Quote Originally Posted by Gwynfrid View Post
For any rules discussion, we should consider the value vs effort ratio. We have a grand total of two Q&A sessions in existence so far. Establishing complex rules requires more discussion than such a limited field of material warrants. I recommend we keep the grey area, and make an ad-hoc decision for any future Q&A. That's likely the more efficient approach, as opposed to a lengthy debate on a rule that would apply very rarely.
Have I missed someone stating the desire to establishing complex rules?

Yes, Jasdoif and I had a discussion about rules in general. But as I said it was imo mostly out of a misunderstanding about what exactly we talk about. That is settled now (and nevertheless I think it was a good discussion where at least I learned things about how Jasdoif sees the rules [which after getting rid of the misunderstanding there seems to be pretty similar to what I think of them]).

Right now basically the only rules establishing going on is a new Rule G on how to possible handle Q&A. And basically we only had people supporting a Rule G "Q&A can be included in their entirety".

Jasdoif amended that proposal to
Quote Originally Posted by Jasdoif
Rule G: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, although only Rule A must apply to all parts; only a majority of the content must abide by other rules.
which imo is basically the same.

Though on a second thought I would change it to "Rule G: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety, if they fulfill Rule A. Other rules don't need to be enforced. Whether they will be included or not in their entirety is up to thread consensus." That would eliminate any possible discussions about what exactly "only a majority of the content must abide by other rules." turns out to be. [But it has the same intention as the other stated rules G]


Also since there seems to be soon a vote on it: I think to make it fair there should also be at least one alternative to vote on. The imo logical clear alternative is "Rule G.Alt: Complete Transcripts of Q&A are outside the scope of this thread."

If there is consensus on one of those Rules they should be added to the OP and make it clear how such things will be approached in the future. [It is possible that someone will figure out another possible way to deal with them, so maybe there could be another option to vote on I think.] With that out of the way we can then decide what to do with the Twitter Q&A (or just do it one voting process.)


Or I think if no one says anything against that Rule G (I don't think we exactly should need a vote on the exact formulation) we could just skip the whole voting thing (at least on Rule G). So far I have heard 5 people saying they like that rule and no one saying that they don't want it (though some posters haven't said anything on it). So if it remains such a clear consensus (X-0) I don't see any reason to actually do a vote, unless Jasdoif wants to do it. Because we only need to find consensus. If there is clear consensus (which X-0 is. If at least one person would say something I could understand an argument "someone said they don't like it, so I wanted to wait for the vote on it to reduce clutter") then there is imo absolutely no benefit in doing a vote.