Changes

*That is exactly why the rules are not too detailed.  A wise Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court once wrote, when they were deliberating a pornography case, that he couldn't define it with words, but knew it when he saw it.  Much the same in administering a website, Reginod.  Gossip, btw, is unsubstantiated, unverified, talk or conversation that the spreader of has no real first-hand facts or information about.  This includes spreading information, let's say, about a marital break-up, where the gossip spreader might or might not have first-hand knowledge, but not from both sides.  Without all facts and information, trying to draw a conclusion as to who's fault it was, is senseless. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] ^{[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]} 20:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is exactly why the rules are not too detailed.  A wise Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court once wrote, when they were deliberating a pornography case, that he couldn't define it with words, but knew it when he saw it.  Much the same in administering a website, Reginod.  Gossip, btw, is unsubstantiated, unverified, talk or conversation that the spreader of has no real first-hand facts or information about.  This includes spreading information, let's say, about a marital break-up, where the gossip spreader might or might not have first-hand knowledge, but not from both sides.  Without all facts and information, trying to draw a conclusion as to who's fault it was, is senseless. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] ^{[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]} 20:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:I appreciate the clarification TK—in fact you’ve defined gossip roughly how I was defining it.  The problem with the “I know it when I see it approach” (which I have to admit I often find myself advocating in real life) is that it leads to very murky rules.  So, I may think I’m posting a scandal which belongs on a page, and a sysop reading my addition may think I’ve simply posted gossip.  Don’t get me wrong,  I‘d be hard pressed to come up with a precise definition for most (if not all) of the important words in the Commandments and I usually agree with the gut instincts of those enforcing the rules here.  But I don’t always agree and from reading the comments of others here I gather there are some who agree far less often than I.  I think things would run more smoothly if there were some attempt at a rough explication of the rules, some sort of rough guidelines to let those of us trying to help the site know what is in and what is out and to give people a better idea of how the rules will be enforced.  That’s just my two cents and I’m not sure what they are worth, but, that’s what I think.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:I appreciate the clarification TK—in fact you’ve defined gossip roughly how I was defining it.  The problem with the “I know it when I see it approach” (which I have to admit I often find myself advocating in real life) is that it leads to very murky rules.  So, I may think I’m posting a scandal which belongs on a page, and a sysop reading my addition may think I’ve simply posted gossip.  Don’t get me wrong,  I‘d be hard pressed to come up with a precise definition for most (if not all) of the important words in the Commandments and I usually agree with the gut instincts of those enforcing the rules here.  But I don’t always agree and from reading the comments of others here I gather there are some who agree far less often than I.  I think things would run more smoothly if there were some attempt at a rough explication of the rules, some sort of rough guidelines to let those of us trying to help the site know what is in and what is out and to give people a better idea of how the rules will be enforced.  That’s just my two cents and I’m not sure what they are worth, but, that’s what I think.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)