Timeline for The [rules-as-written] tag is a good tag, but we've made it sick. Let's cure it
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
52 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 18, 2014 at 4:35 | comment | added | KRyan | @BraddSzonye That only means that the discussion is worth having, not that any particular course of action is espoused. Since my answer is literally to not change anything, you claim too much when you say that this meta discussion requires the person to explicitly state their RAW requirement. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 4:04 | comment | added | B. Szonye | @KRyan Yes, that’s exactly why I made the comment, because that use of the tag is in dispute, as evidenced both by the lack of consensus in answers, and the large net positive on the discussion post itself. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 3:41 | comment | added | KRyan | @BraddSzonye Your comment on the question itself is better (certainly no harm in having requirements made explicit), but since my answer is very much “current practice is fine” and has precisely as many votes as doppelgreener’s “people need to state their requirements explicitly and not rely solely on the tag,” your claim that it is expected or required that those requirements be edited in “per [this] meta discussion” is simply untrue. That opinion has not reached any kind of consensus. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 3:37 | comment | added | KRyan | @BraddSzonye I don't know what you want: that's not a special rule. Answers have to be on topic. The question doesn't explicitly mention 5e, either. Your comment in response to BESW is a misstatement of what the meta here has said. The tag wiki is not why that answer is not answering the question and why it constitutes challenging the frame. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 3:12 | comment | added | B. Szonye | People are treating the tag as though it has special rules, like here. That question does not mention RAW at all except from the tags, so a newbie who doesn’t read the tag wiki won’t know that house rules are challenging the frame. | |
| Dec 8, 2014 at 22:46 | comment | added | Azhdeen | I'm not convinced. If I answered a C# syntax question on StackOverflow with, "Just write your own compiler that handles it", I shouldn't be surprised when it gets flagged as not an answer while it's being downvoted into oblivion. But StackOverflow doesn't need any other descriptors on questions to state that answers should work with an existing compiler because that's already the law of the land there. A D&D 4e question here could attract answers that invent new rules, so the way answers work on RPG are already fundamentally different than other networks. | |
| Dec 8, 2014 at 22:14 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @Ellesedil That enforcement something is downvoting. We need nothing more. | |
| Dec 8, 2014 at 15:04 | comment | added | Azhdeen | We pretty much need some mechanism that makes it clear that a person is seeking RAW-only answers. If I ask a question about C# or Christianity on a different network, I'll receive answers that conform to the rules of those systems. No one is going to suggest that I modify the compiler or alter the base tenants of a world-wide religion. Yet on RPG, it is very acceptable for an answer to completely make something up. So, something needs to exist to enforce the idea of "I want to stick to the rules of the system." | |
| Dec 8, 2014 at 6:20 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | @KRyan The difference is bigger than the 4E/5E difference. The answers should probably be treated the same way "D&D sux, play FATE instead" should be treated on Pathfinder rules clarification questions. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:59 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @KRyan Cool, we can agree on that principle that there shouldn't be special rules for answers on certain tags (excepting game-rec as established, because banning). General rules, yeah, those can be hashed out elsewhere more appropriately. We can disagree again then. :) | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:57 | comment | added | KRyan | @SevenSidedDie It is well within the site's purview to have a site-specific understanding of what that flag means, which is a point I intend to bring up in a meta thread in the future, because that ruling strikes me as patently absurd and extremely destructive with respect to the value of the site. That said, I agree that RAW shouldn’t have special requirements with respect to actually answering the question asked, that should just be a given from the word “go.” | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:55 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Back on subject: that interpretation not being site-operation-as-usual, it does qualify as the kind of special rule I'm proposing be undone for the tag. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:55 | comment | added | mxyzplk Mod | I would also suggest that y'all have maybe argued with each other enough for one day and should step away. Even for meta this is excessive and it's not just on meta. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:47 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @KRyan And so does SE: here's that link again about flagging because you think it might be answering some other question they like better / imagine would be more helpful, rather than the one actually asked, where that use of the flag is unambiguously rejected as what the flag is for. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:46 | comment | added | mxyzplk Mod | I understand your point. It's just that we disagree. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:45 | comment | added | KRyan | @mxyzplk Neither factual accuracy nor personal dislike was really in question, so your comment is irrelevant. The question is whether or not it is valid to answer some other question you like better / imagine would be more helpful, rather than the one actually asked. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:44 | comment | added | KRyan | @SevenSidedDie I wasn't rejecting it, I was saying it's a bad choice on their part, and poorly communicated outward from there. I fundamentally disagree with their assertion that such answers are attempting to answer the question actually asked, as it was asked, which is what the flag description says. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:32 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @ThalesSarczuk Yes, a bit. Fortunately, it's a living community and not a book, so there's room for argument and living change, but unlike a book there is no room to accommodate different interpretations of the current rules. The analogy is less to a set of rules and more to a group's social contract + accepted rules: we can change our rules, but everyone necessarily plays by the same rules at a given moment, regardless of whether that's how they want, like, or interpret it to be, in order to participate. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:28 | comment | added | T. Sar | It's a bit ironic that all this discussion about RAW boils down to RPG.SE RAW... | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:22 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @KRyan That the evidence contradicts your interpretation of the wording should, if you're being honest with yourself, lead to re-evaluation of your interpretation, not rejecting the evidence. You cannot reject Meta.SE as authoritative anyway: it is the meta for the network's operation. