From this thread;
Can I have a cite for that? Because all I could find was not to start discussions on file-sharing.
Me posting a link to a spoiler (that will be unwittingly seen by people, spoiling it for them) that just happens to be on a file sharing site doesn’t seem to be a violation of the rules.
I checked the rules before I posted. Could you update the rules?
Oh, you mean you weren’t actually discussing filesharing, you were just discussing places where filesharing is discussed?
I’ll put in right away for a change to the rules:
Hmm. Maybe, on second thought, we’ll leave it just not to discuss file-sharing software?
Look, seriously, Big Red, we understand that you thought you were legally avoiding (rather than illegally evading) the rules. You were wrong. Our rules are deliberately NOT a legal system, where one can get around some general purpose by finding a loophole.
Go You Big Red Fire Engine, clearly posting such a link would enable users to find how to fileshare (because you directly linked to such a site). Similarly, discussions of the merits of the web design on a filesharing site (with link!), would not be allowed; just as we would not allow “What do you think about the bulletin board set-up over at this forum on bomb-making?” threads, or “I found this interesting cookie recipe on Blackmarketcannabissalebymail.com; all you need to do is take out the pot from the ingredients!”
I realized that you did not seem to understand this, so that is why I did not give you an official warning.
Now, why would you ruin a perfectly good cookie recipe by doing that? 
Perhaps you should simply state:
That makes the rule a little clearer and maybe then, nobody will be pulled up on this matter in future. It hardly seems fair that someone should be reprimanded if they feel the rules are unclear.
Someone will always feel the rules are unclear. Consider the laws in your state about stopping at a red light; there’s probably several hundred pages, and people still are unclear about right turns on red.
A right turn here would more than likely cause a major accident seeing as I live in Australia.
Regardless of that, sure there’s probably many pages. But thats for road rules, where peoples lives and property are in danger. Not for an internet message board.
? My point is that, even when there are extensive and thorough laws for important things (like driving), there are people for whom the rules are unclear. How much more so for a message board: why should we try to write volumes and volumes of explanation of our rules, when no matter how much we write, there will still/always be folks who don’t understand.
PS - Sorry, my analogy was aimed at the U.S. I shoulda picked a more global example.
I understand this. But your examples are of actual threads discussing these activities, where as mine was just one post. Atheist Princess’s idea would make things much clearer.
I just don’t feel my post was a “discussion”.
Hmmmmm.
Alright, let’s try this example. Say that someone posted a link to a site with instructions for making a bomb. Arguably, this is not a “discussion” of an illegal activity, it’s just a link.
It’s the same thing with posting a link to a filesharing site. Even though it’s not a “discussion” it still enables the prohibited activity.