It seems to me that every single rules question we have, that's not explicitly saying "I want homebrew!" is answered with a) here's the rules, or b) if it's not clear here's how we rule it, or c) if it's totally a gap here's homebrew. We got rid of the [rules] tag but that's standard procedure, right?
All the rules questions on the front page not tagged [rules-as-written] read that way to me at least.
I can see the value of RAW-only questions - but if RAW means "a) here's the rules, or b) if it's not clear here's how we rule it, or c) if it's totally a gap here's homebrew" - then it means nothing, since that's the usual procedure!
I don't see the room for "frame challenge" on raw questions. Either you want RAW or you don't.
we talk about frame challenge like it's something standard, but it's a meaning creep from how we handle XY questions.
An XY question is when your problem is different frmo what you're asking.
But if you are saying "I want RAW" then you are deliberately constraining and saying "that's what I'm asking. I don't care if it's silly." Right?
Frame challenges are meant to be rare - this definition basically says "well... you know, all the time on RAW questions." Which seems like a violation of its intent and how it's used otherwise.
Asking for RAW means "I want raw even if the results don't make sense according to your simulationist, or game balance, or whatever other views you have."
right. "I don't care if you think the resulting effect is silly"
I know if I were to ask a RAW question, that would be my expectation. "What EXACTLY does the book say - maybe it belongs in a Murphy's Rules column, but whatever."
My entire problem isn't with the concept of RAW, it's that RAW meaning "well, you know, unless there's not" reduces the tag to equal to [rules] which we already got rid of because it was "obvious."
I mean, maybe the answer is to bring back a [rules-clarification] tag so that there's an obvious choice for people "just asking normally" can use....
Ok. At the moment, the best way I can think of to articulate is this: there's certain expectations in RAW questions, which are looser in most rules questions. There's a more razor-fine focus on what's acceptable, and at what point things outside those expectations become acceptable.
Like, suggesting some homebrew handling with only a cursory examination of the rules is not too uncommon in general rules questions, and will even often secure some upvotes. In RAW questions, the expectation is downvote that thing until even Hades can't see it anymore.
The RAW tag, vs general rule questions, is like a finely-tuned radio that will ideally pick up radio frequency 30.01, while regular rules questions capture a wider band which equates just to static.
@mxyzplk Yeah. And this is a super duper good thing to gather some comprehensive evidence of and statistics of. (6 questions in a huge site doesn't quite do the trick.) Hey, if everything's fine and about the same with or without the tag, that could actually be a really good sign to some users who like RAW, but have a perception that only certain questions and tags serve them properly. ("You mean I can get the same rules treatment I like.. everywhere!?")
Well, so here's the thing. While I'm willing to do that, it's clear it's not going to change anything and there will always be an argument about "well but that person's sentence meant THAT!" Anything that doesn't result in clear action (retagging, etc.) is useless given the hostility and unreasonableness of those who we "need to" convince.
For the last question I pulled the most recent questions. If we do the whole front page right now do you think it's going to help anything? Or just get more "you have the gall!" That's a rhetorical question, it's obviously the latter.
Subjective data gathering will never help solve this particular problem, unfortunately.
@mxyzplk I'll be honest, I'm not very interested in fulfilling on that. I've got a lot on and, right now, any time I could spend trawling through for evidence of that, I'd rather spend on other priorities such as drawing and session planning and time with housemates
So but back to the definition. Is the distinction really just supposed to be "well... raw is weighted more like 80% instead of more like 50% on these questions?"
It's clear you think so, that's possible, and you bringing up there might be no difference in results is something new to me I'm interested in examining further. But, like, right now I don't want to dig through enough stuff to prove to an individual with a strong opinion that everything's the same, that everything's in fact different. Maybe they are the same! But that's worth spending some time on and examining.
ok thanks. that's my general point, which is that if both [raw] and [notag] are "rules, then rulings, then homebrew" and the only difference is "well... and kryan and a couple others want dominion over it" then that's harmful.
which frankly is what I'm hearing.
"a certain subset of the site polices questions under a specific tag how they want" isn't, I think, something that's in the best interest of general site users.
@mxyzplk I think there's a big difference between "The way the tag is being used" and "the way it should be used," and that's the whole point of bringing it up in the first place--so why should examining the way it's being used right now be a useful example of how it should be used? That's the crux around which this whole topic (setting aside the major trust issues underlying it) is spinning.
We do need to get a better handle on how the tag's being used, I agree. But that's a different set of information from best practices.
Conflating the two is a major fallacy that the meta talks are getting caught in.
@BESW it's obvious (though can't be proven to those who don't want it proven) the tag's not being used well now. But for it to be used well, it needs an actual coherent definition that makes it different from questions without the tag. I'm still waiting on one.
But if you're specifically asking for contemporary instances of the tag's use to demonstrate best practices, that's actively ignoring your own observation that the tag isn't being used well right now.
This kind of apparent contradiction makes it easy for people to dismiss your sincere request as a run-around.
We need to analyse current practices, and we need to better define best practices. It's very doubtful that the same pool of samples is going to yield both simultaneously.
No amount of "analysis" is going to convince anyone of anything, that's become clear.
If we can get a coherent definition of the tag, we can hold to it. It's really simple, we're making a giant mountain out of a damn tag.
Our best guess at how to get deterministic data is being crapped on even now. Any attempt to just analyze the corpus of questions is doomed to fail in argument over "NO THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT." it's a giant waste of time because of the entrenched camps. This is a pretty simple problem people are trying to complicate to stymie change.
I'm happy with any definition of the RAW tag that meets SE standards and is logically coherent and different from not using the tag.
if a request for a definition of a tag is "a runaround" that's just proof to me that this is a turf battle not a good faith effort to make the site better.
"I'm perfectly capable of coming up with my own rulings, and in fact already have. I don't really care what other people think about this, I'm just looking for actual information about what the rules actually say."
The fact that both the tag and everything I put in my question were for the most part ignored is why I've only asked one question with the RAW tag.
@miniman that is indeed useful. I think there is definitely a place for a raw tag if it means "ONLY raw, no rulings or homebrew." Then we could police those questions in exactly the way you wanted on that question. Your experience is exactly why I think the current tag and its definition are sick!
@Miniman That's a pretty big part of the community! And it's the new people, hence what brought this up in the first place - it's unclear to new people so they're not using it in that way. Some small clarification would fix that, but that's being seen as threatening the "turf" of the RAW people (really the 3.5e/PF RAW people), so it's ballooning into a furor.
