Return to Answer

So, we discussed and got rid of the [rules] tag - http://meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/363/what-should-the-rules-tag-include

Then we discussed and got rid of the [mechanics] tag - http://meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/1587/is-the-mechanics-tag-useful-or-a-problem

Now this has arisen. I think people are trying to use it to designate "I want a rules-only - aka RAW - answer, not common sense or rulings or whatever." Perhaps a [rules-as-written] tag would fill that gap. But in the end, that is a meta tag. When we did away with the rules and mechanics tags. the general reasoning was "we don't want do that," those are bad tags by SE tag theory guidelines.

For rules-lawyering as describing a subset of problem-players, I'm not sure that carries a lot of additional value and it's not really how that tag is being used right now. It is somewhat valuable in describing a question about "a situation where I am trying to rules lawyer with my GM/players to find a loophole to screw them into something," which while I find that personally abhorrent as a playstyle is a technically correct use of tagging. So I'd suggest we keep [rules-lawyering] and give it a tag wiki that explains that context.

In the end I think if you want a "rulesy" answer, or a "rules as written" answer or whatever - you should just describe that in your question, as is usual for anything else you'd otherwise be tempted to use a meta tag for.

So, we discussed and got rid of the [rules] tag - What should the “rules” tag include?

Then we discussed and got rid of the [mechanics] tag - Is the [mechanics] tag useful or a problem?

Now this has arisen. I think people are trying to use it to designate "I want a rules-only - aka RAW - answer, not common sense or rulings or whatever." Perhaps a [rules-as-written] tag would fill that gap. But in the end, that is a meta tag. When we did away with the rules and mechanics tags. the general reasoning was "we don't want do that," those are bad tags by SE tag theory guidelines.

For rules-lawyering as describing a subset of problem-players, I'm not sure that carries a lot of additional value and it's not really how that tag is being used right now. It is somewhat valuable in describing a question about "a situation where I am trying to rules lawyer with my GM/players to find a loophole to screw them into something," which while I find that personally abhorrent as a playstyle is a technically correct use of tagging. So I'd suggest we keep [rules-lawyering] and give it a tag wiki that explains that context.

In the end I think if you want a "rulesy" answer, or a "rules as written" answer or whatever - you should just describe that in your question, as is usual for anything else you'd otherwise be tempted to use a meta tag for.

So, we discussed and got rid of the [rules] tag - http://meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/363/what-should-the-rules-tag-include

Then we discussed and got rid of the [mechanics] tag - http://meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/1587/is-the-mechanics-tag-useful-or-a-problem

Now this has arisen. I think people are trying to use it to designate "I want a rules-only - aka RAW - answer, not common sense or rulings or whatever." Perhaps a [rules-as-written] tag would fill that gap?

So, we discussed and got rid of the [rules] tag - http://meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/363/what-should-the-rules-tag-include

Then we discussed and got rid of the [mechanics] tag - http://meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/1587/is-the-mechanics-tag-useful-or-a-problem

Now this has arisen. I think people are trying to use it to designate "I want a rules-only - aka RAW - answer, not common sense or rulings or whatever." Perhaps a [rules-as-written] tag would fill that gap. But in the end, that is a meta tag. When we did away with the rules and mechanics tags. the general reasoning was "we don't want do that," those are bad tags by SE tag theory guidelines.

For rules-lawyering as describing a subset of problem-players, I'm not sure that carries a lot of additional value and it's not really how that tag is being used right now. It is somewhat valuable in describing a question about "a situation where I am trying to rules lawyer with my GM/players to find a loophole to screw them into something," which while I find that personally abhorrent as a playstyle is a technically correct use of tagging. So I'd suggest we keep [rules-lawyering] and give it a tag wiki that explains that context.

In the end I think if you want a "rulesy" answer, or a "rules as written" answer or whatever - you should just describe that in your question, as is usual for anything else you'd otherwise be tempted to use a meta tag for.