headmin rulings wiki page table tag entry substance

[Blase]

Recently, I got more interested in headmin rulings. I also got an interest in mass plasteel production. this plasteel interest turned into a reinforcement and securing interest. I looked on the rulings one day after someone told me I couldn't fortify brig when I asked security if I wanted to. The key term is fortify. When I asked sec mains, the term fortify was in major use. I decided to look on the headmin rulings page. I see the tagline "Fortifying security roundstart". I open up the actual ruling and I see that no where is the term "fortifying" used. HornyGranny does not say it, the author of the thread does not say it. The only thing denied is barricades, perhaps to mean walls or windows.

That is when I realized headmin tag lines have a massive effect on the common knowledge of headmin rulings. They can change perception of the ruling to something completely different. This is why I wanted to make this policy thread. I want to ask the headmins if they consider the taglines themselves to be enforceable, or is it just the actual ruling written post? If the latter is the only one with real power, I would like it to be made entirely clear on the headmin rulings wikipage that taglines are not substitutes for reading the actual ruling, they have no power, and are just descriptions.

[Mothblocks]

The headmin ruling you are referring to outlines the nuance you're talking about:

Barriers roundstart are not allowed, flashers are allowed, giving out guns/armor roundstart is allowed.

...but that being said, I've always seen this extended to things like reinforced walls as well.

The way this is worded is very general, are there any other examples of this confusion you can think of?

[dragomagol]

I open up the actual ruling and I see that no where is the term "fortifying" used. HornyGranny does not say it, the author of the thread does not say it. The only thing denied is barricades, perhaps to mean walls or windows.

This is definitely the case for multiple headmin rulings. When I was redoing the page and looking for dates for each, there was a ruling that had a completely different thread linked (namely the "Admin intervention without anyone ahelping" ruling linking to mass identity dupes).

We also saw this recently in an appeal, where the wiki page says

Purged silicons are subject to rule one and standard escalation.

but the linked post says

The general idea at the moment is if you were treated like shit while slaved, you're welcome to go batshit when purged, but if you dont have justification for a rampage you are just looking for an opportunity to kill people which is dickish.

which isn't exactly captured by the wiki.

I personally don't expect players to read through all of the linked policy threads, especially as the list continues to grow. Hell, as a new player, and as an admin, I didn't read the threads, just the posted summaries.

[Blase]

-snip-

Are Admins then able to use the summary or do they have to use the specific ruling given by the headmin? And if they can just use the summaries, doesn't that make the headmin rulings incredibly fluid not only by editing the wiki but by current headmins?

[dragomagol]

-snip-

Are Admins then able to use the summary or do they have to use the specific ruling given by the headmin? And if they can just use the summaries, doesn't that make the headmin rulings incredibly fluid not only by editing the wiki but by current headmins?

Right now admins operate by the summary on the rulings page. I would have said "the headmins are the ones that wrote the summaries so those should be followed" but as it turns out that hasn't always been true :p

Still, we operate by the headmin rulings page's wording and precedent from other bans/consensus with other admins on edge cases.

Currently the only people who can edit protected pages (like the Headmin Rulings page) are Robust Editors. This is made up of /tg/ and TGMC leads (plus Ned), so the risk of vandalism is low. If there was vandalism, anyone would be able to spot it in the Edit History of the page.

[dragomagol]

But to answer your question in a less roundabout way, I think the only time people "should" have to look at those old policy threads is when looking for clarification (like you did!) or for your own interest. Making them required reading would be an unnecessary barrier to entry, I feel.

(This is when I disclaimer that these thoughts do not necessarily reflect the thoughts of my fellow headmins)

[NamelessFairy]

We agree with the above

Headmin Votes:
NamelessFairy: Agree
Dragomagol: Agree
RaveRadbury: Agree