Mea Culpa Question

[JNAProductions]

This came up in a conversation with a friend on Skype.

Mea Culpa is, if I am correct, saying something against forum rules, and acknowledging it's against the rules. Which, obviously, doesn't matter one lick, you still broke the rules.

It is NOT, if I am correct, saying "I'd say something here, but it's against the rules." Right?

[Khedrac]

mea culpea literally is an admission of guilt. Under other circumstances it can be used when owning up to having done soemthing wrong etc.

In the case of the forum rules, "mea culpea" is your first example - when you state that what you are doing is against the rules while apologising for it. On these forums the apology does not negate the infraction and we are not supposed to break the rules regardless of any accompanying apologies.

Your second example I don't think should be called "mea culpea" (though that does not mean no one will do so) because one can hardly admit guilt when not commting the infraction - there is nothing to admit guilt for!

On these forums there is one odd overlap case - if one was to substitute a string of odd characters (e.g. ****) for profanity mutliple times in a post, the prohibition on use of profanity is still broken despite the absence of actual profanity (see the forum rules for details) - in this case one could be saying that if it was not for the rules one would use the actual profanities and still break the rule on profanities...

[JNAProductions]

mea culpea literally is an admission of guilt. Under other circumstances it can be used when owning up to having done soemthing wrong etc.

In the case of the forum rules, "mea culpea" is your first example - when you state that what you are doing is against the rules while apologising for it. On these forums the apology does not negate the infraction and we are not supposed to break the rules regardless of any accompanying apologies.

Your second example I don't think should be called "mea culpea" (though that does not mean no one will do so) because one can hardly admit guilt when not commting the infraction - there is nothing to admit guilt for!

On these forums there is one odd overlap case - if one was to substitute a string of odd characters (e.g. ****) for profanity mutliple times in a post, the prohibition on use of profanity is still broken despite the absence of actual profanity (see the forum rules for details) - in this case one could be saying that if it was not for the rules one would use the actual profanities and still break the rule on profanities...

Okay, makes sense. Thank you!

[hamishspence]

Your second example I don't think should be called "mea culpea" (though that does not mean no one will do so) because one can hardly admit guilt when not commting the infraction - there is nothing to admit guilt for!

It is NOT, if I am correct, saying "I'd say something here, but it's against the rules." Right?

Some forms of it are covered under Mea Culpa here though:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1

"Mea culpa" Offenses

Here are some examples of a "mea culpa" offense:

"I'd really love to tell you what I think of you, but it'd be against the rules." This would also be worthy of two Infractions. Passive-aggressive flaming is still flaming, and, once again, it earns a mea culpa penalty.

[Psyren]

As hamish linked to, the form you're discussing IS considered a mea culpa offense here, whether or not it fits the technical definition of that phrase.

[Rockphed]

As hamish linked to, the form you're discussing IS considered a mea culpa offense here, whether or not it fits the technical definition of that phrase.

I would wait for mod confirmation on this, but my understanding is that saying "my thoughts on [whatever] aren't within board rules" is fine, so long as you aren't directing it at a person. So "my thoughts on donating blood are too involved in religion to participate in that discussion" is okay, while "my opinion of Rockphed would violate the board rules" is not. Then again, the general rule is "when in doubt, don't", so I try to avoid engaging a thread at all if I don't think I can keep my discussion within board rules.

[Anymage]

It is NOT, if I am correct, saying "I'd say something here, but it's against the rules." Right?

Technically correct. The Mea Culpa rule tends to apply when someone gets double dinged for starting something already infraction-worthy with "I know I shouldn't, but...", or upgrades a warning to an infraction when the person doing it shows that they clearly know better.

You're a decent poster, so I have a feeling you already know the difference between something like "I'd like to discuss this in more depth, but forum rules prevent it" vs. "forum rules prevent me from talking about the people who believe this patently ridiculous thing". Bowing out before you get into questionable territory is different from being passive aggressive.

[Khedrac]

Some forms of it are covered under Mea Culpa here though:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1

"Mea culpa" Offenses

Here are some examples of a "mea culpa" offense:

"I'd really love to tell you what I think of you, but it'd be against the rules." This would also be worthy of two Infractions. Passive-aggressive flaming is still flaming, and, once again, it earns a mea culpa penalty.

Thank-you for that catch/reminder hamishspence, I had forgotten that part of the rules. I don't think I would be likely to violate it, but it is always better to know the rules than just guess.

[Roland St. Jude]

Some forms of it are covered under Mea Culpa here though:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1

"Mea culpa" Offenses

Here are some examples of a "mea culpa" offense:

"I'd really love to tell you what I think of you, but it'd be against the rules." This would also be worthy of two Infractions. Passive-aggressive flaming is still flaming, and, once again, it earns a mea culpa penalty.

Sheriff: Indeed. When in doubt, go straight to the Forum Rules.

...You're a decent poster, so I have a feeling you already know the difference between something like "I'd like to discuss this in more depth, but forum rules prevent it" vs. "forum rules prevent me from talking about the people who believe this patently ridiculous thing". Bowing out before you get into questionable territory is different from being passive aggressive.

Sheriff: Indeed. It's probably better just not to respond to something that calls for an out-of-bounds response, but if your post isn't being passive-aggressive, trying to work around the rules, complaining about the rules, or coupled with actually crossing the line, it's probably fine.

On that last point, I see posts sometimes that say some inappropriate stuff (say, real world politics) and then say, "but I can't say any more about that because it's against the rules." Well, you've just acknowledged that you're aware of the rules and went ahead and discussed it anyway. Don't do that. Sometimes it's genuine and you really thought the content was okay, but sometimes it's an attempt to ward off the warning claiming the first part was in-bounds.

Honestly, your best bet is to follow the Forum Rules and not comment on them.