Ontological Disproof of God

[emjay]

Okay, that's post #682 from Kit, linking to the rules for the Introductions forum:


The second paragraph is an ideal situation but it's not a rule, indicated by the fact that the first paragraph says its explicitly disallowed in the Introductions forum; it would not need to say that, nor would it make sense to, if it was explicitly disallowed everywhere. What it says is that elsewhere there is general leniency about it, which means that staff only take action against it if it crosses the line into trolling, flaming etc. Basically, this forum has three levels; 1) the Introductions forum where members are explicitly disallowed to be rude/insulting, 2) most of the rest of the forum where members are not explicitly disallowed to be rude/insulting but are encouraged not to be and would be punished if it went too far in the sense of devolving into persistent trolling/flaming etc, and 3) R'lyeh, the area of the forum where the gloves come off and are allowed to come off, ie the rules on flaming are relaxed. Here are the rules for the R'lyeh forum:

Emjay 
The statement which you maintain is not a rule is, indeed, a rule.  The statement appears within the parameters of a language of Forum rules.  The auteurs did not pause to inform us the second sentence is not a rule.  The second sentence is a rule, because the subordinate portion thereof prescribes members must refer suspected spammers and trollers to staff; so the fragment of concern to us now, stands between two explicitly enunciated rules, and cannot therefore be characterized as not a part of the forum rules.  The declaration is a rule which is telling us members do not have carte blanche to conduct themselves in an insulting manner in any sector of the forum.  Negatio

Okay well I guess you should just clarify with the staff... those who actually wrote the rules... what exactly that rule means. But I still think it's what I said, but will obviously accept correction if it is otherwise.