In retrospect, I should have included the whole post. I wasn’t trying to pull a fast one, but you’re not the first person to focus on the clause I left out, and my point works fine with it there anyway.
The honest reason I left it out of my post was that I figured that anyone reading this thread would have read the relatively short post it was about, and that I was specifically intending to focus on the parts that disproved Chronos’s characterization of his post as “a clear statement” of anything.
To paraphrase the original post: “I know we’re not allowed to do X, but maybe we’re allowed to do Y? Anyway, if we are, Y, if not, then forget I said it” is not a clear statement of knowing wrongdoing. It’s a muddled mess. The opening clause that’s clear by itself does not add up to clarity when followed by a bunch of qualifiers and statements of ignorance.
Again, it was a mistake on my part to not include the context, but I wasn’t trying to be disingenuous: I thought that anyone participating in the thread would read the original post and I was highlighting the parts that didn’t fit with Chronos’s claim. With the context included, my point still stands. The post as a whole was not a clear statement that UV thought he was breaking the rules.
And I’ve stated a belief that no-one actually thinks that.
Many people do draw that distinction, though. Betting to win money yourself is seen as low-class and vulgar and sinful, but betting with proceeds to charity is something that public intellectuals regularly engage in, because removing the profit motive and making the whole thing “for a good cause” is a way of having the fun of a public statement of disagreement without the stuff that many people find distasteful.
It makes sense for the board rules to treat them the same, but people do actually think that they’re different.