When both @WAF and @DoubleAA are absent, we should hold a conversation on their behalf.

@IsaacMoses ^^^

I guess I should have compared us to the sites listed at chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/5391286#5391286 instead.

@msh210, cherem? judaism.stackexchange.com/posts/18072/revisions

@MonicaCellio "I understand that there are ethical and possibly halachic issues with publishing a letter or piece of email that I receive from another person without explicit permission." That's one of the cherems of Rabenu Gershom.

@msh210 just saw your answer -- makes sense now, thanks!

@MonicaCellio Welcs.

All: Merge soloveitchik and brisk?

@msh210 But tags are usually based on question content not answer content. If the OP didn't mention the cherem in the question, I don't think it should be in the tags.

For instance, judaism.stackexchange.com/q/17662/759 is not tagged masechet-megillah

@DoubleAA I agree, and thought of that objection. But here I think the asker wasn't asking "what's the source of this prohibition?" but rather "I know there's a prohibition; does it apply to...?" -- and the "I know there's a prohibition" is what I tagged. It could easily be reworded "I know there's a prohibition because of the cherem of RGMH; does it apply to...?". No? (Ping @MonicaCellio)

All: ^^ Thoughts? Too localized (asking for p'sak)? Fine?

@msh210 it feels localized to me. It seems to come down to "30 days elapsed or 30 individual days?", and I don't think there's likely to be halacha on that. But others here are way more knowledgable than I am, so I'm prepared to be wrong on that.

@MonicaCellio That's my feeling as well. SethJ seems to think so too.

@msh210 If you can recast it answerably, go for it!

@msh210 I don't think so. soloveitchik is about the rabbis in that family, like we have moshe-feinstein. brisk could perhaps become a derech-halimmud tag or something of that sort, or perhaps it should just stay in talmud-torah.