Does adding the system tag to this question violate the "never guess the system" policy?

Question

This question: Would Zorquan be a Unity domain patron?

As I said in a comment, given that the question includes "2e Forgotten Realms" (provided for background context for lore purposes) and "we're playing a fairly by-the-book 5e campaign.", isn't this confirmation of D&D 5e? Can we not just add the [dnd-5e] tag ourselves in this case? Is the policy really this strict?

Rather than having comments under the question be the place to discuss this, I decided to open this meta so that we can decide here whether or not adding the tag in this case violates the policy.

Those who know my view on the policy would be able to guess that I want to add the tag, since I don't agree with the policy in the first place, but in this case, I think even those in favour of the policy might agree with me that in this case, there is zero ambiguity. Given that the extreme strictness of the policy makes no sense to me, I find it difficult to judge cases like this where it seems insane to me not to add the tag.

Do we add the tag, or do we go ahead and close the question and force the user to add the tag, even though they've already stated 5e in the question and made other references to D&D? (Not to mention that they've also included the unearthed-arcana tag, the description of which mentions that it is a D&D 5e tag.)

Is it really the case that system tags are strictly hands-off unless you are the author of the question, with zero exceptions (diamond mods excluded)? (Note that I'm not asking for anyone to convince me that the policy is a good thing; that's what the other meta Q&A, linked earlier, is for. This is about clarifying the policy's use in practice, with respect to this specific question, linked at the top.)

Answer 1

I know I am likely to be the minority voice here, but for the sake of future reference, I have decided to add this answer, so there is at least one counter argument. Let me start by saying that I respect the never-guess-the-system policy. However, I believe that policy cannot apply here, as there is nothing to guess.

NathanS did not mention the following pieces of information in his question above. The question of interest:

• Has already 5 tags, all of which are arguably more specific than dnd-5e.
• Quotes paragraphs from Draconomicon and gives exact page numbers. [This is an AD&D 2e Forgotten Realms sourcebook.]
• Gives a link to, and talks about a specific webpage whose title is 'AuldDragon's AD&D Blog' and whose content is discussing AD&D 2e speciality priests of Zorquan.
• Refers to the Unity domain from Unearthed Arcana.

So when we read the entirety of the question, there is nothing to guess.

I understand that the strict followers of the no-guess policy might still consider combining all these data to be a form of guessing. After all, the D&D and 5th edition phrases are not being uttered side by side. They may be (perhaps rightfully) worried that this example could open the gates for individuals incorrectly guessing in the future, self-confident that they are not really guessing.

My feeling on this is that we are not modrons or androids or maruts. People come to SE to get expert advise. And as an 'expert', "I understand the question when I read it" (Jacobellis v. Ohio).

Answer 2

It is a violation of the policy, strictly speaking. There are many games that have five or more editions, so “2e” and “5e” could well be references to those systems—nothing in the question confirms that they are playing D&D 5e. Officially, the Forgotten Realms is a setting only for Dungeons & Dragons, but that doesn’t stop anyone from using it for whatever system they prefer.

The odds of it being anything but D&D 5e, however, are vanishingly small. Moreover, since it’s a lore question, and Forgotten Realms lore always comes from Dungeons & Dragons (even if you use it for another system), it doesn’t actually matter if they actually are playing some other system. In theory, they could want lore from another edition of D&D to inform their play in the fifth edition of something else, but that’s getting preposterously unlikely. Particularly since I don’t believe any other edition of D&D has anything called the “Unity domain.”

The problem here is less that we can’t be sure, and more that the policy is strict for reasons that go beyond merely getting it right. There are also pedagogical and meta concerns raised in the most recent argumentation in favor of keeping the policy strict (disclosure: that was me). To wit, there is merit in having everyone on the site know that we have to close questions without a game and system attached (when they’re about rules, of course, which this is at least a bit since it references the rules content of the Unity domain). The advantage of this consistency is that it teaches new users about our rules and needs, and it ensures we don’t risk ever getting things wrong. The big problem with loosening the policy stems from the simple fact that we have no way of guaranteeing appropriate oversight on these kinds of edits; the SE software has no notion of system tags or their being special, to highlight these kinds of changes.

All that said, a possibility raised in that most recent pro-strict-ness meta post (again, disclosure, mine). Namely, a Meta discussion could be an appropriate way to ensure we have the oversight. In that post, this possibility was largely dismissed as not really being worth the time, but since we’re already here, we have had the meta discussion, and I don’t see any plausible scenario where this particular edit could be a problem. The policy exists as it does because we don’t have the best vision on any ad hoc decisions made by individual users and that’s a problem, but this isn’t a decision by any individual user—this is a Meta discussion, where we can gather consensus.

Thus, my conclusion here is

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.

This cannot be generalized; we can discuss this question but not any broader category of questions that are in some way “like” this one. A Meta consensus is necessary for this kind of edit.