User blog comment:MasterSteve/I should be a Lawyer/@comment-4845243-20130307234410/@comment-4845243-20130308044825

First of all, please use correct spelling. It's easier to read that way.

Trivialities aside, let us get down to business...

Note, I never said it was not contradictory. I was indicating that a lawyer, or anyone who wishes to excel in a debate, must make their points clear. If you want to use an aspect of the rule interpretation to your advantage, don't leave the most important part unstated. Unstated but assumed arguments do not benefit your point.

Of course, the stated contradiction seems a little confusing at first glance. Let me elucidate. The answer lies in an incomplete alteration of the rules. To properly interpret any legal code, one has to be familiar with its history. Simply knowing the law in its current state is not enough. You need to know precedents, history of the development, etc, to get a full picture.

Let me show you what happened. Prior to January 19th, 2013, Rule 1.7 said the following:

'''1.7 - No religious, political or suggestive discussions in public chat whatsoever. Religious and political discussion is allowed in private messages with those of similar beliefs only. You may state what your political / religious affiliation is, but don't go much farther than that in public chat.'''

On Jan. 19th, Seaside98 edited the rule to this version:

'''1.7 - No suggestive discussions in public chat whatsoever. Religious and political discussions are allowed as long as they doesn't get out of hand or offend any users. The chat moderators can ask any religious or political discussions to be stopped if they feel it breaks this rule.'''

You see 'The chat moderators can ask any religious or political discussions to be stopped' clause originated on this day.

Now, due to controversy of changing such an established rule, 1.7 was changed again soon after.

It was reverted to the "PM only" state on the 20th, but only in an incomplete manner: '''1.7 - No suggestive discussions in public chat whatsoever. Religious and political discussions are only' allowed in private messages, as long as they doesn't get out of hand or offend any users. The chat moderators can ask any religious or political discussion to be stopped if they feel it breaks this rule.'''

This is where your contradiction originated. Those of us who are aware of this rely on precedent to enforce said rule, realizing that it was not fully changed.

My point in all this is that the contradiction, while there due to a half-done job of editing the rule, has no effect on how it should be enforced.