[akanevsky]

if you respected me as someone who might have a valid arguement

Are there any reasons for me not respecting you?
Of course, if you suspect me of not respecting you, there are probably some reasons which I don't know about. And you know better

PHP code being sloppy or invalid does not create rendering issues

It creates higher server load, and this only fact is enough to try and make it less sloppy. Esspecially in those cases when you run three large queries instead of getting data from a variable that was already created.

You are also talking as if the World Wide Web Consortium and Jelsoft are equal in status - They are not...

I am not saying that. I am saying that Jelsoft's guidelines should be on the same level as W3C, with some minor fixes and additions, of course. There should be some standards for every language. There are standards for HTML/CSS/RSS, and I don't see why not standartize rules for PHP?

Bit it is STILL a label and anytime you label something that changes it's place in the scheme of things. Being you supposedly know the PHP standard, then all of your mods would get the highest approval while someone like me would never get a mod released, because I know nothing about the standards. And, no matter what anyone else says, the wanting to help others with the standards would wane after a while due to frustration because some poor newbie doesn't catch on as fast as you think they should. No one seems to rememeber the time when they asked stupid questions over and over and just couldn't understand what you were trying to tell them. I rememeber those times dearly, I still do it.

You are right... But, I am sure there is an expression that would not create any misconception... For example, there would be an icon instead the text. The icon would be wrappen into an URL that would lead to a detailed explanation, describing concisely what the icon means. With an extended explanation like that, it is possible to make sure that there are no misconceptions.

I already said that there would be no enforcement:

"Based on above + plus KirbyDE's post, I am rethinking the effectiveness of the above method... However, I'd like to propose another plan, which I am sure can act as a compromisse between the two sides:

On vBulletin.org, hacks have many custom fields ("Installer Included", "Support Provided", etc). It should be no problem for the forum administrators to add a field "QA Verified", editable only by the QA team and the administrators. Once the field is created, make the board display only the Verified hacks by default, with an option to display a complete list of hacks (both verified and non-verified). The option should be visualized as a link in every forum, and it should create a session variable (not a cookie), that would keep the setting as is until the user leaves the forum. Once he\she comes back, it will once again set to only display Verified hacks.

This way, it will feel like that the Verified hacks are positioned above non-verified hacks. While the coding style will not be enforced, vB hackers will be encouraged to code properly in order to rate higher and display their hacks better. The best part is, this system is easy to implement (I could help making it), and it would not require immediate validation, which is a plus from the QA team's point of view."

In other words, the QA guys would help the coder to perfect the code, after which the hack would be marked as "validated"...

Re-code sloppy code you don't like to suit your own needs, and be done with it

You are still missing one: I'd rather not install your hack than to waste time for recoding it...