(September 11, 2018 at 8:01 pm)negatio Wrote:(September 11, 2018 at 7:11 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Even if the section you quoted were a rule, it only says that members are not free to insult others without limit. But then, that's already been pointed out in the rules on flaming, as well as the prime directive. It's simply underscoring that there are limits on behavior, without actually setting any new limits. What it does not do is create a new rule whereby members are required to treat new members in any way differently than other members outside the introduction forum. Nobody has ever had carte blanche to be insulting or rude outside the introduction forum. It only requests that people try to be welcoming and friendly at all times. It does not say we are obligated to do so, nor that failure to do so will be punished.
One cannot differentiate until deeper study of a block of language posited as a totality under the rubric "rule(s)" which are, all, prima facie intended to be law.
You are now doing what emjay did, and, attempt to force differentiate of one part of the totality as rule, from another part thereof that you want to arbitrarily deem is not rule; when, in fact, a selfsame block of different descriptive sentences, all posited under the rubric "rule", constitutes each particular sentence within the totality a rule, per the fact that one single declarative sentence, being part of a totality dubbed law, is rule, simply by virtue of being a part of the larger ensemble.
Or you can just ask the people who wrote the rule. 🧐
