[Discussion] can we stop arguing about rules until somebody posts a number

Trying to get a straight answer on this: can we stop arguing about rules until somebody posts a number.

What the ranking does, in case you assume it is hiding something.

The hot ordering combines the magnitude of a submission’s score with its age, so that a new post with moderate support can outrank an older one with more. The controversial ordering weights total vote volume by how evenly it splits, so a heavily contested thread rises above a small evenly-split one.

Both are published, and both are reproducible from the score and timestamp shown on every submission — one member here rebuilt the ordering in a spreadsheet to check. The consequence worth knowing is structural: feed position rewards early agreement, so the top comment is frequently not the best answer. Sorting by controversial occasionally is genuinely worth doing.

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.

Checked the sponsor disclosure because I assumed it would be vague. It was extremely specific and slightly boring.

Ask me anything specific. Anything general I will probably get wrong.