As I understand it, the EA forum sometimes idiosyncratically calls this philosophy [rule consequentialism] “integrity for consequentialists”, though I prefer the more standard term.
AFAICT in the canonical post on this topic, the author does not mean “pick rules that have good consequences when I follow them” or “pick rules that have good consequences when everyone follows them”, but rather “pick actions such that if people knew I was going to pick those actions, that would have good consequences” (with some unspecified tweaks to cover places where that gives silly results). But I’m not familiar with the use of the term on the EA forum as a whole.
AFAICT in the canonical post on this topic, the author does not mean “pick rules that have good consequences when I follow them” or “pick rules that have good consequences when everyone follows them”, but rather “pick actions such that if people knew I was going to pick those actions, that would have good consequences” (with some unspecified tweaks to cover places where that gives silly results). But I’m not familiar with the use of the term on the EA forum as a whole.
Ah, thanks for the correction! I’ve removed that statement about “integrity for consequentialists” now.