of votes other answers get. That's where there is even a badge that awards the highest voted but unaccepted answer on a question that has another accepted answer.

What is a bounty?

A bounty is a special reputation award given to answers. This feature was designed to motivate answerers, and help questions get the answers they deserve.

Is it abuse? - No-ish

All subsequent edits were simply going back and forth removing / adding it back. At the very least, a comment from either of you as to your reasoning for removing / adding it probably would have helped alleviate the prodigious back and forth. The silence associated with the continued removals did not help the situation.

  • 3
    FWIW I myself commented on my initial roll back. That was before the edit war with the OP and the other user though. – TheLethalCarrot Oct 3 '19 at 14:50
  • The reason was in the edit. It's a long post, scope-defining content should have a prominent position. Making posts more readable is a valid reason. Placing scope-defining content in the first page makes it more readable. Ask Google if there's a reason to have first page content. To your advice - my edits did clearly explain why the edit was done. The other user may need that advice. – Vogon Poet Oct 3 '19 at 14:52
  • 1
    @VogonPoet - I don't want to re-litigate canon / vs fan-fiction. As I said, the bounty scope is already addressed in the bounty description and anyone has a right to answer the question as scoped as they see fit and allow the voters to sort things out. Your selecting the answer as correct is what directs people to the "correct" answer in your estimation and awards the bounty – NKCampbell Oct 3 '19 at 14:54
  • 2
    @VogonPoet - I'm arguing that the statement "please respect the bounty terms" is superfluous and it was appropriate to remove that portion. You are correct that it's perfectly reasonble to start the question with a statement that says "only answers from film / tv" because that sets the expectations for what you as the questioner will accept as a correct answer. And again, if you included that statement, it is still acceptable to answer as the user in question did and let voters decide what is useful – NKCampbell Oct 3 '19 at 15:08
  • 2
    nooo @VogonPoet - there is no reason to flag the answer, if by flag you mean ask for moderator intervention because it's not on topic. It is on topic. The answer indicates that yes, it knows that it is coming from an ostensibly pseudo/second tier canon source but it does have information related to the topic, which can be useful to users – NKCampbell Oct 3 '19 at 15:20

You must log in to answer this question.

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