Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion

[caboosev11]

Make the threads that you know will be there in advance. For example, make a strategy thread a day or two before kickoff, or drivetrain discussion. Anything that will always be necessary can be made in advance.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by caboosev11

Make the threads that you know will be there in advance. For example, make a strategy thread a day or two before kickoff, or drivetrain discussion. Anything that will always be necessary can be made in advance.

The problem is that most of the new post-Kickoff surge does not use the search function, and they'll just start a new thread anyway, almost always in the General Forum. If I happen to run across two identical topic threads, I'll merge them together to make it easier to follow discussions. There were like six different game hint threads on Monday in the first ten minutes.

Rather than make draconian rules, if you run across duplicate threads, kindly remind the OP to use the search feature and provide a link to the original thread! This also applies to rules questions - don't just tell the poster to read the manual if they have a question - quote a specific R# or G# rule that will help them.

Not searching before making a new thread or asking an [obvious to you] rules question are mistakes that all of us made when we were new. Show some GP and help these users.

[Conor Ryan]

Could we do a community sourced 2015 FAQ?

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Originally Posted by Conor Ryan

Could we do a community sourced 2015 FAQ?

I like the idea, but I don't like the idea of someone giving a bad/non-official answer to a rookie team's question and the team not being able to compete because of it. The FIRST Q&A is the truly official place to go for these things.

However! (just thought of this) - we could do a less official kind of Q&A for the questions that FIRST refuses to comment on - something like 'which drivetrain would be best - 4 CIMs or 6 CIMs?'

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Jacob Bendicksen

I like the idea, but I don't like the idea of someone giving a bad/non-official answer to a rookie team's question and the team not being able to compete because of it. The FIRST Q&A is the truly official place to go for these things.

However! (just thought of this) - we could do a less official kind of Q&A for the questions that FIRST refuses to comment on - something like 'which drivetrain would be best - 4 CIMs or 6 CIMs?'

I think there's just too much risk of people skipping any "it's not official" disclaimers we provide and treating the FAQ as an authority at all on the game. Most questions not in the Q&A don't have black and white answers everyone agrees on anyway (such as your example).

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I think there's just too much risk of people skipping any "it's not official" disclaimers we provide and treating the FAQ as an authority at all on the game. Most questions not in the Q&A don't have black and white answers everyone agrees on anyway (such as your example).

We've been providing those disclaimers for quite some time, with minimal effect. I agree on this.

When I answer a question, I tend to go "Here's the rule, your setup looks like it's doing this, as a [ref/inspector as appropriate] I'd tend to rule that way depending on actually seeing what's up" on any questionable rule.