> Does the absence of a rule against X mean that it's ok to do X? Absolutely not.
Here it is "Does the lifting of a rule against X implies that it's ok to do X now?" A lot of times, the answer is yes, because that's a likely intention behind lifting a rule.
But I got that that was not your intention, because you wrote, that you removed it because they don't pose a risk anymore. That could still mean two things, that people are unlikely to do it or that people doing it now longer poses harm (relatively speaking).
Since in my experience people do like to point out to people why they were wrong posting something, this means you need them to know it is not expected to be done here. But I also don't see some other point in the guidelines about "meta-comments" in general, so that makes the second option more likely: it is okay to not forbid this now, because it does not pose that much harm. So either you expect newbies to somehow infer that rule (Why would you remove it then?) or you think it is now ok.
The difference between "a rule has been cut from the list" and "a rule is not on the list" only lasts a day or two. After that, no one will remember.
(I wouldn't say "lifted", though, since that implies quite a bit more.)
(Btw, I'm going to put some of that language back into the guidelines since so many people protested its removal - so this point is about to get even more theoretical!)
That is one of those enjoyable questions that is best answered by first generalizing it.
Does the absence of a rule against X mean that it's ok to do X? Absolutely not.
It's impossible to list all the things that people shouldn't do. Fortunately we've never walked into that trap.
> Does the absence of a rule against X mean that it's ok to do X? Absolutely not.
Here it is "Does the lifting of a rule against X implies that it's ok to do X now?" A lot of times, the answer is yes, because that's a likely intention behind lifting a rule.
But I got that that was not your intention, because you wrote, that you removed it because they don't pose a risk anymore. That could still mean two things, that people are unlikely to do it or that people doing it now longer poses harm (relatively speaking).
Since in my experience people do like to point out to people why they were wrong posting something, this means you need them to know it is not expected to be done here. But I also don't see some other point in the guidelines about "meta-comments" in general, so that makes the second option more likely: it is okay to not forbid this now, because it does not pose that much harm. So either you expect newbies to somehow infer that rule (Why would you remove it then?) or you think it is now ok.
The difference between "a rule has been cut from the list" and "a rule is not on the list" only lasts a day or two. After that, no one will remember.
(I wouldn't say "lifted", though, since that implies quite a bit more.)
(Btw, I'm going to put some of that language back into the guidelines since so many people protested its removal - so this point is about to get even more theoretical!)