(03-18-2016, 01:07 PM)Hitman Wrote: If you're going to make that argument that something that is not included would be thrown out, you are saying the supreme court's ruling on homosexual marriage should have been thrown out because you can't interpret rules to include something that is not there.

Things such as that do not always get thrown out. Think of the rules as the constitution. Think of us staff as the Supreme Court. We interpret the rules and unlike the Supreme Court we enforce them as well.

(03-18-2016, 05:29 PM)goigle! Wrote:

(03-18-2016, 01:07 PM)Hitman Wrote: If you're going to make that argument that something that is not included would be thrown out, you are saying the supreme court's ruling on homosexual marriage should have been thrown out because you can't interpret rules to include something that is not there.

Things such as that do not always get thrown out. Think of the rules as the constitution. Think of us staff as the Supreme Court. We interpret the rules and unlike the Supreme Court we enforce them as well.

Your first argument is wrong. The Supreme Court decision on gay marriage actually was something that was written in the Constitution, the 14th amendment.

Also, the admins are more like the executive branch and judicial branch. Police, judges and relatively lower level members of government interpret rules as well. The Supreme Court verifies that the interpretations and the laws they originate from are constitutional. The admins / lower are just normal members of government, superadmins+ would be the Supreme Court.
The Fearless Constitution would be the Terms of Service, the rules would be laws.

Anyway, any analogy to a the US government system will be inherently flawed because they are two different systems. Staff aren't elected, government officials largely are (or at least affected by who is elected).
The reason a lot of the things the government does are considered morally OK (even if some people do not like them) is because we choose our government. We do not choose our staff team making that a flawed argument. (this does not mean that our staff is bad or we need a new administration system - I just mean comparing the team to the US government does not produce a logically sound argument)

(03-18-2016, 05:29 PM)goigle! Wrote:

(03-18-2016, 01:07 PM)Hitman Wrote: If you're going to make that argument that something that is not included would be thrown out, you are saying the supreme court's ruling on homosexual marriage should have been thrown out because you can't interpret rules to include something that is not there.

Things such as that do not always get thrown out. Think of the rules as the constitution. Think of us staff as the Supreme Court. We interpret the rules and unlike the Supreme Court we enforce them as well.

Your first argument is wrong. The Supreme Court decision on gay marriage actually was something that was written in the Constitution, the 14th amendment.

Also, the admins are more like the executive branch and judicial branch. Police, judges and relatively lower level members of government interpret rules as well. The Supreme Court verifies that the interpretations and the laws they originate from are constitutional. The admins / lower are just normal members of government, superadmins+ would be the Supreme Court.
The Fearless Constitution would be the Terms of Service, the rules would be laws.

Anyway, any analogy to a the US government system will be inherently flawed because they are two different systems. Staff aren't elected, government officials largely are (or at least affected by who is elected).
The reason a lot of the things the government does are considered morally OK (even if some people do not like them) is because we choose our government. We do not choose our staff team making that a flawed argument. (this does not mean that our staff is bad or we need a new administration system - I just mean comparing the team to the US government does not produce a logically sound argument)

Quote:Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(03-18-2016, 07:14 PM)goigle! Wrote: I imagine it's this section:

Quote:Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

but I'm not the supreme court