Talk:Rules lawyer

message: Never likely to be more than a dicdef IMO. Listed on AfD. Andrewa 23:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And how wrong I was! Another victory for AfD, the article is now far more than a dicdef. Andrewa 04:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrewa - would you mind speaking in plain English? DigitalEnthusiast 19:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the other items here, I'd say 'dicdef' means 'dictionary definition', while 'AfD' is the dreaded 'Articles for Deletion' list.  Just as a clarification. --IL-Kuma 21:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Afd

message: "Gaming the system" is not at all similar to rules lawyering.  Gaming the system is doing something which would not naturally benefit you but which will because of an imperfect rule.  Rules lawyering is the separate concept of harping on about a rule or set of rules.  Someone who's gaming the system will usually keep quiet lest their abuse be spotted.  A rules lawyer usually never shuts up and relies on the sanctity of unchanging rules to prevent their abuse from being effectively responded to. Gronky 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gaming the system]] should not redirect to here

message: Does anyone have a DMG2 handy?  Are the bullet points in this section just a lift from that book?  If so, that section's a copyvio and should be removed. Percy Snoodle 15:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dealing with rules lawyers" section 

message: The article says a variant of rules lawyer is sea lawyer, and then goes on to claim it probably derives from the programming term language lawyer.
I'd be very surprised if this was the case.  Without researching it, I'd have thought sea lawyer (and barracks lawyer) came first, and language lawyer and rules lawyer to be the newer variants.  Is there anyone with actual knowledge who can confirm?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.141.101 (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology reversed 

message: Honestly, I don't think this kind of content has any place in an article.
Wikipedia isn't a 101: How to - guide, it's an encyclopedia. There are plenty of other
websites and resources that deal with this subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.200.210 (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.  This section is too focused on D&D. Besides, the phrase sounds insulting to ("biased") rules lawyers.  Rip it out. 67.160.192.13 (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the subtopic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.200.210 (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with... 

message: While reading the article for the History of baseball in the United States, I was struck by how the Merkle incident seemed to fit into this perfectly. This is a good example of rules lawyering from a certainly very different context. Would a section to add to this article discussing the confluence of rules lawyering in different contexts be appropriate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DespicableJay (talk • contribs) 20:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to similar incidents not involving tabletop games

message: This should be merged with gaming the system. Kennercat (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Protonk; gaming the system is about more than just actual games. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: This whole article looks to me like a definition of a (possibly slang) term.  It's useful (I got here from Nomic) but is it encyclopedic?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.82.23 (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think this is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. Wiktionary would be better as it would make it easier to provide multiple definitions (it hardly has a purely consistent use) and the folks there tend to be more impartial about interpreting meaning from sources. Ranze (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to wiktionary? 

message: The reference after "without reference to the spirit" from 1983's "Shared Fantasy" article by Gary Fine, is this readable online somewhere? If we can't read it, how do we know whether or not this reference supports the claim made in the introduction? Should we really be presenting Fine's opinion as fact? I think it would be more proper to say "Fine defines it as" rather than imply that his opinion is everyone's opinion of what a rules lawyer is.
Part of the problem with such a definition too is that the "spirit" of the game is an intangible and subjective idea, so should we not note that who is considered a rules lawyer varies upon each player's idea of a game's purpose and how closely others live up to that perception? Ranze (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Spirit

message: I have to ask- would the reference to 'wikilawyer' be a form of metagaming?
;)
152.130.7.136 (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metagaming