I just recieved a warning BUT I violated no rule! I request my warning by reversed.

Good grief, Paladin's call was a no-brainer. I would have changed the image to a link without a moments hesitation.

Sounds like an argument I used to have with my 6 year old about whether they were putting their elbows on the table during supper. "But, Daddy, (with both elbows an inch above the table) they're not on the table!"

Just ban him already.

No, Para's a good participant here. I'm not banning him over some bare boobies. Even if he seems to be rules-lawyering something that's clear as crystal to everyone else.

Banning him would be wrong.

There is nothing wrong, however, with pointing out that he is intentionally being an asshole about this.

And no, that is not a flame - it is my interpretation of what's happening.

He understands EXACTLY what's going on, and he's trying to cause trouble, or get you to admit YOU'RE wrong, when he is the one who was wrong.

^
Great, it's my interpretation of the situation that you're being an idiot.

The rule defines what can't be posted in the Red Room -> full frontal nudity.

I did not post that.

I posted a topless pic of a relevant news article.

If you're not happy with that then rewrite the damn rule to make sense!

Change "(full frontal)" to "(nudity)"

YOU are in a position to demand...nothing.
I, on the other hand, am in a position to grant...nothing.

You two need to remember which forum you're in.

Fine, Para, I'll change the wording of the rule just to make you happy.

^
At last sanity!

Now since we can admit that there was a disconnect between what was written and what was enforced can we please admit my warning was unfair and reverse it?

I request this thread be moved to the Red Room.

Between you and Zombie, every help desk thread would be moved to the red room.

No. You clearly posted an image that you shouldn't have.

^
What?
Clearly by who? The three people who posts in the red room all day long?

I followed the damn rule.

You're warning me for something I couldn't possible have known about and flies contrary to what was written down.

Should this forum accommodate those who frequent it while at work?

There's a case either way, but not doing so would probably decrease traffic considerably.

Some folks, like Nova and myself, also post from public libraries and school computers, where any sort of nudity is frowned upon, 17th century paintings and greek statues notwithstanding.

Since you're suck a good netizen here on WF, that warning shouldn't matter as you would never do anything that would force upon you another one. If you think something is borderline, you would definitely ask first, because you are a good poster here.

^
First I didn't believe it to be borderline. I still don't.

Second, you're correct. This "friendly" is unlikely to affect me in any way since I've yet to ever receive a real warning here.

But if a cop gives me a ticket for speeding and I wasn't speeding then I AM going to fight it, I don't care if I have a Prayer for Judgment sitting in the tank, I'm still going to fight it.

At Wordforge, you don't violate rule. Rule violates you.

I agree with Para. I'm a very literal person and would have done the same. Actually I would have posted in the White Room, but .

If you are going to admit the rule needs clarifying then his friendly should be recended (sp). It's .... just the black and white view. Some of us don't like gray areas in the law. If you say it's one way, be ready to enforce it that way. Don't make me wonder if this fits your rule.

Please.

No nudity. NONE. You did violate the rule, certainly as it's been practiced since the beginning...and I know you know it. You have been around long enough to know better. A bracketed example that can be nitpicked doesn't alter anything really...as you know.

It's just a Friendly in any event. If it was a full warning, I'd probably downgrade it to a Friendly anyway...simply because you have been here for years and have been around for plenty of other people's admonishments for such things and any claim of innocence is, frankly, not very believable.

Everyone knows we can't have another boob thread because Lanzman can't host nudity here due to his work....now why would it be okay to host anyone else's rack either?

It's been enforced this way since Lanz took over. Yes, full frontal was the example put in brackets next to the no nudity rule, but as an example. No one else has been confused by it, and I seriously doubt someone of Para's intelligence was even remotely confused either.

Just to confuse the issue further, we don't have a White Room that I'm aware of. IS there one, and if so, how do I access it ?
Comments, instructions, death threats.....?

No, we no longer have a White Room.

To be fair, a more literal minded person would have interpreted the rule the same was as Parallaxis and Aenea. I say this because I am a literal minded person and would have interpreted it that way, also. When I look to rules for guidance, it is absolutely imperative that they spell things out explicitly. "No Nudity" is explicit. "Full Frontal" is specific, but not comprehensive. "Full Frontal, Side Boobs, etc." would also be more comprehensive, but one example, followed by nothing, leaves it completely open to interpretation, and to a literal minded person, is comprehensive until told otherwise. Hell, even a "Full Frontal, etc" would provoke a literal minded person to ask "what's in the etc.?".

It would be like saying "Employees Must Not Wear Certain Colored Shirts [Green]" and getting upset at an employee that wears blue. There's no information to indicate which colors are and aren't acceptable aside from the color green. I know you've changed it now, Lanz, but the previous example is no way to write a rule. It leaves way too much open. I mean, there's no need to get into pedantry, but a little more detail goes a long way, and you can still avoid being as rule bound as TBBS.

That's not necessarily a criticism, just an observation on that particular rule, and that Parallaxis is right to be annoyed by it's enforcement. Wordforge is like a small town that has decency laws. If there is no explicit detail on the ordinances of that small town, then "decency" is completely up to the person doing the enforcement, and that's just too much control for one person, and too little on the part of the community. You would have to wonder just what is decent? Can a man stand outside shirtless? Maybe, maybe a more socially conservative person would feel it isn't, and thus enforces that ordinance to their interpretation. Yes, it can be reversed, but why not just avoid the trouble in the first place and make a more explicit statement of that ordinance? Again, just an observation and some ruminating thrown into the mix.

^
Yes. Exactly. That's it.

I heard that Nightbird is actually a man.

I still think it would be fair to reverse my warning.

It expires on the 12th anyway.

^
I still have to look at it in the control panel FOREVER though!

Even if it's rescinded you still have to look at it FOREVER. Get over it or you'll take the Drama Queen title for sure.