[Fixes inaka#8] REJECTED: LC instead of lists:map

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ I swear I heard Joe mutter this while taking a nap at the office.
 
 One rule per issue.
 
-When discussed and approved, it will be moved to either the *Conventions* or the *Great Ideas* list. If rejected, it will be moved to the *Rejected* list.
+When discussed and approved, it will be moved to either the *Conventions* or the *Great Ideas* list. If rejected, it will be moved to the [*Rejected*](REJECTED.md) list.
 
 ### Acceptance criteria
 

REJECTED.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+## Rejected rules and suggestions
+
+***
+
+##### rule
+>  Use tail-recursive functions instead of foldl
+
+##### rejected because
+  We love high-order functions!
+
+***
+
+##### rule
+>  Using ``'andalso'``, ``'orelse'``, and the like, might save a 'case' or two
+
+##### rejected because
+  They're not intended to be used that way and the resulting code messes up with dialyzer
+
+***
+
+##### rule
+> Replace ``lists:map`` with either ``lists:foreach`` or list comprehensions
+
+##### rejected because
+  There is not true that LCs are better than ``list:map`` in all scenarios.