Quote Originally Posted by Anger View Post
You're right but that is likely the most important line of text in the entire text. That part has been the subject of debate throughout this thread and targeted for its presumed vagueness. When in fact, it isn't vague at all and is showing us that they are following the jurisprudence of "reasonable person".
It is only applied to that one sentence. Nowhere else in the Prohibited Activities. It’s not even used to define “deep emotional distress” (i.e., “what a reasonable person would consider deep emotional distress”).

Quote Originally Posted by Anger View Post
This is the most applicable type of rationale to use in a game where interactions are unreliable, random, and unique. Unlike a single player game your experience varies because the actions of people vary widely. It is because of the uniqueness of human beings that they must weigh every example or action that is reported differently. There cannot be a "standard" to follow when interactions vary so greatly.
Which was my entire point: they cannot regulate “actions that contravene morals” because morals vary between people—there is no standard “this is always right” and “this is always wrong” outside of extreme examples like murder (but why would they be applying said examples to a video game?). Again, you are failing to pay mind to the context of my posts.