During Winterbash 2014, there was a hat called Red Baron, which was earned by giving an answer scoring 5 or better to question that had a score of −3 or worse at the time of answering and later rose to a score of +3 or better.

I’ve already shared the Red Baron hats earned on Stack Overflow. Those cases give me a great deal of confidence that this would be a challenging badge trigger that would produce good behavior with a minor tweak. Here are the Red Barons earned on other sites:

Looking through the timelines, I’m convinced that the answerer’s votes should be excluded from the pre-answer question score calculation. Doing that would have reduced the number of Red Barons to 16 across the network. However, the cost of making a badge harder to obtain is worth the benefit of avoiding giving people an incentive to manipulate question scores¹.

To wrap up, the hat seemed to have encouraged a number of great answers and rescued some questions that would otherwise have been lost to time. My outstanding questions are:

  1. Were there any problems on questions where people were attempting to earn the hat, but failed? (Or any other problems I didn’t observe.)
  2. If not, should we replace the Reversal trigger or create a new badge?
  3. If we create a new badge, what should it be called?

I’m especially interested in feedback that counters my own bias in favor of this idea. If I’m missing any problems, I’d like to know about them now.

¹ Several questions were downvoted, answered, edited (sometimes trivially) and upvoted by the user who earned the hat.

  • Other than the question score when the answer is posted, does the timing of the votes matter? That is, does the answer have to hit +5 before the question goes positive, or vice versa, or anything like that?
    – jscs
    Jan 21, 2015 at 20:32
  • @JoshCaswell: Nope. As long as you get your answer in while the question is <= -3, timing doesn't matter. Jan 21, 2015 at 20:35
  • I'm not sure I understand the requirements for Red Baron -- the answer has to come in while the question is still -3, or does it still count if the question was at -3 at any point in its history?
    – MTL
    Jan 22, 2015 at 0:37
  • 3
    @Shokhet: The answer had to come while the question was at or below -3 score. The idea is that your answer reversed the perceived value of the question. We want to avoid answers riding the coattails of other answers (or edits) into a badge. Jan 22, 2015 at 0:43
  • Thanks for clarifying that, @JonEricson.
    – MTL
    Jan 22, 2015 at 0:46
  • 4
    @JonEricson huh, interesting -- when I vote on questions I vote on the question, not on the question reflected through the answers. Are you saying that's not what we're supposed to do? Jan 22, 2015 at 13:47
  • 3
    @MonicaCellio: Well, question votes are funny. People often downvote questions for being "too simple". After all, the tooltip mentions "research effort". But a good answer to "simple" questions can make them look a lot better. Good answers create a framework in which a question can be meaningful. One way to think about it is optimizing for pearls. Watch the first minute or so of Richard Feynman answering a quesiton about magnetism. Sometimes an answer saves a question. Jan 22, 2015 at 22:19
  • @JonEricson understood, but that's not a question I would upvote. The answer, yes, but a good (or bad) answer doesn't change the merits of the question, only the use to which we've put the question to get those pearls. Jan 22, 2015 at 22:22
  • Will this be implemented since it's already 2 years? ;)
    – Panda
    Jan 5, 2017 at 15:32
  • 2
    @Panda from what I see around, most likely that same way as many other great potential projects, most likely not in the near future. (6-8 years) Jan 9, 2017 at 23:16
  • We did it! Jun 18, 2019 at 20:31

8 Answers 8


I think we should replace Reversal, for all of the reasons listed in that discussion and then some:

  • Current Reversal badge encourages answering awful questions without turning them into good ones.
  • Current badge actually encourages downvoting the question you're answering (or, in some unfortunate cases, posting "witty" answers to the questions you're downvoting).
  • Current badge pits answerers against moderators and editors; anything that discourages someone from trying to improve a question they cared enough about to answer is pretty lousy.
  • Current badge is... More of a consolation prize than a reward.
  • Current badge is misnamed. "Diamond in the rough" would've been good (if long). Reversal is actually a pretty good name for this criteria.

The downside here is that we'd effectively be "cheapening" the Reversal badge: right now, it's one of the harder badges to earn. Answers that score 20 or more aren't that rare, but answers that score 20 or more and were posted to downvoted questions are currently uncommon - although I'll wager we'd see a few more if this badge was implemented. Another side-effect of this is that a decent number of these badges would be awarded to answers that sorta rode the coattails of another, much, much more popular answer...