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:15 | comment | added | mxyzplk Mod | I would like to affirm that we do not delete answers as "not an answer" just because they are in some deviation from the poster's intent. That's what voting is for. I delete answers that are totally and profoundly misguided, but one of our flag-decline reasons is "flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer" - there's a difference between "not an answer" (a comment or rant or discussion or question or confused irrelevance) vs. "an answer I don't like." | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:13 | comment | added | KRyan | @SevenSidedDie That's a terrible ruling, and all the more so because it's an FAQ entry hidden away on a separate site that contradicts the wording of the actual flag that people here see. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 20:54 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | This may be causing problems with your mental model of how to use SE. That sucks, I've been there, and it's a known phenomenon that it's extremely hard to adjust internal models when they're explicitly contradicted, or even see the contradiction for what it is. I can only say that it's worth allowing some time to pass to allow it breathing room. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 20:51 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | See also the linked, closed-as-duplicate meta.SE question, that exactly covers what you're talking about: flagging a question because it seems to answer related but different question that you think the answering user just prefers to answer. That flag was declined, and this decline was affirmed as correct because it is still an attempt to answer this question. Albeit not how the asker would like. And then they're told that they're welcome to downvote instead. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 20:46 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Failing to include or successfully execute a challenge frame is not = to not attempting to answer the question. The FAQ on how to use the NAA flag sets the bar very high for appropriate use of the flag: nonsense, new questions, commenting, "thank you", bumping. Explicitly invalid uses of the flag include "The answer is wrong or inaccurate, or you disagree with it". Not answer the question how the asker wants it answerd is not what the flag is for. That's for downvotes. This is fundamental. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 20:27 | comment | added | KRyan | @SevenSidedDie Just because they are not the same thing does not mean that one answer can't deserve both. The answer did not attempt to answer the question. It, in fact, attempted to answer the question that the question made explicit pains to emphasize it was not. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 20:22 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | "Zero use" is defined network-wide as only for downvoting. There is, by design, no overlap with the not-an-answer flag. Your use is explicitly invalid, as explained by the people who run the network. As someone who respects rules as written, I think you should stop and consider that. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 20:19 | comment | added | KRyan | To illustrate my point, I would still flag that answer even if they had been correct that “living” was not present in any of the game’s glossaries. Even if that were the case, the answer was of zero use in solving the problem presented in the question. The question was not whether or not one should rule humans as living at the table – that was never in dispute. The question was what, if anything, the rules had to say about it. And that answer did nothing to address that question. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 20:15 | comment | added | KRyan | @SevenSidedDie I strongly disagree that the flag was inappropriate. The question literally and explicitly said they did not want an answer along those lines and that was completely ignored. That's not merely incorrect, that is answering the question you want to answer rather than the question that was asked, and that has no business on this site. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 20:12 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Great, that's a good example. That? That does not qualify for the not-an-answer flag, because SE design and policy is that not-an-answer flags are invalid when an answer is merely incorrect. Incorrectness is for downvoting. It being deleted due to the pressure of assertions that it isn't an answer is exactly the kind of losing-our-way problem I'm getting at. Our use of the site tools is getting sloppy and causing damage. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 20:05 | comment | added | KRyan | @SevenSidedDie Sure, here's a recent one. The question was tagged RAW, and the answer literally starts with inaccurate statement about the status of “living” as a game-term, and then dives into explicitly-not-what-was-asked-for answer about what living means in real life. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 19:58 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | That's a fairly extreme example that is not a useful for discussing the line between valid downvoting and valid not-an-answer flagging, which by-design do not overlap at all. Can you give an example that is actually a line-defining example instead of a far-from-the-line example? I would like to agree that that is a good not-an-answer flag example, but I can't because you've tied it to agreeing with your assertion that answers must provide a in-box answer first, and that's excluding the relevant middle I'm trying to discuss. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 19:45 | comment | added | KRyan | @SevenSidedDie "I have no interest in what the rules say, here's what I say," is in no way, shape, or form even attempting to answer the question, if the question is "What do the rules say about this?" | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 19:43 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Please read the not-an-answer flag text again. It is a very high bar. I understand you disagree... but I believe you're disagreeing with a feature of the site that is fundamental. Use your RAW skills to find me where our site's rules of use say what you're advocating for. Give it a literalist reading. The rule is not that it "answers the question" as you assert: the only rule is that it "attempts to answer the question". That makes out-of-bounds answers absolutely kosher by SE rules. Altering that is proposing special rules. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 19:40 | comment | added | KRyan | @SevenSidedDie I strongly disagree that what you describe counts as "answering the question." It doesn't. It answers some other question that the answerer imagines is the "better" question, whatever that means. It's presumptuous, rude, unhelpful, against the rules, and should be dealt with as such. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 19:23 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | We have, perhaps, become too accustomed to the way [game-rec] answers get deleted, which is done how you describe. That skewing of our standards is one of the sins I think [game-rec] is guilty of. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 19:21 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | That isn't even a general rule though. We have one official rule that governs whether an answer is deletable as off-topic, and it's contained in the "not an answer" flag: "This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether." Attempting to answer the underlying question, or providing a kind of solution that the asker says they don't want, is not part of any site rule or policy on answer content. Only: does it attempt to answer the question. Honest out-of-box answers are kosher. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 19:17 | comment | added | KRyan | @SevenSidedDie I don’t think that is (or should be) a special rule, I think it very much is (or should be) required to answer the question, as asked, on topic, before you go providing some other answer to the question you think they should have asked. XY problems might be a real thing, but if the question is valid and answerable, it deserves an answer first. This kind of goes back to my general ... frustration with this line of meta discussion: there is a lot of very patronizing assumption that we know better than the people asking the question what they really want. We really don't. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 19:13 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | (Requiring answers to provide a RAW answer before a non-RAW treatment is the kind of special rule I'm saying [rules-as-written] shouldn't have. Our challenging-the-frame meta is a help meta for writing better answers, not a deletion policy. When the answer is egregiously off topic it gets deleted because it's egregiously off topic, not because it fails our frame-challenge meta (non-)policy.) | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 19:11 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Is a downvote and a comment asking for improved clarify insufficient? (Yes, "this isn't actually what the book says, -1!" will often get deleted, but that's because it's a bad way to comment. I mean "Can you cite this answer? I can't find anything in the book that says it works how this answer says it works" should be sufficient to both help the answer and warn readers, and is constructively-written enough to survive comment cleanups.) | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 19:11 | comment | added | KRyan | (I have absolutely no problem with challenging the frame on RAW questions after the RAW answer's been offered; I do it myself often. RAW is frequently not actually a good way to rule things; you still have to answer the question first.) | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 19:09 | comment | added | KRyan | @SevenSidedDie I have issues with it when an answer is not clear that it's not RAW, and thus can mislead users into thinking it is. And there are a number of answers like that on the site. (Actually, I have a big problem with this even if it’s not tagged RAW, if the answer gives the impression that it’s out of the book.) A high-voted, non-RAW answer to a RAW question gives the inaccurate impression that the answer is RAW. And per Challenging the Frame, those answers should be downvoted unless or until they address the question on-topic (i.e. by RAW) first. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 19:09 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | That's how stuff works on every other tag, and it doesn't cause harm: egregiously-bad answers get downvoted, "hey that doesn't answer the overt question but wow does it solve the problem" seemingly-off-topic answers get voted up, and the asker doesn't always agree and accepts a less-popular answer that they like better. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 19:05 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | I admit that's a possibility. But I'm not sure that there is any danger or harm caused by that possibility. If non-RAW answers are popular on RAW-wanting questions, the asker is still going to checkmark what's most useful to them. And it's worth recalling: votes are for what is useful to others who have read the question. It's not a popularity contest. Popular non-RAW answers are those likely to be well-written frame-challenges that help those who are in similar situations but accept non-RAW solutions. And a non-RAW answer being popular doesn't take votes away from faithfully-RAW answers. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 18:54 | comment | added | KRyan | @SevenSidedDie I do fear that, just as there are a fair number of people who want to ignore the topic for their own answers, will also do so for their voting. That is part of the reason I have aggressively flagged non-answers as such. The majority here is not interested in RAW, which makes me worry about them voting by their own preferences rather than by how well an answer addresses the question actually asked (i.e. including the setting of the topic to the domain of the RAW). | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 18:51 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | I suspect we won't hear much about getting burned anymore once this is overturned, because we've all had this exciting adventure together and have learned a very special lesson. New people will complain, sure, but we're here to say, sorry, the votes disagree that this is useful on this question, and that's how the site's supposed to work. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 18:50 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | I'm proposing that we stop treating it specially. (If you're not already, then good; that might be why you're not seeing a problem, because you just might not be part of the problem.) Specifically, aggressive mod-deletes of answers should probably be scaled back. Let the downvoting and non-mod delete votes do the job there. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 18:49 | comment | added | KRyan | @SevenSidedDie Aside from the change to the tag wiki, what change in behavior are you proposing? | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 18:47 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Then it is a de facto special rule that, worse, is embedded in our community's culture. That sort of thing requires explicit overturning. That said, I agree with what this proposes we do. I just don't agree that that's the current status quo. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 18:47 | comment | added | KRyan | @SevenSidedDie Like I said, that was added after people got upset by being “burned” by downvoted and/or deleted answers that were off-topic. If you want to remove that line, I suspect that’s fine, but I suspect we’ll start hearing about “getting burned” again. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 18:45 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Except we do have special rules. They're right here, where the first line in the tag's wiki says what answers must contain. No other tag wiki, excepting [game-rec] for its own sui generis reasons, has that; instead, they all say what questions the tag is for. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 18:41 | history | answered | KRyan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |