- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
O-3 US Army Reserves AMEDD APMC
"To conserve the fighting strength!"
Posted by: Jay120171
Bobcast: the only ninja to operate an ER out of his mom's basement
Posted by: Primo84
I'm going to have to agree with coolmike on this.
In a perfect world, yeah, the current rule would be fine. I don't know if it's a big issue that a lot of people run into, but I do know that plenty of people seem to need things spelled out for them.
You're giving us a little too much credit here, bobcast.
Posted by: bobcast
Posted by: coolmike699
The rules say:
Do not post about any illegal substances or activities.
Shouldn't the rules say "Do not advocate or instruct about any illegal activities"? This is obviously what the rule means, because if we were banned simply for posting about an illegal activity, we would all be banned by now. It's also what the "render unto caesar" clause means (it dosen't prohibit discussion of the past, like yesterday's shooting in Ohio).
It's a slight change, but a big difference.
Nope.
The rule is perfect the way it is.
The lack of specificity allows the moderation staff to exercise this little thing called judgment.
Posted by: Achronos
We have a winner.
Posted by: CTN 0452 9
I imagine that the clause is intentionally vague, so they can use it in any circumstance without somebody trying to nitpick their way out of trouble. Obviously a news story is allowed, but they don't want to start adding explicit exceptions that people could try to use to appeal a well deserved permanent ban.