Rules for Coding Predictions

[Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}]

Jen: I love running across the pre-OOTP posts that are dead on for what
actually happened in OOTP.

Carolyn: In truth, I really don't care much what you do. I don't find this
section of the catalogue interesting at all. I think it's because I've
always seen it as a place to dump the one-liners, which I tend to include on
the basis of (a) they were creepily right; (b) they were bizarrely wrong.
Please do delete whatever you like.

OK, Boyd here again, and sounds as though we're going to go more with
predictions as entertainment. Fine enough! I'll keep anything merely
entertaining in the 'without canon' buckets, while making sure that only
those defended reasonably stay in 'with canon.' Further, I'll uncode from
Predictions those that are truly theories, leaving them their other more
appropriate codes (e.g. Vampire!Snape) or adding the recode tag if
necessary. Finally, I'll remove the repeated tripe.

So going forward, the rules are,

1) Code to predictions only if the post is almost entirely a prediction--no
general theories here, please.
2) Code to 'with canon' only if the prediction is well-defended
somehow--we'll be liberal as to what canon means.
3) Code to 'without canon' only if it's unique. Err on the side of "toss the
boring, keep the entertaining."

--Boyd
"...working at the car wash, yeah..."