https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQW_BkgKfrpeUL9XD1J4QXLuHOa3R1nt/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=115054379388153515271&rtpof=true&sd=true

This was formerly the "definitions" section (and a few other bits and pieces) in the Community Code; however, per some other Stewards' suggestions, it has been split off into its own document. I suspect that its content will be less intuitive to people than the Community Code, so I will give a bit of an explanation for certain sections.

3. Specific Definitions

This is basically just RFC 2119 but adapted to policy documents for a social network rather than technical specifications for networking equipment and software, save for 3-1, which is made to avoid repeating "but is not limited to" tens of times throughout any given document.

5. Legal Compliance

This section is one that I hope largely never ends up being relevant — however, I'm not allowed to not worry about this sort of stuff.

5-1: due to the bizarre history of common law legal systems, there are certain senses of the word "law" which exclude any jurisprudence and remedies stemming from Britain's old Court of Chancery, such as the entire concept of injunctions. This section is intended to make it clear that, no, we are not using that definition of "law".

5-2: see mechanisms like civil forfeiture. Just because the law doesn't technically prohibit something, that doesn't mean it doesn't nonetheless impose severe consequences that might flow from a state of affairs brought about by a given action.

5-3: this is to head off any Rules Lawyering that people might attempt because, say, the above legal terms don't apply in their jurisdiction or whatever. (Really, all of these "no, we're using a broad definition" sections mostly serve as additional reinforcement for our "the spirit of the rules > the letter of the rules" principle, but I figure we need to spell this out on a fairly granular basis when we're dealing with terminology that's intended to facilitate us interacting safely with legal systems.)

5-4: Emphasis on "least granular". In many federal states, the first-level subdivision will be sufficient, if you even need to go that far. Also, a few points where I think some additional detail could help…

1. For example, language laws or accessibility laws, so on. Things where an entity could get fined for (not) doing something on their website.

2. See above, but to take into account that a lot of these sorts of rules are applied through regulatory channels — that is, people in the administrative state or executive branch writing rules rather than anything approved by a legislature.

3. Human rights codes are to be distinguished from constitutional documents binding a government to certain standards of upholding or respecting human rights.

4. Say, to account for different jurisdictions' defamation, "fake news", or intellectual property laws.

5-5: "second-level administrative division of a state" = well, here, have a nowhere near exhaustive list of examples.

• Australia: shires, cities, regions, so on.

• Brazil: administrative regions or municipalities.

• Germany: administrative districts.

• India: divisions or local governments.

• Indonesia: regencies or cities.

• Philippines: provinces.

• United Kingdom: Guernsey, Greater London, or Berkshire, for example.

• United States: counties.

5-6: "legal rights of an adult" primarily meaning contract formation, voting, and other such things.

6. Principles within Documents

6-3: in short — sure, yes, these documents look like a lawyer drafted them because lol, lmao, but they're documents intended for application in a ton of different jurisdictions, the substance of which was overwhelmingly created or directed by non-lawyers. And sure, yes, they imply the involvement of a lawyer from a specific jurisdiction, but most people contributing don't even know what a "notwithstanding clause" is. So, it's basically asking anyone who ends up dealing with these documents externally to keep in mind the history of their creation.