One possibility here would be to make this a two-level badge:

  • Silver: Red Baron or Deus Ex or The Cavalry or something, posted answer of +5 to question of -3 that went on to score +3.
  • Gold: Reversal, posted answer of +20 to question of -4 that went on to score +4.

This would create one badge that's much more common than the existing Reversal, and another that's much less common.

Other criteria changes we should consider:

  • Disallow locked questions
  • Disallow locked answers
  • Disallow Community Wiki answers
  • Score-20 answers aren't all that uncommon on some sites. On SO there are 179087. On MSE there are 5690. On Mi Yodeya there are 85, where Reversal was earned for the first and (so far) only time three months ago. Jan 21, 2015 at 22:09
  • 4
    So I don't mind making Reversal easier to get (it's very hard now), but I don't think the question score is the only barrier there. Jan 21, 2015 at 22:22
  • 6
    Oh. I just thought of a name for the silver version: Rescue! Jan 21, 2015 at 22:22
  • Answer score is the huge barrier here, @Monica - both for the existing Reversal and the proposed replacement. Dropping that to 5 lowers the bar for this, by a lot - too much for a gold badge, I think.
    – Shog9
    Jan 21, 2015 at 22:26
  • 4
    Yeah, 5 is too low for a gold badge. My stats for score-20 answers were for all questions, not just downvoted ones, so on some sites it's not true that "Answers that score 20 or more aren't that rare". That's what I was responding to. Jan 21, 2015 at 22:53
  • This seems to have a pretty significant overlap with the Explainer family of badges, which rewards editing + answering. Is that intended? Jan 22, 2015 at 1:03
  • 5
    I don't really think this is something that warrants a bronze badge, @bluet; there's no "introductory" level here - at some point, you're just answering questions someone didn't like.
    – Shog9
    Jan 22, 2015 at 1:54
  • Sorta, @Monica. Let's say they're related in the same way that Nice/Good/Great Answer and Guru are related.
    – Shog9
    Jan 22, 2015 at 3:24
  • 1
    Hey, I got a few reversals! We should name the new reversal differently.
    – Sklivvz
    Jan 22, 2015 at 12:00
  • About a bronze-version for the badge: 'Bouncer' - awarded for an edit or comment-before-an-edit on a <=-2 question that later gets upvoted to >=+1 and answered (by anyone) with a >=+1 answer.
    – rolfl
    Jan 22, 2015 at 13:56
  • 1
    @bluet The bronze badge seems like a bad idea, since you could just downvote the question, post your answer, and then change your vote to an upvote (unless it didn't count one's own votes).
    – Pokechu22
    Jan 29, 2015 at 4:08
  • Nearly a year after, any updates on this? /cc @Father. Dec 24, 2015 at 14:33
  • @ShadowWizard: As it happens, we've been collecting more data and should have something to say in the new year. Dec 24, 2015 at 19:53
  • Sounds like a wonderful new year to come: mentorship, new badge... :-) Dec 24, 2015 at 19:55
  • 1
    The best place to earn Reversal is on meta sites. Some meta questions can't really be turned into good ones, but still should get good answers. Jan 10, 2017 at 1:18

Creating a new badge is potentially interesting (I don't have a strong opinion on it). I don't think, however, you should replace the Reversal badge. (Maybe eliminate; see below.) They seem similar at first, but Reversal and Red Baron are different in some key ways:

  • Reversal requires 20 upvotes rather than 5. On most sites, in my experience, that's the difference between "yeah, reasonable answer" and "yes!". (On some sites Reversal is extremely hard to get because of small communities, but nobody ever said badges were consistent across sites.)

  • Red Baron rewards improving the question (yay!), but sometimes the question really can't be helped but, yet, it's worth somebody writing an answer to help the OP out. For example (deliberately not linked), there's a highly-downvoted question currently on MSE where somebody asks how to get a job at SE -- closed now as off-topic, but the answer still provided useful information. I think a Reversal for that is fine and we wouldn't necessarily want to try to fix the question.

  • Red Baron requires that the question already be downvoted when the answer is posted. Yet we generally try to discourage answering those; downvoting usually means it should be put on hold, not answered. So it seems like Red Baron creates a not-quite-right incentive here; is that what you want? (Reversal, on the other hand, is sometimes awarded for questions that were later downvoted.)

If Reversal is a problem (as suggested in comments and other answers), then maybe we should just retire it. In any case don't redefine it; a badge renaming is just confusing and I'll bet you can come up with another name for what you want.

Finally, if you do implement a badge for Red Baron, you might consider a tweak: only award it where the author of the answer did something to help fix the question -- edits for sure, but arguably close votes too. Encourage fixing the question and not just targeting likely candidates that you can ride the coat-tails of.

  • 4
    "sometimes the question really can't be helped but, yet, it's worth somebody writing an answer to help the OP out" - Hmm, I'm admittedly having a hard time imagining a scenario where this is true that's not a Meta question and the question shouldn't just be closed/deleted.
    – Tim Stone
    Jan 21, 2015 at 22:07
  • @TimStone this is an "agony aunt" question, rightly closed, with a good answer. On this question the OP describes bad behavior that I suspect is a common temptation, so worth having for the answer. This is a claim I hear fairly often that's worth debunking. Maybe those Qs (except the first?) could be fixed; I came across some Reversals on currently-upvoted questions too. Some Qs were probably DVed for being unpopular rather than bad, too. Jan 21, 2015 at 22:21
  • 3
    I have 14 Reversals here on Meta. I don't have any anywhere else - and I have gold badges on over a dozen sites. I agree that this badge can serve a different purpose: Reversal is about contributing something great on an unsalvageable question (well behaved people should salvage if they can) and this is about answering and improving, which is a different thing entirely. Jan 21, 2015 at 22:47
  • 4
    In less than a year, there are nearly as many Reversal badges on MSO as have been earned on SO in 6 years. That's... Telling. Perhaps we retire it as a meta-only badge, call it Mother Teresa?
    – Shog9
    Jan 22, 2015 at 1:59
  • 2
    Meta-only is interesting. Does that pattern apply across the network or is there something special about SO (or perhaps the trilogy) in this regard? Jan 22, 2015 at 2:00
  • I didn't realize you had already discussed "answer while downvoted" part of the hat/badge. That's currently under discussion by my answer, also.
    – MTL
    Jan 22, 2015 at 2:25
  • 3
    @KateGregory not surprising, "...the easiest gold badge at MSO seems to be Reversal. One only needs to pick an unpopular question and trash it more or less thoroughly in the answer"
    – gnat
    Jan 22, 2015 at 10:04

After reading the comments and answers, talking to our developers, and cogitating, I'd like to suggest a slight variation on the Red Baron criteria:


Answer with a score of +5 or better a question with a score of -3 or less at the time of answer (not including the answerer's own votes) that scores +3 or better within 7 days.

Whew, that's a mouthful. Let's break it down into component parts:

  • "Answer with a score of +5 or better"

    A small percentage of answers ever get to +5, so this is a feat in itself. We are looking at pretty good answers here.

    There's no time limit on how long it takes for the answer to reach +5. It'll make the query a bit more complicated, but it might be worth adding a time limit on answer voting. See below.

  • "a question with a score of -3 or less at the time of answer"

    When the answerer posts their answer, the question looks bad for one reason or another. But the answerer was able to determine what was asked well enough to provide a quality answer. On Stack Overflow, that might mean duplicating the circumstances of the question and discovering that the asker really did provide enough information to answer.

  • "(not including the answerer's own votes)"

    A complication with the Red Baron criteria was that the order of action mattered. If a user asked first and upvoted later, they got the hat which they might not have if voting first and immediately answering. So we ignore the answerer's prior votes altogether. If their downvote pushed the question to -3, they won't get the badge. If they upvote to bring the question to -2 a the time of answering, they still get the badge. So there's no benefit to manipulating the question score prior to answering.

  • "that scores +3 or better within 7 days."

    This is the actual rescue. It's also the major change from the hat criteria. Once a user answers the question, it starts a week-long clock (metaphorically) for voters to change their minds about the question. I added the clause for two reasons:

    1. The longer it takes for the voting to come around, the less likely it was the answer that did the trick.

    2. Without some limit, tracking potential badge-winning answers becomes difficult (both for users and in queries).

    In truth, this particular requirement has minimal impact as far as I can tell. None of the Red Baron hats would have been eliminated since most of the question voting occurred a day or two after the answers. (Well, all the voting that wasn't prompted by my publishing the list of questions.)

