6

The Philantropist hat says:

Award a bounty, to someone else, on the last day of hats

philantropist hat with description

While you can place a bounty on your own question, you cannot award a bounty to yourself. Why does the Philantropist explicitly mention this? Less is more, so I think it should be

Award a bounty on the last day of hats

or, to be more consistent with other date-based hats:

Award a bounty on January 8th

(unless, as Wrzlprmft notes, this hat works in another way than the other date-based hats)

  • At least the extra line prevents wining afterwards. – Patrick Hofman Dec 27 '16 at 8:26
  • 1
    +1 for Award a bounty on January 9th, -1 for dropping to someone else – janos Dec 27 '16 at 8:37
  • Though would it be on 8th or 9th? On the blog, it says: "Starting today through the end of the day on 8 January 2017". – Isuka Jan 5 '17 at 13:24
10

Because redundancy (i.e. sometimes "more is better") in language is often necessary for clarification.

Every day new users join, they might not know what a bounty is, but they will know that they cannot award it to themselves.

9

We used that wording because we're specifically making you award the bounty. You won't get the hat if the bounty is automatically awarded to a winning answer. You have to select a winner in order to get the hat.

  • 2
    But the addition to someone else doesn't make that any clearer, does it? – Glorfindel Dec 27 '16 at 12:08
  • 1
    I don't know about that @Glorfindel. I've read it and I think it's clear. – Taryn Dec 27 '16 at 12:21
  • 1
    Well, to me, it's definitely clear, it's just some extra ruse. To me, the current wording feels like if (i > 2 && i != 0) {. It's OK if you want to put a [status-declined] on this [feature-request]. I was only slightly irked by the current wording. – Glorfindel Dec 27 '16 at 12:23
  • Ok, I keep it in mind for next year's bashing @Glorfindel. But I don't think we'll change it this time round. – Taryn Dec 27 '16 at 12:23
  • 1
    You missed the point of the question. No big deal though. :) – Shadow The Curly Braced Wizard Dec 27 '16 at 12:41
  • @ShadowWizard The question asked why it said it, I answered that. It's ok if you don't like my answer though. :) – Taryn Dec 27 '16 at 14:32
  • 2
    Wait, there's a bug in the answer... – Shadow The Curly Braced Wizard Dec 27 '16 at 14:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/288878/superfluous-hat-description-for-philantropist/288879
meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-26
136911
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:MDIC6427ARFVRFRLDJ2BXX62WMXA4Q77
<urn:uuid:f9a4d34f-5f2b-449b-91a9-3f22c3b0dc24>
2019-06-17T15:08:02Z
151.101.65.69
text/html
sha1:TRISEK4YMTH6DNVGMKNOVCJFYRDJKAOX
<urn:uuid:ebc08d51-2b7f-42bc-87e6-14fbf6c6e10d>
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/288878/superfluous-hat-description-for-philantropist/288879
response
<urn:uuid:6d85c883-d8f2-4930-a084-20f9b9844037>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-26
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-143-92-167.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/