The rule we have in place at least allows the admins who actually do pay attention and know how to work with people, a broad basis to go on to allow the server to be kept at an acceptable limit when it comes to offensive content (this includes in chat and on mics, not just sprays)

I agree that the rule should be specific. When you give people a yard, invariably they take a mile (especially in Jail Break). I can well imagine people complaining about lingerie models being used as somebody's spray because the objectification of women offends them. Or if the spray is political, that could open up complaints from players that don't agree with that ideology and find such thoughts "disturbing".

Outrageous, yes. But what I'm saying is that it's a slippery slope.

Jail Break players nitpick the finest details of all the rules. Loopholes are regularly taken advantage of and even the wording of rules is often bought into question. Keeping the guidelines specific is, in my honest opinion, to the benefit of the server. Things may have changed over the last six months or so since I last played Jail Break regularly but I always felt that most of the players needed set boundaries. Otherwise, they resort to giving ridiculous orders like "first person to my spray gets LR" and then slaughter 20 terrorists.

I'd word it as such: No porn, no gore, no discomforting imagery and no visible (or implied) genitalia of any kind. If it's NSFW (Not Safe For Work), it's not safe for this server.

That should cover most sprays should it not?

This is part of the problem as mentioned before. Not all admins do pay attention as seen on this current thread and on the server itself.

Your statement directly points to the need of having specifications in the spray rule.

As I said, it's good if it's worded properly and actually contains all of the things that we're concerned about.

Lucky for us, I think Mootinie is on the right track with how to word it. (In fact, that one works pretty well).

I still feel the broad area should be covered, but I suppose I can live with banning people off of the not being an asshole rule for now. ;)

Exactly my point. We're debating over literally nothing. It will not change the way I enforce the rules, and it won't change the way others do either. The wording is irrelevant because we know what the rules are. If it's really putting people in a tiffy over something as simple as wording on a rule that they don't even have to enforce, then I could care less. Make the rules for the players and not the administration that is going to be enforcing it just seems completely backwards from the entire goal of "rules".

(Drunk kharn would just say "fuck em, remove all the rules and just use the don't be a smartass rule, ban them then explain later"

The wording is irrelevant because we know what the rules are.

But having them clearly named and specified benefits newcomers that do not know the rules and allows admins to enforce them with consistency, thus creating less drama and confusion.

On the opposite hand you have people who cause even more drama but putting something that doesn't fall under the rule, and raising hell when they get punished. Honestly depending on how it's worded there will always be drama. This is jailbreak, we're just talking about the lesser of two evils. Until we can have a rules list as in detail as the U.S. tax code, there will never not be drama about them.

Yeah, that's a fair point. That's why I was trying to word it as broadly but as clearly as possible. But in that case, it can be bought to the forums, discussed, voted on and promptly concluded. There's no reason you can't amend the wording of the rule to cover newfound loopholes.