This was more or less the line that I took. Which is why, for example, I deemed the first abstract as "unacceptable" by any consistent interpretation of the LJ TOS as implied by current LJ representations.
Having said this, I don't think they would reject it. The alleged need for straightforward rules and consistency is grounded in a particular form of trouble avoidance. And the abstract has a very low risk of trouble from e.g. Harry Potter burners. Lower than, for example, the Klimt.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
winterfish
no subject
Date: 2006-06-11 01:52 pm (UTC)Having said this, I don't think they would reject it. The alleged need for straightforward rules and consistency is grounded in a particular form of trouble avoidance. And the abstract has a very low risk of trouble from e.g. Harry Potter burners. Lower than, for example, the Klimt.