Does the community agree with the part of the "never guess" policy regarding asking meta first? [closed]

Question

To quote part of KRyan's most-upvoted answer about the current policy (that was added in a later edit):

[...] we could allow system tags to be edited in without the OP’s input after a Meta discussion agrees that the situation is “safe” to edit. [...]

This is also my understanding after reading another of KRyan's answers to a recent Q&A of mine; that once a question has been taken to meta, and the community has concluded that a question is clearly D&D 5e (it's always D&D 5e questions that get the policy's attention), it's then OK to add the tag without OP's confirmation. The problem is guessing by yourself; deducing it within meta with community consensus is alright.

However, based on this recent meta question about a mainsite question that clearly 100% can only be D&D 5e, there are many upvotes and downvotes on many of the answers, implying that the community (at least, those who voted on those answers) is very split about this particular aspect of the policy.

So my question to the community is: is this part of the policy or isn't it? Is it OK to edit in the system tag without getting confirmation from the OP after it's gone through Meta and been agreed upon?

---

Just to be clear: this is not a question about whether this is a good idea or not, but clarification on whether this is part of the policy or not. Since we don't actually have a place where the exact details on the policy as it exists today are specified, I'm just trying to understand what the policy actually is, since there are conflicting opinions about it and no definitive source of answers.

---

^{(I think it should be part of the policy, but then, I'm against the policy anyway, at least the part about not adding it in when it's obvious, but clearly those against the policy have been overruled, hence why I'm putting this out to the community and keeping my opinion out of this).}

Answer 1

No, the ability to ask questions about a topic on Meta is not part of any policy.

Meta posts will always be able to decide individual cases

This didn't become a new part of the policy following KRyan's suggestion; it has always been part of the policy. Creating a meta post to propose something, reaching community consensus, and then acting on it is a fundamental part of the site.

If a user feels strongly enough about an issue (a question without a system in this case) to create a meta post about it, then they are encouraged to do so. The community then acts on whatever consensus is reached in that meta post. This includes clarifying the system on a question without input from the OP, if that is what the community chooses to do.

Any policy that says otherwise is undermining the role of meta. Meta is a place for discussion and reaching solutions based on community consensus. No policy should attempt to curtail or control what topics that discussion can be used for. The community is empowered to act upon any consensus reached in meta, regardless of how sweeping or drastic the change.

So, it doesn’t matter what the consensus on KRyan’s answer is or isn’t; the community always has and will always have the ability to bring up issues like this on meta - and no answer/policy can take that away, consensus or no.

Answer 2

Please let’s not.

The entire point of that section of my answer was that isn’t worth anyone’s time or effort. It would be “an approach,” that would avoid the biggest problems with “just editing,” but it still isn’t a good idea.

Why? Because there is absolutely no value in doing so. The entire Stack Exchange model is about amplifying signal over noise. For readers, that means that they can find good answers to their questions quickly, and feel confident in those answers. But it also applies to querents, answerers, editors, and moderators: it means focusing our time, effort, and attention on the best content.

Questions where the user hasn’t given us enough information to proceed, and who never bother to come back to clarify, are by definition some of the worst content. Let’s please, please, please not waste any more time, gnashing of teeth, or space on Meta discussing them.

Answer 3

If a question is unclear, close it until the querent engages and clarifies

That was the MO when I stumbled across this site over 5 years ago.

Perhaps our problem - as beautifuly illustrated by @Medix2's list of meta Q&As on this topic - is that we have, as a community, forgotten the KISS principle.

This SE didn't used to have any qualms about closing a question if it needed improvement or clarity. It appears that the efforts being put into improving the new user experience (which I applaud in a general sense) may have swung the pendulum a bit too far in that the positive utility of closure until clarity is achieved has been assigned (in the perceptions of some users) to 'ungood new user experiences' when it should not have been.

Perhaps there is value it getting back to basics.

