Not that this has much effect anyway, as Fair Play is in the ambiguity clarification zone, and can only clarify stuff.

May as well. I trust you not to have snuck a scam into that particular rules change (sorry, been playing a lot of Agora recently and assuming there’s a scam in every proposal is par for the course there if you’re paranoid like me).

You didn’t escape the <strike> - you’re changing “struck to with <strike> tags” to “struck through with tags”.

If you’re only changing one word repeatedly (I don’t know if the leftover “should” in point 4 is intentional), you can just say “replace X with Y throughout this rule”.

Per Kevan.

I unidle to vote on this proposal.  Quorum rises to 8.

These ought to be “should”, suggesting that enforcement will be determined on a case-by-case basis.  “shall” would mean that such actions are always illegal, and thus cannot affect the Gamestate, even though sometimes they ought to be able to do so. 

For example, if a player wants to change names, most likely there will be a brief period of time where it is arguable that the player “controlled more than one Scripter”.

And there have been several instances where a responsible admin ought to be able to legally violate the last three bullet points—while cleaning up spam, for example.

Surely ‘struck through with tags’ still makes sense, grammatically and in game terms? the ‘strike’ tag is the only tag that strikes things through. Thus if you must strike something through with tags, you must use the ‘strike’ tag - surely?

@Devenger: or the <del> tag, which looks the same. Or <s>, the abbreviation. In a way, though, I’d prefer “tag that looks like a strikeout” to “tag that is <strike> in particular”.

  per Hix

Okay, per above comments.

S/K