I asked you to back up your 1 drink = drunk = rape claim, something you said was an explicit policy of many institutions, and you keep linking to stuff that clearly does not say that, and instead plays lawyer with the semantics of &quot;intoxication&quot; and &quot;incapacitated&quot; and interprets everything in the worst possible way. (Despite what your sources try to claim, &quot;incapacitated&quot; does not necessarily imply unconscious, either in standard speech or many of the legal definitions they quote. Why they are so keen for that to be the case geniunely worries me.)<p>The best evidence we have so far to support your case is an HN comment! From something someone said in an induction seminar, but of which there is no official public trace.<p>Maybe the person running that seminar googled for some info on the topic and found the BS that you and your sources keep repeating and didn&#x27;t realise that it was political propaganda (and really, why would anyone assume that people would go around falsely claiming things about rape policies?).<p>If you wanted to have an honest conversation about how vague policies are a problem, then start with something like &quot;phrases like intoxication should be clearly defined in campus policies&quot; (though of course in the real world, there is no bright-line test for exactly when people move from sober to tipsy to drunk to intoxicated to incapacitated, but perhaps extra explanations may help those that are confused). I believe that the government&#x27;s Title IX guidance actually says this is good practice, so you&#x27;re in good company. Then you won&#x27;t have to run around trying to justify your exaggerations. Claiming that policies explictly say 1 drink is the limit, is the opposite of vague, it&#x27;s very precise, albiet fictional because none of the policies say that.