I believe it is impossible to formalize everything that is allowed and everything that is not allowed in the Portal. No matter how far you go, people will always find a way to create situations which have not come up before and which are not covered by any written rule.
Example: Suppose we introduce a strict limit for how many puzzles any author may publish within a fixed time interval (such a limit exists already, but it is currently considered more a guideline than an actual rule). An author who wants to publish a greater number of puzzles anyway might be tempted to create multiple accounts for this purpose. We could forbid this, but then he might ask other users via email to publish them on his behalf. And so on.
As far as I am concerned, the puzzle needs a reasonable balance between written rules, unwritten rules, the users' willingness to follow these rules and a mechanism to enforce them. Note that we are already enforcing certain standards which not written down anywhere. For example, when the "C.C. vs Sayori problem" came up, many people urged us to take action even though it would be surprisingly hard to point your finger at any explicit rule that C.C. might have broken.
As uvo said, we are still trying to figure out what the best way is to deal with such situations. In any case, what bothers me is that users are happy to break one "rule" (regarding the anonymity of ratings) while pointing out another "violation". Why should one be legitimate, but not the other?
Deciding what kind of behaviour we find acceptable or not is a very delicate matter. You may remember that we had similar discussions in the forum already, and the decision making process for the Portal was even brought up in our last two annual community meetings, with no definitive outcome. The Portal has changed so much, and there are so many colliding opinions by now; it would be foolish to assume that the problem mentioned in the OP could be solved easily to everyone's satisfaction.
Example: Suppose we introduce a strict limit for how many puzzles any author may publish within a fixed time interval (such a limit exists already, but it is currently considered more a guideline than an actual rule). An author who wants to publish a greater number of puzzles anyway might be tempted to create multiple accounts for this purpose. We could forbid this, but then he might ask other users via email to publish them on his behalf. And so on.
As far as I am concerned, the puzzle needs a reasonable balance between written rules, unwritten rules, the users' willingness to follow these rules and a mechanism to enforce them. Note that we are already enforcing certain standards which not written down anywhere. For example, when the "C.C. vs Sayori problem" came up, many people urged us to take action even though it would be surprisingly hard to point your finger at any explicit rule that C.C. might have broken.
As uvo said, we are still trying to figure out what the best way is to deal with such situations. In any case, what bothers me is that users are happy to break one "rule" (regarding the anonymity of ratings) while pointing out another "violation". Why should one be legitimate, but not the other?
Deciding what kind of behaviour we find acceptable or not is a very delicate matter. You may remember that we had similar discussions in the forum already, and the decision making process for the Portal was even brought up in our last two annual community meetings, with no definitive outcome. The Portal has changed so much, and there are so many colliding opinions by now; it would be foolish to assume that the problem mentioned in the OP could be solved easily to everyone's satisfaction.