[Discussion] are the c/vendorvetting evidence rules too strict (no)
The title is the whole question — are the c/vendorvetting evidence rules too strict (no) — but here is why I am asking. The ranking functions are published: the hot ordering combines score magnitude with age, and the controversial ordering weights total volume by the balance between up and down votes. Both are…
How a rule actually changes here, since people assume it is arbitrary.
Somebody posts a proposal with replacement wording — not a complaint, actual text. It gets argued about, usually for a week or two. If it survives, it goes in with whatever amendments came out of the argument, and the change is announced with the reasoning attached.
The reason wording is required is that it is the only thing that can be evaluated. "The vendor evidence rules are too strict" cannot be adopted, rejected or amended. A proposed sentence can. Several rules on this site started as a comment in a thread like this one, which is the strongest argument for the process.
the disclosure is boring because it has to be
Correction: that rule applies to the vendor boards specifically, not site-wide. The wording is on the rules page.
Yes — a proposal with concrete wording gets discussed. A complaint about the rules in general does not.
removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it
What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?
a rule you cannot inspect is just a preference