I don't, sorry. I see a vague rule that would be impossbile to impartially enforce which I read as an open ended appeal for good behavior and you want to use it to enforce the "general will".Mojo wrote: don't understand how you could conceivably have read the tidbits you quoted and NOT see that that is exactly the situation.
he calls them rules.there are NO set in stone rules. there is only ONE rule, and then a few notes to help understand that ONE rule.
Reads less like a few notes but an actual listing of rules that are actually based on actions commited. Evidence for your interpetation?JMS wrote:To this end, the following simple specific rules should be kept in mind and followed at all times:
No flaming. Insults, attacks, and rudeness all serve as obstacles to discourse; they will not be tolerated.
No spamming. Posts devoid of content are subject to deletion.
Stay on topic. If you must digress a great deal, create a new thread to deal with the digression. Discussion not suited to the forum being used should be brought to another forum.
Obey all rules specific to the forum section. Some forum sections have additional rules.
When in doubt, do what the moderation staff said to.
Act in good faith. Trolling, dishonesty, and other forms of insincere behavior may be penalized at our discretion.
hereplease explain to me how i am misinterpreting this situation. explain how this can be thought of as a set of rules and conduct which can be used to moderate the forum WITHOUT the mods simply viewing every post while thinking, 'is this reasonable? is this polite? is this informative?'
JMS wrote:The rules are not intended to insure that people offer good solid arguments. They are instead intended to insure that people can offer their arguments without getting side-tracked into personal attacks and vendettas - the idea is that with such impediments out of the way, the better argument will "win" - receive positive responses.
Barring a change of his mind I believe this invalidates your interpentation of the rule.