Are we satisfied with the Tag Wiki / Info entry for the RAW Tag?

Question

The rules-as-written tag has been a really contentious issue here. We have highly debated questions related to the RAW tag's usage (What's it for?, Changing the approach, Keep it?, Rename it?), but not one regarding the RAW tag's Info page, itself.

If we're happy with the current iteration, then this question's answer is 'yes, leave it alone.'

If, however, the answer is 'no, it's not right' or even 'kinda, but...', then what's the best tag wiki we can make?

A good tag wiki should be intuitive so that both New Users and Long-Time Users get good use out of it. Make sure you have a complete tag wiki in your answer, plus a (maximum 460 character) excerpt, which appears at the top of the Tag page and in the hover-over popup.

Answer 1

Yes, I am satisfied.

1. For new users, the chances of any of them (informed by my own experience) to put deep thought into which tag to use is nil. Thus, as new users do or don't use tags correctly, many of us who moderate as the community does will add or subtract tags, this one included, in order to help as we assist new users in various ways.
2. For moderately experienced users the tag wiki, if they've gotten feedback that their tag usage was off, or they see the tag removed in the course of various edits, probably won't evoke a strong reaction one way or the other and but they may use tags (this one included) with a tad more care.
3. To the experienced users, it'll get used correctly with that tag's guidance as written.

Motive for change

• To the small number of people who look at tags for the sake of tags, and tagging as an art form (it's the internet, and tagging is an area of expertise) I wonder:
  • How happy we need to make the perfectionists?
  • What is the point of diminishing returns?
    • This (tagging) expertise has value because good tagging helps search, good searches help users ask good questions that aren't dupes, and to make good posts in general. (This from my own experience on this site and other internet sites, not just SE sites).

Provisional Conclusion

The perfect is sometimes the enemy of the good. It's working well enough, and the wiki explains well enough how this tag ought to be used. There is no need to fix what isn't broken.

Why this answer

A year ago I offered to do some research on tag usage, and collect data, and in good faith I began to do so. The tension/animosity was bothering me since it was not accompanied by data. I discovered, as I concluded my second of 12 batches for analysis, that two very experienced users on differing sides of the disagreement had no use for my efforts. When a volunteer is told (in effect) "Screw you, I don't need your input" it puts a damper on the motivation to volunteer. I thus stopped wasting my time.

This tag in and of itself is not worth the amount of time and wind that has been expended upon it over the past four years.

Recommendation

There is better use of our time, as RPG.SE community leaders and supporters, in our various collective efforts that are aimed at keeping this site good. So let's spend our time a bit more wisely.

Answer 2

"Yes, leave it alone."

It ain't broke, don't fix it.

(Note that the question specifically called this out as an acceptable answer. It is the correct answer, so I'm giving it.)

Answer 3

This tag has been discussed many times before.

It's good, but like most things on the site, there may be room for improvement.

When I consider a situation where I want RAW responses, I want:

• An answer that explains the rule as written.
• An answer that mentions notable interactions between the question and rules it may commonly interact with.
• An answer that highlights room for ambiguity, such as certain English phrasings that can have multiple meanings.
• An answer that indicates if the rule does not actually function in its current form.

What I'm not interested in:

• An answer that proposes alternate solutions/homebrew to the rules in question
• An answer stating the intent is different than written*
• An answer with opinions on the quality of the rule.

*Personally, I find references to the author/designer/publisher talking about the rule in question to be a great comment, perhaps not so much an answer.

Those are not complete lists, but merely some of the concerns I personally have for RAW situations. I do not intend for my personal concerns to be policy/the definition for the standard.

The current tag definition communicates the general idea of what RAW is and what it is used for. It lets the reader infer what the question is looking for. It indicates the question is looking for a particular type of response, but its presence doesn't enforce any special rules. It does indicate certain responses may conflict with other site rules.

Answer 4

As requested: I see the definition of Rules As Written as:

This is how the rules, alone, say that works.

The utility of this, as others have said, is to have a baseline to compare other metrics against. RAW is free of balance constraints or intent. Effectively that's where I think the RAW info wiki should be focusing. The only part that anyone who's not familiar with the site will likely look is in the "Usage guidance (excerpt)" section, so it should be as complete as possible. Like this:

Questions about how the rules work when interpreted only as they are written, including errata, but without respect for balance, explanations, intent, or other factors outside the rules text itself. If using this tag to avoid house-rules, spell it out in the question. Unsupported opinion will be avoided without using this tag, since the site already expects answers to be based on more than opinion alone.

---

The rest of the info wiki is fine, but I'd change the last paragraph thus:

...

• For questions seeking to avoid answers based on house-rule or opinion, simply also say so in the body of the question, don't just use this tag. Not everyone who will attempt an answer understands our tagging system, let alone that a tag might mean they should answer a certain way, so tags should not be used as a replacement for simply stating what you need from the answers. Answers at RPG.se are also expected to be based on more than mere opinion anyway, so no special efforts need to be made to prevent such answers.

This emphasizes that using the RAW tag is not only shorthand for no house-rules, and that unsupported opinion will already filter out, but still has use for anyone filtering for RAW questions and answers.

Answer 5

rules-as-written tag wiki workshop space

---

Wiki excerpt

Questions that are about the logical interactions of a game's rules under a strictly literal reading. Not for questions about normal clarifications of the written rules. Answering rules questions with house-rules and opinions will already be restricted by our site's rules.

Wiki

Questions that are about the logical interactions and application of the game rules, when their written form is interpreted as strictly as possible, without reference to explanations or considerations outside of the rules texts.

Bringing in sources outside of game rules is not discouraged per se, but should only be attempted when certain it is a practical solution to the problem. Such attempts are “challenging the frame of the question” and best approached according to the guidelines of that meta post, to maximize the chance of being practically useful to the problem instead of merely off topic.

---

This tag is not a generic “I have a rules question” tag:

• For questions looking for normal clarification of game rules, do not use this tag. Instead, use the tag named after the rules being asked about, e.g. pathfinder or shadowrun-sr4, and any other tag relevant to the subject of the rules, e.g. grappling or movement.

• For questions seeking to avoid answers based on house-rule or opinion, simply say so in the body of the question. Not everyone who will attempt an answer understands our tagging system, let alone that a tag might mean they should answer a certain way, so tags should not be used as a replacement for simply stating what you need from the answers. Answers at RPG.se are also expected to be based on more than mere opinion anyway, so no special efforts need to be made to prevent such answers.