Now for the bad news: this particular trigger would produce a grand total of 346 badges across the network. (139 of those on Stack Overflow and 77 on meta sites.) It turns out that reversals of this magnitude are fairly rare; gold badge rare in fact. In order to bring this badge trigger into line with other silver badges we would need to adjust the criteria down somewhat:


Answer with a score of +5 or better a question with a score of -1 or less at the time of answer (not including the answerer's own votes) that scores +1 or better within 7 days.

This criteria would result in 6,351 new silver badges on Stack Overflow and 11,909 networkwide; still on the stingy side. But I expect that like the hat, a pair of badges will encourage more people to seek out misunderstood questions to answer.

  • 2
    What would happen to existing Reversal badges -- would they remain (grandfathered) or revoked? (For all or almost all, the timer would have long since run out, so they can't be brought into alignment with the new definition.) Jan 29, 2015 at 2:00
  • Might I suggest the name Clairvoyant instead?
    – user206222
    Jan 29, 2015 at 2:23
  • @Monica "grandfathered"?? You mean "retired", as in can't be awarded anymore, I guess? Anyway, taking it away won't be fair and will be a dangerous precedent: why try to earn badges, if one day they might just disappear? Jan 15, 2017 at 7:27
  • @ShadowWizard yes, I meant that current badge awards stay but it can't be earned any more, like Analytical. Jan 15, 2017 at 22:59

Nice idea, but problematic tracking....

Surprise badges are nice when they arrive, like "whoo hoo, popular question!", but for almost all badges, there is a user-queryable mechanism for tracking your progress to the badge:

  1. you can see the score you have on posts, and track that "great answer"
  2. You can watch the populist happen
  3. you can see reversal
  4. etc.

Badges where you cannot track your progress tend to be the ones with the most problems:

  • Socratic - you can't see old deleted questions of your own
  • Publicist - how effective was that tweet?

This "Red Baron" badge will be the same. How will you know how close you are? You cannot search for answers you wrote to questions that had a score of -3 or less at the time the answer was given

Perhaps a feaure should be added that indicates on each answer what the question score was at the time the answer was posted.... . hmmm...

About the importance of tracking

I wonder if you might expand on why tracking progress is so important that we might skip a badge that can't be tracked.

Specific to this badge

Let's consider the mechanics of this proposed badge:

  • find a (community-perceived) crappy question
  • answer it
  • perhaps 'fix' the question
  • get votes for both the question, and the answer
  • Profit ???

What we don't want is people answering crappy questions just because they are crappy. We want crappy questions to just disappear, and be deleted. A half-decent answer on a crappy question makes the deletion much less likely (requires community votes - instead of automatic).

The purpose of this badge is (should be) to reward people who turn around bad questions and make them good (in addition to answering them well). The purpose is not to encourage people to answer (m)any old bad question and hope that one of them may get a badge.

OK, so you want to reward people who make bad questions good, not reward people who answer many bad questions in the hope that one of them miraculously becomes good. The reward is for providing a good answer and most importantly, for nursing the question back to health.

Consider three user-types on SE:

  1. the user who does not care about badges, who unwittingly stumbles over a poor question, answers it, and then unwittingly gets upvoted, and gets the badge. This user is not affected by the badge until afterwards, and the badge did not modify their behaviour
  2. the opportunist who targets bad questions, and answers as many as they can in the hopes that one will result in a badge. This is behaviour we want to discourage. This user will have a search set up for score:-5..-3 is:q answers:0..1 hasaccepted:0 closed:0 views:..100 and then just answer as many as they can. No point in answering anything worse than -5... too much luck needed when there's plenty of -3's out there.
  3. the hunter, who decides to identify and repair broken questions. This user will actively find 'diamond in the rough' questions, answer them, repair them, continue to nurse them, and get justly rewarded for the effort put in to the process.

The first and second types of user are not deserving of the reward. Hmm, 'deserving' is the wrong word, they deserve the badge, but they did not earn the badge by behaving in the intended way. They did not satisfy the 'spirit' of the badge. The first type of user is not influenced by the badge at all. The second is influenced in the wrong way. Remember, this is a gold badge, demanding outstanding effort. The third type of user is deserving. How do you encourage the third-type of behaviour?

First, the user has to know what to nurse. I have answered about 1400 questions on the SE network, the first thing I would like to know is which of those answered questions is a candidate for the badge. Which questions can I go back to now, to edit, improve, tweet, bounty, etc. in order to get a reward for desired effort I already did in the past, that just needs a bit more tweaking? Which answers from the past can be edited, improved a bit, etc. in order to make them worthy of more votes?

