33

It's not a meta-tag… It's possible to use new-gm alone on a question. Consider the hypothetical question, "How do I start GMing?" Assuming it was asked in a way that wasn't too broad, it would need at least one tag, and the only one that would fit is new-gm. Hypothetical demos aside, there are a number of questions we have where the newness of a GM is an ...


29

We Need To Bring This To A Conclusion I did not have a specific solution to propose during the last RAW debate and I said "sure, let's give it another try." But this has failed. The tag is still confusing and we have no super clear theory on how to use it correctly, so it causes edit wars, and has become a lightning rod for hostility and bad feelings when ...


28

You've already done it! Tags not associated with any question are automatically destroyed at 03:00 UTC every day. (source) By removing the tag from all questions, you've lined it up for unceremonious burnination. Congratulations!


25

Yes. I don't think the tag has any real value, and I think burnination would be useful. The more specific "gm"-based tags will show up when someone starts typing gm into the tag field, which right now are often ignored because there's gm. With that tag gone, people will more often stop and consider the more specific tags the interface suggests to them. The ...


23

We don't need it. I will agree with what was stated in the answers of the Worth of "GM" and "players" tags question. My opinion on tags is simple: if I go into the tag query, I should know what I will be looking at. IMO tags are mostly used for filtering and searching. If I have a metagaming problem and I want to check if it was already asked, I will ...


23

I agree with retiring the [rules-as-written] tag. Rules as written questions and answers on the site are fine and we as a community affirm they will always be welcome, but the tag sucks at its own job and it's always been an unclear meta-tag. On why it sucks at covering its own topic There's a broad range of questions people have about rules. There's also ...


21

It should stay. For one, I fail to see any problem mentioned. Messing with tags should be restricted to when there is a problem affecting their use. For another, it helps signal the question is about the setting. Many people tag their general questions with the setting they’re in out of completeness. Third, “lore” is a super non obvious tag and not ...


19

status-completed: the draconic-bloodline tag has been merged (but not synonymed) with sorcerer. Draconic Bloodline is like a subclass of sorcerer in Pathfinder and D&D 5e. Having a tag for this is kind of like having the tags [archfey-pact], [the-fiend-pact], and [the-great-old-one-pact] for the different kinds of core D&D 5e warlock subclasses — ...


17

Destroy it As it currently is, that tag seems to have two uses: shopping questions and trying a particular new system. The former is off-topic and the latter is better covered by the specific system tags, new-gm if the GM is new to RPGs as whole, and system-introduction if the question specifically addresses picking up a new system. There's little value in ...


17

There are 73 questions currently tagged with it, and the majority seem to be correctly using the tag. It doesn't appear to be causing problems, which is one reason to burninate a tag. Would the site benefit notably from the tag not existing? I don't see any particular benefit that would motivate a burnination, but I could be overlooking something. I do see ...


16

I don't see any reason for burnination — burnination is for tags that are causing problems, and there's no apparent problem the time tag is causing. The time tag might need splitting, but it needs to be shown that it's needed first. A point of order, a point of perspective, and a practical concern first: A point of order. Tags aren't for subjects we can be ...


16

I noticed 3pp when it was first created and was quite dubious about it then,1 but didn't go out of my way to interact with it, preferring to let the community's folksonomy process chew on it a bit. My sense now is that it hasn't had much uptake, hasn't turned out to categorise anything one can be expert in or want to search for, and so it isn't needed or ...


15

It doesn't seem to be a tag that has much utility or community support, either of which I think is enough reason to clean up a tag. I'd be happy to see it made a synonym pointing to dice.


14

No, we don't need to jettison that tag. It's a setting and a topic people ask about; there's no reason to get rid of it. I could very reasonably go ask a fate-accelerated star-wars stunts question tomorrow about emulating jedi mind tricks in a Fate stunt in a custom Star Wars game. It does need some housekeeping though. You've brought up the topicality of a ...


13

I don't think it's useful, and usefulness is the alpha and omega of whether a tag should exist. Yes, we have other tags that are more specific than monsters, but that doesn't logically mean that all specific monsters deserve tags. We need to be more choosy than that to serve site usefulness of tags. Yes, we have dragons, but we don't have blue-dragons and ...


