I don't think it's circular, you just put words in my mouth and now you're not understanding what it means to follow the rules to the letter versus interpreting their intent.
Rules have ambiguity. If there's a rule like "no jokes allowed" how do you decide that mechanically without human judgment? Do you seriously believe everything is binary without nuance?
This entire argument is over whether or not I'm understanding your words correctly, and you're simultaneously arguing that words are not ambiguous and have a clearly defined meaning. I feel like you're missing the irony here.
Your initial comment is downvoted and you assume everyone understands you? My point isn't a straw man - it's a counterexample that disproves your statement. If you're going to make absolute rules with no ambiguity then you need to know how to handle all cases - otherwise the rules are ambiguous and require human judgment. This isn't even subjective it's an objectively true statement.
Anyway, this is a circular conversation. Cheers.