So, without tracking, I can't identify items from the past that are candidates, but, I can still identify items in the present. I can find crap questions now, and answer them? But, that puts me dangerously close to user-2 type behaviour... just answer crap, and hope it comes right. Perhaps I will make an improving edit to the question, and make it half-decent. But, to be properly a type-3 user, I would need to keep a log somewhere of questions that need nursing, or answers that need improving.

That 'nursing' part is the most important part. Consider AirThomas's meta question on Stack Overflow where he admitted he put a 200-rep bounty on the question to try to give it a "second first impression". I see nothing wrong with that, but, how did he know which question to bounty? By keeping a 'log' (sure, of only 1 question).

This badge will require people to monitor their past activity to identify which questions are candidates for nursing, and where to spend their extra effort. It will require that future activity is directed to the right sorts of questions, and that the user 'owns' the quality of both the question and the answer.

Without the tracking, it will just encourage fire&forget answers on crappy questions in the shotgun hopes that some (one) will just miraculously happen.

General tracking comments

Different people are motivated by different goals. I personally am motivated by a target, and like to measure my progress. Targets that have no measurable progress tend to demotivate me, and I pick a better target to aim for. Socratic is a badge that does not really mean much to me... it's too hard to measure progress, and there's too much uncertainty. I can't see all my deleted content, so I can never measure how far away the goal is. Additionally, it is just too hard to do the math on 100 questions to see id any were asked on the same day, etc. Not even the data explorer can help with that badge.

Badges that are intended to reward ongoing beneficial user behaviour should all be trackable so that users can monitor when their behaviour is helping, and when to adjust their course.

  • 2
    Funny you should mention that. We are looking at ways to improve our tracking of badge progress. That said, I wonder if you might expand on why tracking progress is so important that we might skip a badge that can't be tracked. Until your answer, it's just not something I considered. Jan 22, 2015 at 5:22
  • @JonEricson - updated my answer with an essay, sorry for being long-winded.
    – rolfl
    Jan 22, 2015 at 13:51

In regard of some of the existing answers complaining about this badge encouraging answering bad questions and similar, how about the following:

To receive the badge, you must:

  • When the question is at −3 or worse: Post the answer, perform a (major) edit or leave a comment that later receives n upvotes to the question.
  • Answer the question within m hours of the above (m = 12?), with that answer scoring +5 or better at some later point.
  • The question scores +3 or better at some later point.

This way, if a question is actually bad and you work on improving it, e.g., by posting a comment asking for the important clarification or editing it such that the actual underlying good question is visible to all (and later answer the question), this gets rewarded. If a question is actually good and people fail to see it, you do not directly need to answer (which may be impossible, if the question is closed), but you can also make people aware of the question’s qualities in an edit or comment.


The criteria for the badge seems to be a great idea and I think it should be made into a badge.

Firstly, should this be a new badge?

Yes, I don't think that it should replace the existing Reversal badge. Though the flaws of the Reversal badge has been brought up, the idea of the current Reversal badge isn't necessarily bad.

As Tim Post pointed out in this answer,

It's occasionally awarded for someone giving a bit of a snarky answer to a poor question, but most that earn it worked hard for it once they saw an opportunity to get one.

Since the Reversal badge is awarded to the answerer, I don't think that there's anything wrong with occasional bad questions. The main purpose of Reversal is to reward and credit the effort of the answerer who tries to provide a good answer to "not so good" questions.

Secondly, should this be a gold, silver or bronze badge?

The hat of this criteria was the most difficult hat for all 3 Winter Bashes that includes it.

  • In 2014, this was a non-secret hat known as Red Baron and was awarded 26 times.
  • In 2015, this was a secret hat known as Flying Tiger and was awarded 11 times.
  • In 2016, this was a non-secret hat known as Maverick and was awarded 17 times.

So, this concludes that the new badge is quite difficult to earn. However, since it's slightly different from Reversal, I think it should be made a stand-alone gold badge.

It wouldn't make sense to make it a "silver version" of Reversal since a user can get Reversal but not this badge due to the "question later becomes +3" criteria.



