why does nobody talk about disclosure
Trying to get a straight answer on this: why does nobody talk about disclosure.
Argued against the strict evidence rule for a year. Then read a supplier thread on another site and stopped arguing.
Read the ranking formula out of scepticism and reproduced the ordering in a spreadsheet. It does what it says.
Had a post removed, went to modmail, got a specific explanation and disagreed with it politely. It stayed removed and I understood why.
If somebody has the same thing measured a different way, post it next to mine and we will see whether they agree.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
How a rule actually changes here, since people assume it is arbitrary.
Disagreeing with this bit: making individual cases public by default is worse for the person being moderated.
This. Modmail first is not bureaucracy; it stops individual cases turning into a public pile-on.
Proposed a rule change here with actual wording and it was adopted. That is the process working and it is not fast.
Push back: the ranking is not hiding anything. The formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering.
Complained about a rule without proposing anything and was politely pointed at this page. Fair.