Monday, November 08, 2010

Possibly controversial Adminnings.

Hi all. There were a lot of backed up proposals, so I went ahead and adminned them.

Two of the Enacted ones were tricky, since they referenced rules that didn’t exist. I just wanted to draw peoples attention to the Admin text of http://blognomic.com/archive/swots_and_troublemakers/ and http://blognomic.com/archive/it_tolls_not_for_you/.

Thanks. Hopefully I’ll have time during this dynasty to re-activate and join in.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

08-11-2010 09:50:20 UTC

Thanks for being scrupulous. Maybe we should explicitly allow some leeway where the title matches but the rule number doesn’t, to cover numbering changes when a rule is repealed and later proposals forgot to take it into account.

We’ve only lost “If a Student is the subject of a Grudge by every Teacher, then that student is put on Detention.” and the repeal of Rule 2.2, so no great loss.

ais523:

08-11-2010 10:23:54 UTC

You should probably just ban quoting rules by number, to avoid a potential scam. (Or fix the number of rules rather than numbering them automatically, like some nomics do.)

Klisz:

08-11-2010 16:02:27 UTC

We tried banning quoting rules by number before. It just got confusing as people kept accidentally quoting a rule by number and we found out just a bit too late that we aren’t allowed to do that.