Timeline for Experiential audit of [rules-as-written], please?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:22 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Jan 26, 2016 at 16:29 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie Mod | @Random832 Besides, it is impossible to control how people vote. No policy involving "not penalising answers" could be enforced even if we wished to make one. | |
| Jan 26, 2016 at 16:11 | comment | added | KRyan | @Random832 If it’s not what they really want, they need to edit their question. The thrust of this discussion is that a number of people here were assuming that people didn’t really want the RAW tag even though they explicitly used the tag themselves and gave no indication that it was mistaken. It is entirely possible that people can misuse the tag, but we cannot assume that in the absence of evidence. That runs counter to everything else on this site, not to mention basic courtesy. You or I don’t know what someone wants to ask better than they do themselves. | |
| Jan 26, 2016 at 16:08 | comment | added | Random832 | @KRyan The problem (and the reason I made this comment on this old meta question) is that that's not always what the person who uses the tag really wants. And in cases where a written rule explicitly calls for discretion, I would say commentary on what sort of interpretation is intended is even within the literal bounds of the tag. And since the value of the site is in the whole set of answers, rather than one answer standing alone, I think considering that other answers address it is a reasonable compromise. | |
| Jan 26, 2016 at 16:07 | comment | added | KRyan | @Random832 No, any “answer” to a RAW-tagged question that does not address the RAW is not answering the question, and should be downvoted. I will certainly always do so. | |
| Jan 26, 2016 at 16:03 | comment | added | Random832 | @SevenSidedDie What about assuming they meant it and making sure that the concerns implied by the tag are addressed, but not penalizing people who answer from other angles, so long as at least one answer does exist with RAW citations etc.? Particularly in cases where the written rule itself explicitly calls for GM discretion. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:40 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Which would be fine, if we knew they knew that the tag has special rules; but they're new, so we know they don't know. Because of the special rules right there in the tag wiki, there is no null hypothesis, only two competing non-null hypotheses. Hence, the special rules must burn to restore the tag to non-meta-ness, so we can stop worrying/arguing about how people use or misuse the tag. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 18:15 | comment | added | KRyan | The justification is that they chose the tag and have taken no actions that indicate they didn't mean to. The justification is that they are human being who, it should be assumed, know what they want better than you do. The justification is that we should not assume people are too incompetent to use the site. The justification is that your null hypothesis that they are mistakenly using the tag unless someone proves otherwise is presumptuous and disrespectful. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 18:04 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | So here's the situation: if we assume they meant it, we must assume they mean to invoke the tag's special treatment. If we assume they didn't mean it, we have to assume they misunderstood the tag's purpose. Both are assumptions that have no justification. Hence: how do we fix that? We can't pick one or the other, because both are invalid assumptions to make. So something's gotta change so that we can move forward. The alternative is this coming up all over again next time that unacceptable situation causes a problem. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 17:59 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Here's the problem with this analysis: our RAW tag is special. It has special rules. It is a weird exception. You, equally, cannot assume that someone new to the site is intending to invoke those special site rules. That is the source of everyone else's problem with the tag. If it wasn't a tag with special site rules attached to it, nobody would care if it was being accidentally used wrong. But it does, and so it matters, because if it's being misused, it's actively impairing our ability to help them with their actual problem. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 16:01 | comment | added | KRyan | @ThalesSarczuk If you'd care to join me | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 16:00 | comment | added | T. Sar | No, I don't mind at all. No problem | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 15:58 | comment | added | T. Sar | I've deleted my answer. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 15:52 | history | answered | KRyan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |