Perhaps my quotation oversimplifies a
bit. Sometimes, even where rules aren't strictly needed, they are
still useful. They save time in not-reinventing-the-wheel, and in passing down corporate memory
about good ways to do things, and in reminding people of a common culture and making them feel safe and unstressed. I would characterise most of the
website award rules in that light. The rules as a whole are a well crafted constitutional design, which fits with Forum's theme (after all, everyone here has got one or other
Roman Imperial title), but some are in practice unnecessary. For example I don't think I'd want to be involved in any sociable
committee where we really
had a need to enforce rule 14 (which says
committee members shouldn't
act corruptly), or rule 15 (impeachment process). Rule 3a, which says sites may only hotlink to the content of others' with permission from said owners, isn't how the internet works. And so on. Putting my business-man's hat on, I might consider proposing to cut the rules down to, say, 10 guidance points. But I would be far more likely to say that spending time on rewriting rules isn't worth anyone's effort, and that the overarching guidance is that the
committee should
act sensibly and efficiently with regard to the general aim of the awards, and with awareness that the historic rules embed some
wise experiences from the past, as well as decent integrity principles. On the latter, I am however considering adding a rule that forbids us from coveting other
committee member's wives. Just try and enforce that one!