Quote Originally Posted by Jasdoif View Post
It's for those reasons that I view the rules as applying as an entry/exit gate to the Index, rather than applying to the Index content directly. It has tradeoffs, like the occasional inconsistency with some of the things we have in the Index like the transcript, but I think the reduction in workload and increase in perceived reliability more than makes up for it.

I keep explaining my reasoning here because how the curator intends to apply the rules is a critical portion of how the thread's run. My interpretation is not automatically the best or most-agreed-upon; If I'm off my rocker, it's better to find out sooner than later.
Your reasoning certainly makes sense. But I personally don't think that the approach I would use would make really more work. It only would cause any work if someone sees a comment that breaks (for whatever reason) one of the rules or the thread rules change (and even in that case you could just change the rules and only remove something if someone points out it is against certain rules). And to add: We never had a change in thread rules since they where established. I also wouldn't really see Rule G as a rules change, but only as a Rules Errata/Addendum/Clarification, to make it clear what we should/can do with such Q&As. Because right now it isn't really covered.

Imo the thread rules are there to say "we have established the rules and try to enforce them. But we are human and make errors, so if we find errors we should try to fix them and not say 'Mh ok, it is wrong, but since it is there we just leave it be' ". (But I might be wrong on that part - at least this is my interpretation of the rules.)


I also wouldn't say that it would be unreliable. Since it clearly has a reason why that change would happen. You could even do an announce prior changing something [and/or keeping a backup handy if needed], to see whether there is a problem or not. (And in that case maybe we can fix a broken rule.) Also if something isn't clear (like the Interview case) nothing stops you/us from first having a discussion about it before anyone does some crazy things.

Just for example: If some post we have Indexed becomes unaccessible (e.g. Internet Wayback Machine failure or a post gets deleted somehow), would you want to keep it in the Index because thread consensus was to include it and we would need to re-vote first on it to remove it? Or if Rich posts "Belkar is Lawful Good" would you require us to un-vote the "Belkar is Evil" quote?

Because I think that would be the (I admit kinda extreme) logical conclusion of your statement. But imo from the thread rules it should be clear what should happen in both cases - without anyone actually needing to say something about (other than pointing it out). And I don't think that would make sense to have those Rules established to later just ignore them if someone feels like doing so. [Don't get me wrong: If we see the need I certainly think we should change the rules. But imo the rules are there to reduce the need (or even the possibility) to discuss quotes that fall outside of them.]


TL;DR: Imo Rule F isn't above the other rules. We shouldn't be allowed to sneak in quotes that violate the rules. And if something managed to sneak by somehow, we should try our best to get rid of it. (Otherwise I think they are basically meaningless)