I have done a thing, which I believe to be within my discretionary power as Chief Justice: I have renamed many of the rulings on our rulings page. I used a list I had worked up while not on the court, with the goal of making the descriptive text at the top more closely align with the actual topic of the review, and not whatever the hell people decided to put there.
I kid you not, one of them was simply "the review by [name] on [date of request]".
I did an additional thing, which I again believe to be within my power, which was to edit two reviews that reference prior rulings to remove the content and tags which caused the rulings page to create duplicates of those rulings.
To be more specific, Ruling 3 cited Ruling 2 in full, including image tags, and that caused the decision in Ruling 3 to be split into two - Rulings 3 and 4, where Ruling 4 had the title of Ruling 2.
A second ruling, written by r3n (of course) referenced three or four other rulings in the same way.
The result was that the rulings page listed and linked to 49 rulings, when in actuality it should only have 44 (plus the missing ones from after those).
So, I went in and I deleted the problematic content, leaving the cited rulings in their place. The rulings page should now be accurate up until the last ruling placed there. I intend to go in and add the rulings after that once this request for review is handled.
So that's that.
Additionally - and this is a bit more involved so I wanted to make sure the 2 of you are onboard with it before starting - I'd like to tweak prior rulings to try to standardize their presentations a bit. Namely, add in a date that the ruling was issued whenever it's missing, add in the line for who drafted/joined the ruling, and place quote boxes around cited text. These changes would not alter anything but cosmetics, and would make the rulings significantly easier to read and process, so I think they would be good and perfectly permissible under our power.
Thoughts?
Edit: For the former, I will certainly announce what I did in the public gallery, but I wanted to make sure the rest of the court knew first.
I kid you not, one of them was simply "the review by [name] on [date of request]".
I did an additional thing, which I again believe to be within my power, which was to edit two reviews that reference prior rulings to remove the content and tags which caused the rulings page to create duplicates of those rulings.
To be more specific, Ruling 3 cited Ruling 2 in full, including image tags, and that caused the decision in Ruling 3 to be split into two - Rulings 3 and 4, where Ruling 4 had the title of Ruling 2.
A second ruling, written by r3n (of course) referenced three or four other rulings in the same way.
The result was that the rulings page listed and linked to 49 rulings, when in actuality it should only have 44 (plus the missing ones from after those).
So, I went in and I deleted the problematic content, leaving the cited rulings in their place. The rulings page should now be accurate up until the last ruling placed there. I intend to go in and add the rulings after that once this request for review is handled.
So that's that.
Additionally - and this is a bit more involved so I wanted to make sure the 2 of you are onboard with it before starting - I'd like to tweak prior rulings to try to standardize their presentations a bit. Namely, add in a date that the ruling was issued whenever it's missing, add in the line for who drafted/joined the ruling, and place quote boxes around cited text. These changes would not alter anything but cosmetics, and would make the rulings significantly easier to read and process, so I think they would be good and perfectly permissible under our power.
Thoughts?
Edit: For the former, I will certainly announce what I did in the public gallery, but I wanted to make sure the rest of the court knew first.
