If I was to post (in eg.):
He looked at the pool, saw it was it empty, and jumped in regardless.
There is nothing about that line or post, that could be considered breaking the EULA/TOS.
but…
There is an innate comprehension, that such a person would be foolish ( or the forbidden term stupid) for doing so.
Yet if I was to specifically cite that such a person was foolish or stupid for doing such a thing, my comment/thread would likely be deleted or banned.
Why is there this disparity between inferred prohibited term, and actual usage of prohibited term?
In this example, if anyone did not think the person was foolish or stupid for committing such and act. I dunno what to make of that as it relates to everything as a whole.
It is accepted that a person posting and/or reading the forum, must be able to input characters via a keyboard, and given that, must have a certain amount of reading comprehension and written english skills (i.e. as per a resume; what would you classify your reading/written language level? in english in this case). Let alone the ability to infer deeper meanings than just what the written words themselves mean.
So why does Blizzard single out and target players that post specific meanings, and not players that elude to indepth meanings of the same nature?
Is it a case that moderators are not able to decipher that: written stupid == inferred stupid?
I’m just trying to understand the thought process and how the policies apply.
ie: It’s not ok write stupid, thereby 100% of readers that would have understood that I feel or believe the subject is stupid don’t have that benefit. But rather if I imply they are stupid but not actually write it, maybe 80% of readers get the meaning, and believe I meant and feel the subject is stupid, and it’s ok .