Several Questions: Is "no loopholes" a good rule?

[Nonnel]

yeah it would work on the internet or in a dictatorship but in a real legal system it wouldn't work

[Ad Bot]

[Ipquarx]

"no loopholes" is essentially saying "interpret this the way I intended it to be interpreted." The problem is, if there are genuine ambiguities that aren't obviously exploitable, you still have no way of knowing what the intention is. It just leads to laziness and wouldn't ever work in a legal system.

[Drydess]

in any official system hell no since that basically makes the leaders be able to decide whether or not someone should be punished for doing whatever

[|Orange|]

If there are no loopholes, zeroes and o's wouldn't be allowed. They're loops and have holes.

[Maxwell.]

no because people will find loopholes, and then hide the fact that they are loopholes

[Foxscotch]

on internet forums and stuff, yea absolutely
but in a government's legal system no

[Verification]

loopholes as a concept are semi beneficial in isolated internet situations but not anywhere else

[Shift Kitty]

"no loopholes" is essentially saying "interpret this the way I intended it to be interpreted." The problem is, if there are genuine ambiguities that aren't obviously exploitable, you still have no way of knowing what the intention is. It just leads to laziness and wouldn't ever work in a legal system.

Now that you mention it, it actually seems dangerous. Things that are intended to be legal could end up being considered a 'loophole' because of 'misinterpretation'.

[SteveJenkins]

if you have to have a rule stating "no loopholes" your original rule set isn't good enough

[Nonnel]

It's a lot easier to just be more specific with your original rules.

[kongo]

if i have a rule that says "don't be a richard" in my video game server u can bet ur stuff im also telling people dont try loopholing it

however this is the extent of that being a rule that should exist

[Marios]

It's a lot easier to just be more specific with your original rules.

Not quite. Think about it; instead of carefully writing your rules and making more rules for special situations and exceptions and carefully writing those rules, why not slap the one-rule-fit-all (in theory) "No Loopholes"?

[Nonnel]

Not quite. Think about it; instead of carefully writing your rules and making more rules for special situations and exceptions and carefully writing those rules, why not slap the one-rule-fit-all (in theory) "No Loopholes"?

Because making a rule impossible to misinterpret is less hair brained than making a "no misinterpreting my rules" rule

[Marios]

Because making a rule impossible to misinterpret is less hair brained than making a "no misinterpreting my rules" rule

Correct. Your base argument, however, was that writing the rules better is "easier," which is untrue. Think of it like dealing with life problems Vs. drinking alcohol to forget them.

[Maxwell.]

Correct. Your base argument, however, was that writing the rules better is "easier," which is untrue. Think of it like dealing with life problems Vs. drinking alcohol to forget them.

easier because in future people will have a harder time playing loopholes with your rules
what did you not understand