17
\$\begingroup\$

From this meta Q from 2013, the tag is for questions about engaging in that practice, or people doing so. It isn't for asking about strict rules interpretations; that's 's turf.

I discovered a bunch of our [rules-lawyering] questions were really RAW questions, though, so I retagged them. Then I found out that's the case for all our [rules-lawyering] questions, except these two:

Incidentally that's the exact issue raised in the meta Q I linked: all the [rules-lawyering] questions were actually RAW questions, bar one, that "how should I respond?" question linked above. More than a year later, the situation hasn't improved and the tag still isn't used well.

We should synonymise [rules-lawyering] into [rules-as-written] to tag the remaining questions correctly, and then remove the synonym to let the [rules-lawyering] tag vanish altogether.

Questions about rules lawyers can just be tagged with [social] and/or [problem-player/gm], and the above two questions are already tagged with the latter.

Mods, please make and then remove this synonym?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Given all the retagging going on, is this still necessary? There's only a handful of questions with rules-lawyering left. \$\endgroup\$ – Tridus Oct 1 '14 at 12:35
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @Tridus Merging like this is neater - 17 fewer questions get bumped, 17 fewer questions get pushed off the front page. (The above 2 have to be edited either way.) If anything all the retagging is a reason to avoid more bumping. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Oct 1 '14 at 12:48
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ I would be concerned about a question about rules-lawyer problem-player getting tagged as rules-as-written (which is clearly not the right choice), but you’ve demonstrated well that people aren’t doing that. And in any event, it should also be clear to users who attempt to use rules-lawyer that rules-as-written isn’t what they were going for. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Oct 1 '14 at 21:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think it really ought to be aliased to [problem-player], but that doesn't address the questions that already have the tag. \$\endgroup\$ – Bobson Oct 1 '14 at 21:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Bobson After moving the questions over, the idea is to alias it to nothing and let it disappear. It hasn't been used as well as we might have hoped a year or two ago. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Oct 1 '14 at 22:41
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Bobson Ages ago the tag was created specifically to avoid the judgement that rules-lawyering is necessarily problematic, and we already have [problem-player] for that job anyway. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Oct 3 '14 at 1:02
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie For judgement-neutral situations I think the [social] tag would be appropriate, so there's still hope! \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Oct 3 '14 at 1:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, both of those make sense. \$\endgroup\$ – Bobson Oct 3 '14 at 3:09
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I did this thing. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk says reinstate Monica Oct 10 '14 at 2:53
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk thank you for doing the thing \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Oct 10 '14 at 2:58
18
\$\begingroup\$

I think we should do that. is just a specific sub-set of in the end, and the frequency that those questions show up don't justify having such a narrow tag. We have more questions that refer to, for instance, the maturity of people at the table than rules-lawyering per se, and we don't have a tag for .

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Agreed, except for this minutia: [rules-lawyering] was created to be a judgement-neutral tag that was not necessarily a subset of [problem-player], just a description of activity. But yes, it should be killed as having demonstrated its lack of use. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Oct 3 '14 at 1:06
  • 10
    \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie If you're the one rules-lawyering and you want help with that, then rules-as-written works. If someone is rules-lawyering and you're not happy with the situation, problem-players works. If people are rules-lawyering and there's no problem with that, then why are you asking a question about it? \$\endgroup\$ – Yamikuronue Oct 3 '14 at 11:12

You must log in to answer this question.

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