[ghostly_s]

> I also wonder whether the roof rule was written preemptively or retrospectively -- I hope the former.

Presume you're referring to [1], not the page you linked, and one might be inclined to accuse you of __feigning surprise__ but if not: using the roof is a quite common expectation in mid-rise buildings in big cities like NY, though not usually in a building you don't yourself own/lease in.

1. https://www.recurse.com/code-of-conduct

[golly_ned]

Why would you think they are talking about an entirely different page and topic?

[sincerely]

Well there is no “roof rule” on the page they linked

[serial_dev]

It might have been AutoCorrect, and the “social rules” the original comment makes hundred times more sense that way

[dxdm]

The social rules page links to the code of conduct, which contains a rule about the roof. The most sensible interpretation to me is that OP wanted to comment on both, possibly forgetting that they had to follow a link to the roof rule, or maybe actively considering both pages to be a single unit.

That would be the"strongest interpretation" of OPs comment, which the local guidelines prefer us to respond to.

[andrew_eu]

I'm honestly surprised how controversial this sub thread became. To put it to rest -- this is indeed correct. I commented on the roof rule but didn't link to the code of conduct because doing so didn't really seem to add anything that a reader couldn't find on their own.

[zahlman]

I can't imagine what word might have been autocorrected to "roof" that would make more sense here.

[albedoa]

Pause and consider the joint probability that anything was autocorrected to "roof rule" and that it just so happens to be the name of one of their rules.

[albedoa]

OP referenced the roof rule by name in the OP, which was quoted in the comment that you are replying to. What do you mean "an entirely different topic"?