Ambigious Guidelines

Ambigious Guidelines (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> Ambigious Guidelines (1/30/2007 11:04:25 AM)
This was started in another topic, but I thought it needed to stand alone. From the Guidelines: "Subjects which are unacceptable regardless of circumstance include, but are not limited to - minors, bestiality, incest, necrophilia, snuff and criminal activities. Any other questions of acceptability will be determined based on the content of the given essay." Since there are a lot of jurisdictions which outlaw Homosexuality, ( think Islamic Republic ), then strictly speaking ALL discussion of homosexual acts is prohibited. Gotta update those guidelines specifying which Jurisdiction(s) are applicable.

SweetSarijane -> RE: Ambigious Guidelines (1/30/2007 12:34:31 PM)
<shrug> Common sense "should" fill in the blanks really. It gives you the basic no nos and general idea. I can't see that every little thing needs to be listed and spelled out. This site is for adults afterall.

farglebargle -> RE: Ambigious Guidelines (1/30/2007 1:09:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SweetSarijane <shrug> Common sense "should" fill in the blanks really. It gives you the basic no nos and general idea. I can't see that every little thing needs to be listed and spelled out. This site is for adults afterall. Ok, here's a real live example. Say your Mom is sick with Multiple Sclerosis. You want to explore your options. You live in a STATE which recognizes the documented medical uses of marijuana. The FDA says there is no beneficial use of marijuana, despite the overwhelming evidence proving otherwise. Unlike Montel Williams, who uses marijuana to alleviate HIS multiple sclerosis symptoms, you can't talk about it here. A Moderators may call that United Stated Federal Jurisdiction is in play. ( As opposed to the State of California ). Which is ONE opinion, but not supported by the guidelines, which do not make any specification. So since the guidelines are mute regarding which Jurisdiction, isn't it true that anything unlawful in ANY jurisdiction can then be arbitrarily banned? Say, discussing homosexuality, because some fundamentalist nations consider it unlawful? I know it's absurd, but it's a direct result of the ambiguity.

mnottertail -> RE: Ambigious Guidelines (1/30/2007 1:13:55 PM)
Yep, thats about the size of it. Some of these rules are vague so that like the senate they can revise and extend their remarks. Hell, nobody can follow the ones spelled out in detail, so why give a fuck about the rest of it? That isn't the cause of the problem, they are not throwing down on homosexuals today. Ron

valeca -> RE: Ambigious Guidelines (1/30/2007 1:15:25 PM)
Collarchat.com was registered from Scottsdale Arizona, and would most likely fall under Arizona law for jurisdiction, not the Islamic Republic.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Ambigious Guidelines (1/30/2007 1:29:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: valeca Collarchat.com was registered from Scottsdale Arizona, and would most likely fall under Arizona law for jurisdiction. Meaning, farglebargle, that your mom suffering from Multiple Sclerosis can post to CM while having up to one ounce of marijuana in her possession for personal consumption legally at all times. If she has any more NO POSTING for HER!

Mercnbeth -> RE: Ambigious Guidelines (1/30/2007 1:33:35 PM)
this slave has asked specifically why threads discussing replicants are allowed to continue, regardless of how many times the unmentionable word is mentioned. this slave got an answer akin to they make the final decision as to what remains as posted and work within the rules they have to go by. this slave assumes they are the laws of the US, therefore, as you mentioned, discussions about the use of medicinal marijuana would fall under the category of illegal activities....but then, so would references to slaves as owned property or beating someone bloody, technically that stuff is against the law, n'est ce pas?

farglebargle -> RE: Ambigious Guidelines (1/30/2007 1:37:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: valeca Collarchat.com was registered from Scottsdale Arizona, and would most likely fall under Arizona law for jurisdiction. Meaning, farglebargle, that your mom suffering from Multiple Sclerosis can post to CM while having up to one ounce of marijuana in her possession for personal consumption legally at all times. If she has any more NO POSTING for HER! Tell that to the Mods.

SweetSarijane -> RE: Ambigious Guidelines (1/30/2007 3:29:43 PM)
I still say that with common sense (which isn't as common as it should be in my experience) one can overall understand what topics to avoid bringing up on here and that when a mod steps in to correct something the site feels shouldn't be on here, it should be understood they are doing their best to be fair and work within the guidelines. I also still don't believe that every little no no that could possibly be posted needs to be listed. Hell, if they did that, where would the bandwidth for posting be? Likely would be none left then. I think they give credit to those on here to have the intelligence to police what they choose to post and when necessary, they step in to correct errors. edited because it's been a long day and I had a brain fart lol

SweetSarijane -> RE: Ambigious Guidelines (1/30/2007 3:31:43 PM)
Oops lol, thank you Merc for tying that in for me.

WyrdRich -> RE: Ambigious Guidelines (1/30/2007 3:35:59 PM)
Think in terms of 'Party Fouls,' Fargle. Respect the house and the Mods are cool.

farglebargle -> RE: Ambigious Guidelines (1/30/2007 4:23:48 PM)
Oh, I understand the De Facto standards just fine. It pretty much always boils down to "Don't be an asshole" If you're going to go to the trouble of having Rules, you damn well better make sure they're good Rules. Because every DUMB Rule dilutes the value of the good Rules. In a world with multiple overlapping Jurisdictions, a rule of "Nothing Unlawful" is unenforceable in any meaningful way because EVERY instance of enforcing it is by definition an arbitrary exercise of authority. Hiding that arbitrary exercise of authority behind obedience to Rules is dishonest and hypocritical. I think people should keep in mind, I would have NOTHING against a rule saying "Don't Be an Asshole, and if we subjectively THINK you're being an Asshole, we just might toss you." Same effect but it doesn't cloak the anarcho-tyrannical application of subjective decisions within the excuse of "Just following the rules". We expect that shit from the TSA.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875