12

I'm not keen on burninating attack — it's being used in Fate questions (also this question) as a tag for one of the four actions, alongside create-advantage, overcome and defense.


11

I agree. The tag should be removed. Of the 4 questions it is attached to (one of which is closed), 3 would be better categorized by monsters and the fourth apparently tries to apply it to spell effects which falls under spells. Additionally it seems like an unnecessary and confusing tag to even have (without really coming up with a narrow definition), after ...


11

Don't rush to judgment Because of its importance, I think discussion on this topic should continue beyond the current April 5 deadline to at least April 26. So far as I'm aware—and the moderators can correct me if I'm wrong—, the April 5 deadline hasn't been, for example, imposed by an outside force but was, instead, decided on by the site's moderators. I'd ...


11

Nope There is nothing special about shape water which merits one, so we shouldn't have one for the reasons already given in that meta. However, we can save our precious diamond mods the effort and just make it a synonym. This is already done for tensers-floating-disk and tiny-hut so we can just do it with this one too.


10

It's generic, yes, but that seems to be part of the (tiny, withered) core of its usefulness, so I'm not sure it merits complete removal. If we keep it though, I think it need some overdue pruning and TLC. Filtering out off-topic questions and closed questions, and ones that were posted before published-adventures and adventure-writing were created and now ...


9

So, here's my plan for dealing with this: There should only ever be a couple of these at the top of the list at any time. We don't want to flood the front page and active tab with old questions. As such, I'm making a goal to edit two of these questions every day. No more, no less. This should be enough to get the job done, but (hopefully) not enough to ...


7

With very much the same reasons as had been in the 3PP case and most notably but one cannot be an expert on "third party publishers". – doppelgreener♦ So I vote to unleash the Imperial Inquisition on this one: Burn the Heretic, Kill the Mutant, Purge the Unclean


7

No, the tag isn't preeminently super useful or high traffic, no that doesn't mean we should get rid of it. Somebody with a good amount of rep thought the tag fit their question better than existing tags enough to warrant creation. That's a feature available to all users with over 1.5K reputation, because the network's system is to encourage users to create ...


7

The pixie tag is fine as-is. No action needs to be taken. We do have race tags: see elf, dwarf, tiefling, etc. It's fine to also have a pixie tag. It should not be a synonym of monster because it is not a monster. It may be ascribed a mechanical treatment of monster-ness in some game releases, but we need to look at this more from a generic point of view. ...


6

Don't fix what isn't broken. That's as true in car maintenance as it is with tags.


6

I'd prefer to keep it. It's a specific topic that people can have interest in and expertise in, and it's useful for searching for anyone who wants to learn about loaded dice. It ticks all the boxes. It doesn't have much activity to its name, but that's the only issue with it, and since it's fine to have only one or two questions in a tag that's a non-issue. ...


6

A modest proposal: link this Answer to the FAQ or [help] One of the best treatments of what that RPG-centric topic covers that I've read, in terms of how to understand that term and apply it. I am of the opinion that the term holds different connotations for different people, and that the latest question that re-raised this issue wasn't even about that tag ...


5

Update: Done! Background This looks like a good candidate for blacklisting. It's the sort of tag a person might reasonably assume was useful, but doesn't really add anything to question. At 102 questions, removing the tag is right on the edge of being reasonable to do manually. Looking at the discussion here, I think I can safely eliminate the tag from ...


5

We should not remove either of these, because they're pretty par for the course. On RPG questions, once you get beyond the game system, you start tagging with the thing you're fretting about. Maybe it's attack and damage. Maybe it's feats or skills, or a class. None of these things are really things you can be an expert in "across all games" but that's ...


5

Don't burn because of slippery slopes, burn because it is not useful "This particular [X] gets a tag, but does that mean every [X] gets one?" is not is not (IMHO) a valid reason to burn a tag alone. We do, in fact have other specific monster tags (eg dragons with 142 questions) and I think it is fine to have them if they are add something useful to the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible