>>One last thought: when instituting rules, ..SNIP.. If you can't answer those questions, you're not ready to make a rule.

>With all due respect, I disagree. I think rules are absolutely necessary, especially on a respectable forum like the UT.

From what was originally a well-structured query into the nature of UT's specific policy, this thread is breaking down over semantics.

I believe Nancy is questioning the use of the term "Rule" as applied in a legally argueable and actionable punishment for transgressions. If there is no judiciary to arbitrate the Rules and the punishment is levied sporadically, is it really necessary to call the suggested behavior a RULE. In one of the previous messages, Nancy suggested the term "Guideline" rather than rule. Guideline implies a less extreme consequence for occassional transgression while still suggesting an acceptable behavior.

UT has been (with few exceptions) a place for intelligent people to help each other with development issues. This alone represents a demographic subset of the entire web's posters. It didn't seem to me that Michel was concerned with the policies as much as the content. We should be able to watch what we post, and apologize for unintentionally offending someone. Unfortunately some people will defend their right to offend others. That's where the suggested posting behavior (rule/guidelines/RFC's/etc) become necessary.

Since i've never been accused of improper conduct and have no intention of doing so, i'm not really concerned about the crystalization of these 'rules.' I'm thrilled to have such a high-quality resource available, and am willing to let the sysops have the authority to keep it that way.