Ken Arromdee wrote:
It doesn't matter what he thinks avoidance is, but what he thinks the policy-maker meant by it.
Sure, but...
...anyone who reads that will interpret the *intentions of the writer* to be that the act is not allowed.
That doesn't necessarily follow.
Policies are full of attempts to state things in "less harsh" language that could easily have been said directly, but weren't.
Are they?
A reader would just think this is another one.
If I read, "You should avoid doing X", I would assume the writer meant, "you should generally not do X" or "you should do X only under exceptional circumstances" or "you shouldn't do X unless you know what you're doing". (I'd assume those interpretations anyway, but I'd *especially* assume them in an environment that includes WP:IAR.) If X really was forbidden or prohibited, I would expect the policy to say, "you should not do X", or "you must not do X", or "X is forbidden", or "X is prohibited", or "X is illegal".