user126: As I read the meta page, I see increasing number of "Should we allow...?" questions.
We're in a phase when we are creating rules about the site. The natural reaction is that we see a question which arises our doubt - seems poorly written, barely on topic, common knowledge, not specific enough - and our reaction is to write a meta asking if we should make a rule regarding this type of questions.
Which is fine and dandy if there's a bunch of the questions like this one really cluttering the site and we are really helping set shape to it.
But if this is a single question unlikely to reappear in another year, we should take a step back. We are creating a rule. Something there to stay, something to be learned by all who want to keep contributing to this site meaningfully.
If we make the corpus of rules too big, very few will ever want to learn it. Important rules will go unnoticed because the user reading a twentieth minor peeve forbidden will just stop reading and trying to remember.
So, before you ask whether given type of questions should be allowed or forbidden, take a step back and consider whether given type of questions is worth being regulated at all.
If they are to appear once a year, maintaining the general rule will be more hassle and introduce more disorder (by making the whole corpus of rules harder to learn) than deciding if the question belongs, ad-hoc and case-by-case.
My suggestion for questions like (1), (2), (3): leave unregulated.

user51: (I'll skip the points others already made)
An other advantage of these rules/discussions on Meta is that they can be used by (well-read) users/mods to point out new/other users that their question is not allowed/undesired on this site.
So, one does not require to remember them all, but they can be used as a reference.
I think, this works best if the rules are established in front and not when 'it is too late'. So I personally do not mind that there are a lot of 'Why this/Why that'-questions asked on Meta lately.

user15: I understand what you mean, but there are a few things to be considered. 
It's easier to set the rules now then having more people understand them. If they are ready by the time we reach public beta, the site will work better.
Second, the rules can be changed anytime, if deemed necessary. We're not carving anything in stone. Just setting a few parameters that we can always fix later. 
By the way, if a question is not welcome, it should not be welcome even if it comes once a year. If that means having a specific rule, then let's make one. We must not allow questions just because they're rare and so one rule is "a waste"... We need to separate good questions from bad ones. That's our job as a community.

user111: There are a couple of points you need to consider.
First of all, most new users do not care about these at all, and a lot of them don't know what meta is/that meta exists. They will ask questions regardless of the rules we make or do not make here.
Second, each rule has exceptions. Of course if we agreed that "questions X should be forbidden", and then, once in a while, an absolutely awesome question of type X arrives, it is not going to be closed just like that. It's the spirit of the law that's important here, not it's letter.
Third, the rules are not set in stone, that's why we have this: discussion. Don't like something? Feel free to discuss. 
Fourth, all those clarification posts "should we allow XXX" are really not for those new users who have just come to the site to post those questions. They are for us, more experienced users. They are there to help us understand whether or not a particular question should be closed, or how to act if a specific question appears. Note that most of the times these discussions end with common sense winning.
So yeah, don't take them too serious, just use them as guidelines when you are not sure how to act with a particular question.

126: <p>As I read the meta page, I see increasing number of "Should we allow...?" questions.</p>

<p>We're in a phase when we are creating rules about the site. The natural reaction is that we see a question which arises our doubt - seems poorly written, barely on topic, common knowledge, not specific enough - and our reaction is to write a meta asking if we should make a rule regarding this type of questions.</p>

<p>Which is fine and dandy if there's a bunch of the questions like this one really cluttering the site and we are really helping set shape to it.</p>

<p>But if this is a single question unlikely to reappear in another year, we should take a step back. We are creating a <em>rule</em>. Something there to stay, something to be learned by all who want to keep contributing to this site meaningfully.</p>

<p>If we make the corpus of rules too big, very few will ever want to learn it. Important rules will go unnoticed because the user reading a twentieth minor peeve forbidden will just stop reading and trying to remember.</p>

<p>So, before you ask whether given type of questions should be allowed or forbidden, <strong>take a step back and consider whether given type of questions is worth being regulated at all.</strong></p>

<p>If they are to appear once a year, maintaining the general rule will be more hassle and introduce more disorder (by making the whole corpus of rules harder to learn) than deciding if the question belongs, ad-hoc and case-by-case.</p>

<p>My suggestion for questions like <a href="https://anime.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/239/should-we-allow-questions-about-the-legality-of-forms-of-anime">(1)</a>, <a href="https://anime.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/246/should-we-allow-the-first-person-writing">(2)</a>, <a href="https://anime.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/163/is-asking-about-anime-crossovers-off-topic-here">(3)</a>: <em>leave unregulated</em>.</p>
 51: <p>(I'll skip the points others already made)</p>

<p>An other advantage of these rules/discussions on Meta is that they can be used by (well-read) users/mods to point out new/other users that their question is not allowed/undesired on this site.</p>

<p>So, one does not require to remember them all, but they can be used as a reference.</p>

<p>I think, this works best if the rules are established in front and not when 'it is too late'. So I personally do not mind that there are a lot of 'Why this/Why that'-questions asked on Meta lately.</p>
 15: <p>I understand what you mean, but there are a few things to be considered. </p>

<p>It's easier to set the rules now then having more people understand them. If they are ready by the time we reach public beta, the site will work better.</p>

<p>Second, the rules can be changed anytime, if deemed necessary. We're not carving anything in stone. Just setting a few parameters that we can always fix later. </p>

<p>By the way, if a question is not welcome, it should not be welcome even if it comes once a year. If that means having a specific rule, then let's make one. We must not allow questions just because they're rare and so one rule is "a waste"... We need to separate good questions from bad ones. That's our job as a community.</p>
 111: <p>There are a couple of points you need to consider.</p>

<p>First of all, most new users <em>do not care about these at all</em>, and a lot of them don't know what meta is/that meta exists. They will ask questions regardless of the rules we make or do not make here.</p>

<p>Second, each rule has exceptions. Of course if we agreed that "questions X should be forbidden", and then, once in a while, an absolutely awesome question of type X arrives, it is not going to be closed just like that. It's the spirit of the law that's important here, not it's letter.</p>

<p>Third, the rules are not set in stone, that's why we have this: <a href="https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/discussion" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;discussion&#39;" rel="tag">discussion</a>. Don't like something? Feel free to discuss. </p>

<p>Fourth, all those clarification posts "should we allow XXX" are really not for those new users who have just come to the site to post those questions. They are for <em>us</em>, more experienced users. They are there to help us understand whether or not a particular question should be closed, or how to act if a specific question appears. Note that most of the times these discussions end with common sense winning.</p>

<p>So yeah, don't take them too serious, just use them as guidelines when you are not sure how to act with a particular question.</p>
