The Index of the Giant's Comments III - We've Left a Banana In Charge

[Jasdoif]

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]

I'm loath to put in blanket exceptions to so many rules like that, even in the limited cases where this would apply.

The majority thing was my attempt to focus on archiving things we're likely to use anyway. So for example, a Q&A about OOTS with an isolated question about Italian food is perfectly fine, while a Q&A about Italian food with an isolated question about OOTS is not. (Whether the isolated question about OOTS warrants inclusion as a normal entry would be determined through the usual process, but including the entire Q&A would be out of the question since most of it doesn't satisfy Rule B.)

A more plausible (but less entertaining) scenario would be if a portion of an OOTS Q&A was excerpted separately from the entire Q&A, and transcripts of both are made; the complete makes the excerpt redundant, so we could only include the larger one instead of both because of Rule E.

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.

I'm thinking we should discuss it to come up with a well-accepted formulation (or to adopt an alternative instead of the current direction and things), and then I'll put that formulation up for a vote.

Partly so we've got input on the matter even from people who might not be inclined to debate it, and partly so I won't have to remove or amend "These rules were decided by forum vote" at the beginning of the rules.