User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-1432718-20151123151828

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-1432718-20151123151828 RogerAckroydLives wrote: So far I have only seen a number of people join recently and make points of debate long-since resolved in the earlier stages of this thread. Are you claiming that only users who have been involved since the beginning can have any input? As long as the discussion is open, anyone is welcome to join in. And technically speaking, nothing is resolved until ruled on by an admin. RogerAckroydLives wrote: Are there any actual objections to the rule of three qualifiers? So far, I don't believe anybody has actually made a valid objection to the aforementioned rule other than CzechOut, I believe I spent quite a bit of time on my suggestion (which is really Tangerineduel's), giving the pros and cons. Since this is clearly not the same as this three qualifier rule, it should be obvious that I don't favor the three-qualifier rule. And I personally think my suggestion is a valid one. RogerAckroydLives wrote: However, this very thread makes it clear that this is not a policy followed by us in the past or any other sources. It's a common mistake that users make, thinking that just because a policy isn't followed, it either isn't or shouldn't be valid. This is a big wiki, and there are dozens of people editing every day, and they make mistakes. There is only a small handful of users that regularly correct the mistakes, and plenty of mistakes get overlooked. That doesn't invalidate any policy.