I don’t think that nothing is very beautiful.

  Seems to be dangerous…

Ais doing something “for flavour” is always an ominous sign.

(Possibly relatedly, we should maybe drop that silly core rule of “if a rule isn’t named, the enacting admin can make up any name they like, so long as it doesn’t meet these particular criteria” and just say “rule must be renamed to ‘Unnamed Rule’”.)

And oh, right, rules don’t have a “title”, as Ais says here, they have a “name”, so Ais’s proposal doesn’t “specifically [state] that the rule should have no name”. So he could get a pet admin to inject any text into the ruleset when this enacted. (The “does not change the meaning of any part of the ruleset” restriction doesn’t seem impossible to dance around.)

Hey, I have to do things that aren’t scams sometimes, otherwise the actual scams would be obvious in their constancy.

I think it’s hilarious that you managed to find an actual, viable scam in a rule that I’d just thrown out as a joke, though.

s/k as it gives too much power to someone who isn’t me.

As an aside, I’m not entirely comfortable with the idea that “title” does not mean “name” here. Although the ruleset refers to names of rules, it appears to do so in a sense wholly compatible with natural English usage. Since “title” is also a reasonable word for that same thing, that’s what it should be taken to mean if used in this way.

It doesn’t matter for this proposal of course, since it’s been self-killed, but I’d argue the scam doesn’t work anyway.