1
\$\begingroup\$

A recent question included two new tags. One of them I do not understand the purpose of: "fun." What kind of questions should this tag be used for? Given that discussing tabletop games is the favorite hobby of many of our contributors, it seems to me that we could apply it to any question on the site. Is there some subtlety I'm missing?

At the time of writing, the tag's tag wiki is blank.

\$\endgroup\$
6
\$\begingroup\$

Answer 1: because people make new tags every day for all kinds of bizarre reasons.

Answer 2: to tag its specialness as an allowed question not meeting the guidelines, I assume. Based on that assumption I have changed the tag to , given it a tag wiki explaining the setup, and added this information to the meta question that spawned it, Just For Fun Request: Show-off character sheet thread, where we gave permission for a site-rule-breaking "fun" list question. Oh, and deleted the other pointless tag.

This kind of tagging is now other SEs designate rule-breaking "fun" questions, and it's a good idea because the tag wiki can convey the context of "it's not a usually allowed question blah blah" concisely.

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

This tag (and it's new form ) have no purpose on this site and should be eradicated at our earliest opportunity. It's a meta tag and those should be removed with abandon. It was created to justify a question that does not fit our guidelines. If we'd like to allow that question, let's just allow that question and not invent a meta tag to make it somekind of sacred cow. Creating a new tag for it was probably the worst possible idea when a comment below the question indicating that it was discussed on meta and approved would have been plenty.

Here's the fundamental problem with having a tag for this:

  • It encourages more questions just like it.

Questions that would merit a "just for fun" tag (other than the one that it's been applied to, as it's a bit of a different category), are what we'd call GTKY (Get To Know You) questions. These questions are terrible fits for SE as they break the voting. An occasional one can be good especially if it attracts experts, and would be acceptable on meta. However, the main site should not be the place for them. More importantly though, the very existence of the tag encourages more of this stripe of questions and is a broken window. We don't want more of these, if we allow a few tightly controlled ones, that's OK provided there is consensus, but having a tag is basically saying "ask whatever GTKY question you can think of" and then we're down the slippery slope of "What's your favorite class" and "Monks!"

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ it's a meta tag for "don't do stuff like this, this is an exception" \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 29 '14 at 2:46
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ To be fair, there's a precedent on other sites for exactly this kind of tag. In evidential terms it does works on other sites, in a kind of "two wrongs make a right" way I suspect. Given precedent that this kind of rules-breaking tag on this kind of rules-breaking question is apparently not inherently bad for an SE, an argument will have to be more substantial than "it breaks the rules". I suggest an argument about the question type itself being harmful despite the precedent. That's how I'd argue. :) (Note: I don't even disagree; I'm actually invested in seeing a good argument against it.) \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie May 29 '14 at 2:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ The point of the tag is to make it clear they are exceptions that need to be approved on meta before asking. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk May 29 '14 at 13:40
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk that's not mechanically enforceable and a misuse of tags at best. What does a tag do that a comment pointing to a clear consensus meta discussion doesn't? \$\endgroup\$ – wax eagle May 29 '14 at 14:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .