Originally Posted by
logroller
Is there not another rule which you could apply more broadly, accomplishing the same end, without implementing such a hard line. Certainly you wouldn't want to limit one's ability to speak of their family at all, but if one uses their family to support their position, then certainly one should be able to rebut their argument. As Noir would say its 'fair play'.
Clearly there are rules which may, from time to time, go un-enforced. This discretion, which you, Jim, are entirely within your rights to exercise; takes into consideration the unique circumstances of the situation. I assume at least one thing you're talking about are those jabs at CH's wife's latino descent; which certainly runs afoul of the proposed rule. However, multiple times to my knowledge CH has mentioned his wife's latino descent in a way which I thought bolstered his position-- certainly this is not as casual as posting a vacation pic and requires a standard of discretion which could, in all likelihood, be thwarted by the protectionist rule you propose-- begging the phrase, could the cure being worse than the ailment?
Whether or not to write the rule is up to you Jim, (its good to be the king!) as is how it would be written and enforced; but if I were in the position to rule I would ask myself, would the situations which have arisen could/should/would have been better dealt with had I a written rule at my disposal?
-