[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] dibbs089 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Heliossoileh1 According to the much vaunted "Rules", I cannot talk about jaywalking. That, after all, is "illegal activity", though [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6251431.stm]not in my country[/url].[/quote]That would be according to your interpretation of the rules (unless of course you've had punitive measures taken against you for creating such a topic - then that would be according to the specific moderator's interpretation of them).[/quote] It has nothing to do with interpretation. The way the rule is written, jaywalking is a forbidden topic. If moderators do not lock topics on jaywalking-or else ban people for posting about it- then they are in fact ignoring what the rule says, not "interpreting" it. The fact is that "Do not post about any illegal substances or activities" is hopelessly vague. No one seriously enforces it, nor could they. Not all illegal activities are such that discussion of them would be considered by any moderator here as unacceptable, as my jaywalking example demonstrates. Moreover, laws differ between countries, and even between US states. This isn't trivial. A good example is that of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephedrone]mephedrone[/url], a formerly very popular recreational drug, especially in the UK. Since mid 2010, it has been a prohibited substance in the UK, Australia and most of mainland Europe. Yet for well over a year since that time it was not generally restricted in the US, and remains only temporarily so even now. Would the discussion of the effects of mephedrone on oneself or the legal status of this drug have been permitted here or not? There are other examples. Whilst trolling isn't permitted here, the discussion of it, as a phenomenon, is. Yet, according to the above rule, it should not be, since some trolling is in fact illegal under the [url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1]Malicious Communications Act[/url], in which case even discussing trolling, in any sense, breaks the rule-though not for non-British people not bound by comparable acts. So, one can pretend that this rule is [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] x Foman123 x "an unambiguous, bright-line rule"[/quote] or one which really needs to be set aside in favour of some common sense. The solution isn't to write a set of provisions which tries to do the impossible and clarify something so obscure. Perhaps it is better to simply say that one cannot use this place to commit, arrange to commit, or incite others to commit, criminal offences, insofar as the acts being committed, arranged or incited are criminal offences in the countries in which the conversational partners are resident. That's really all that is required. [Edited on 11.08.2012 2:23 PM PST]