  • Can you remind me: were those three hats public or private those years? (For context on how hard it was to earn one.)
    – nitsua60
    Jan 15, 2017 at 5:45
  • @nitsua60 Wait, Flying Tiger's a secret hat
    – Panda
    Jan 15, 2017 at 5:46

This badge idea seems quite difficult to earn as seen in the other answers. And it also seems to be the Reversal badge except with a less strict answer criteria and a requirement that the question becomes +3 score. Thus, Reversal should be replaced by the new badge... actually, let's change Reversal's criteria to this new criteria:

Post an answer with a score of 5 or better when the question was at -3 or worse, then rose up to a score of 3 or better after your answer was posted

I'm sure the description could be shortened a bit more of course. Why should we only change the criteria of the badge rather than replacing it all together or making a new badge? One reason is because the answer is causing a reversal of sorts to the score of the question, from negative to positive. That's nearly literally the dictionary definition:

a change to an opposite direction, position, or course of action.

The badge should be gold of course due to the rarity of this achievement. This badge is not that much harder than the original Reversal since you don't have a time limit of 3-4 weeks to get the badge/hat. Some extra improvements to the badge description is that if you go to the badge's page, there would be two definitions of Reversal, the old one (before the change) and the newer one (after the change) so users won't be confused why some users have Reversal even though some didn't get the question to +3 or better like this:

Before {date here}, the requirements for Reversal was to post an answer with a score of 20 of higher to a question with a score of -5 or lower.

After {date here}, the requirements for Reversal are now {new requirements here}.


One of the requirements for the Red Baron hat includes answering the question while the question's score is still -3 or lower.

I don't think this is good. Many times, downvotes signify that a question is unclear/not asked very well; while many people do it, I strongly believe that questions should not be answered while they are still unclear. I think the question should be edited first so that the intent is clear, and answered only after it's clear.
Therefore, I think that it's a Bad Idea™ to make it a badge requirement that the answer must be posted while the question score is still negative.

I propose changing the badge requirement to questions that have had a -3 score at some point in its history, and answered at any point, then being edited by the answerer, with the question score eventually coming back to +3. I think that will give us the benefits of this badge, all the while not encouraging people to answer questions while they're still unclear.

This creates a certain amount of overlap with the Explainer family of badges, but I think if we're going to implement this badge, it's okay, so long as we don't encourage people to answer unclear questions.

(Jon Ericson said that "The hat didn't encourage answering unclear questions." I didn't read through the revisions of all the questions linked to in the question, above; I'm merely writing my thoughts in response to the proposal itself.)

  • 1
    That would immediately award badges to a whole bunch of old answers to questions that were initially badly-received, got a hugely popular answer, and then went on to get 30 more answers. It... doesn't make a lot of sense.
    – Shog9
    Jan 22, 2015 at 1:56
  • 2
    @Shog9 I don't care how many badges get given out -- I think it's a bad idea to encourage answering unclear questions. If we can't do this badge without requiring answers while the question is still -3, I say "let's drop it."
    – MTL
    Jan 22, 2015 at 2:14
  • 2
    The hat didn't encourage answering unclear questions: it encouraged answering questions that were underappreciated. In fact several questions went from -3 to highly upvoted without an edit. In these cases, downvoters were unable to picture how the question could be valuable. People who say the question and the answer say the value of both. That's the ideal scenario. Jan 22, 2015 at 2:36
  • I do care how many badges are given out, @Shokhet - and more importantly, which answers they're given to. A badge that explicitly encourages tag-along answers isn't of much value, and that's still what your answer is proposing. Of course, it's going to be difficult for anyone wanting this badge to actually know when its score changed, so in practice this just motivates answering old, already-popular questions. You could accomplish the same thing (and make the criteria a whole lot simpler) by just proposing a Late Answer badge for posting late answers. Is that really what you're going for?
    – Shog9
    Jan 22, 2015 at 2:46
  • 1
    @Shog9 Oh, I didn't understand what you meant by "then went on to get 30 more answers." ....I hear what you're saying. To solve that problem, maybe we should make it a badge that involves the answerer editing the question, but we already have the Explainer family of badges..... I don't think a Late Answer badge is necessary -- we already have Revival and Necromancer for that.
    – MTL
    Jan 22, 2015 at 3:04
  • @JonEricson If you say so. I didn't look at the data -- this answer is just what I think of the badge proposal, without knowing anything else.
    – MTL
    Jan 22, 2015 at 3:06
  • @Shog9 I've edited my answer. What do you think, now?
    – MTL
    Jan 22, 2015 at 17:26

You must log in to answer this question.

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