Just one question…
How specific must a reference for a rule be to be valid in a proposal?
I know that obviously minor typos are disregarded (as a reference to the rule “Prefcetures” would be), but would something like “The Prefectures” or “Whiteboard” be taken that easily?
I mean, there is nothing that forbids the existences of (sub)rules with those names, which makes it a possible scam material. Should I be alert to something of this kind, or would it be taken as refering to the “original” rules?
Thanks in advance.
quirck: he/him
Actually if i had paid a little bit more attention, i could have enacted that proposal saying that there had been no rule “Prefecture”, only “Prefectures”. To avoid this, the author could edit his post to correct that typo, but he didn’t. On the other hand, intentions were clear, so minor typos may be disregarded.
There was a case when the Proposal “Repel all dynastic rules”, while clearly attempting to repeal them, was enacted with a comment “Dynastic rules forced away from the main blog, but this doesn’t seem to do anything”.
So it’s better to avoid even mimor mistakes, or it’s up to enacting admin to decide how to enact the proposal. Of course, if he enacts it weirdly, a CfJ can be raised.