On a given question, if we must overthink it or if we must debate about it(this will happen from time to time), then Meta is the vehicle for that rather than comments under the question unless the principles in such a discussion are available to discuss it in RPGSE chat. That can sometimes provide a quick, real time resolution on "what do we do with this one?"

You ask about policy: I offer the above as "best practice."

Answer 4

A resource list of previous, related posts

FAQ post and revisits:

• What to do when an edit guesses the system being used rather than waiting for the querent to clarify?
• Revisiting our "never guess the game system" policy
• Re-revisiting the "don't guess the system" policy
• What is the “Don’t Guess the System” policy?

---

General Discussion:

• When is it OK to assume the system without it being considered a guess?
• What to do when an answer guesses the system of a question rather than waiting for the querent to clarify?
• What to do when encountering a non-system tag that describes a system?
• How to handle sub-tags that lack appropriate parent tags?
• Is '5e' a clear enough statement of game system by a question asker?
• Revisit: Is "5e" a clear enough statement of game system by a question asker to determine that the question is about D&D 5e?
• Is it acceptable to add the [dnd-5e] tag to questions about D&D Beyond?
• Is it against policy or bad practice to attempt system agnostic answers to questions whose system has not been specified?
• What to do if seeking the answer to an existing question that's been closed because the system wasn't specified?
• How long should one wait before reposting a question that was closed per "don't guess the system"?
• Should we enforce clearer specification of system/version in titles/questions?
• When does it make sense for a question title to specify the edition?
• Is the poster the final arbitor of the content of their posts?

---

Question-Specific Discussion:

• Should this question about "the Wildemount Chronugy subclass ability chronal shift" be tagged as D&D 5e without OP specifying it?
• What qualifies as guessing on a system?
• Does adding the system tag to this question violate the "never guess the system" policy?
• Closing questions instead of fixing really minor issues

---

Design, New User Experience, and Teaching the Policy:

• How to show the most recent community consensus in meta?
• Could we have a separate close reason for missing system tag?
• Can/should we include the system tag requirement in our tour?
• Make it possible for certain tags (like game tags) to always appear first
• Can our tag-prompt nudge toward including system?
• Is there a way to decrease the amount of questions submitted without a system tag?
• New ask page: How do we want to use it to help new users specify their system?
• Can we color system tags to emphasize that they're different and "more meaningful"?
• Can the system tag policy be stated to askers in advance?
• Improvement on Deleted Answers Help Page - deletion due to rpg.se policies
• Why do I need to specify my game system, and how do I best do it?
• Should questions include System/Setting in title if tagged with system/setting?

Answer 5

The community currently has no consensus on the policy

In the first thread you link the votes are:

• +9 upvotes, -4 downvotes in favor of "The policy would not allow an individual poster to edit this question, but with Meta consensus, it seems near-perfectly safe and in keeping with the caution called for by the policy."
• +11/-3 in favor of "[the] policy cannot apply here, as there is nothing to guess."
• +3/-1 in favor of "the querent clearly had in their original post that they were playing 5e. That is really all the information we need and the tag can safely be added." (deleted)
• +3/-2 in favor of "'5e' is still in my opinion a clear and unambiguous statement of system." (deleted)

In the second thread the votes are:

• +14/-10 in favor of "there is enough contextual evidence that we can deduce the question is meant for D&D 5e."
• +7/-7 in favor of "There is enough evidence to conclude that this question asks about the fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons"
• +6/-12 in favor of "No, the original post lacks strong evidence that explicitly points to a particular system." (deleted)

We can clearly see that most people are generally against the idea of "never guess", but there isn't even consensus as to what "never guess" means. Some people interpret "guess" to include logical deductions or analyzing evidence, other people do not.

Upvotes are not nuanced enough to deduce if the community agrees with or disagrees with a certain aspect of the policy. It is perhaps worth noting that policies never have to be followed and in this case, the current highly split policy (+56/-24 vs +50/-23 at the time of writing) is not supported by a good portion of meta users is on even shakier ground.