[gsf_emergency]

I want to be able to upvote this comment just to show everyone how rules like "don't change the headline as originally given by website" or "let randos (with unpredictable emotional structure) flag stuff" lead to suboptimal outcomes

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Sure, but any system of rules leads to suboptimal outcomes. Which isn’t to say the devil you know is better than the one you don’t, just that this being a suboptimal outcome is not in itself a reason to change those rules. In that context, the title rule is rather agreeable.

I usually see people complaining about misleading headlines when it does not match the linked article. To be fair, it is sometimes an improvement but the point is that it’s always editorializing. Keeping that to a minimum only when the article’s headline is particularly objectionable seems to be better than letting every poster editorialize as a matter of course.

[gsf_emergency]

For these above reasons, I like the "don't editorialize" rule by itself. BUT it seems especially suboptimal in comparison to its combination with the "let people flag stories without justification" rule.

No worries, I got ya, buddy:

Imho instead of eschewing quantification altogether, rules should have a ELO style rating computed from the effects of their pair-wise combinations :)

The hard part could be the combinatorial explosion lol