That's not what I said. What I said is that rules exist but without strict definition and enforcement. Therefore, it is difficult to enforce a rule and apply a sanction evenly. The rules exist but it is very difficult to use them for any intepretation of what is doable and not doable.

When one attempts to interpret a rule and act, there are enough loopholes to drive a truck through. If no action is taken, other people's intepretation is violated.

This really needs to be cleared up.


>As a sysop on the UT, an agency relationship of sorts exists. That said, you being part fo the mgt here, are on record that no clear definiton of the rules exist. With that in mind, the rules, as they currently stand, are invalid, and in reality, don't exist.
>
>Thank you for clearing this up....
>
>
>>But if the rules are not cast in stone, then I have followed the rules by not enforcing the rules or violating the rules because there is no strict definition of what constitutes the rules.
>>
>>By saying I violated the rules, you are assuming that hard-wired rules exist. But no one has cleanly defined them yet and that is what is being discussed. Once they have been cast-in-stone, then you could retroactively say I violated them.
>>
>>
>>>You should probably recuse yourself from any discussions since you violated the rules with which you are charged with enforcing...
>>>
>>>>The situation is constantly being discussed. No one wants to be seen as inconsistant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No.. All I ask is that the sysops be consistient with thier application of the rules and most importantly, not be hypocritical...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Because it seems as far as you are concerned, the Sysops are "Damned if we do, Damned if we don't".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not that your opinion is the only one that matters...