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.
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.
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.
It might have been AutoCorrect, and the “social rules” the original comment makes hundred times more sense that way
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.
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.
I can't imagine what word might have been autocorrected to "roof" that would make more sense here.
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.