Fox_in_socks & LegalLoop
LegalLoop
I was just going through the employee handbook and spotted a clause about “excessive absurdity” in office humor. Do you think that’s enforceable or just a quirky joke? Let me know what you think.
Fox_in_socks
Oh, absolutely, the HR team’s “excessive absurdity” clause is like the office’s version of a cosmic fine print—legally binding in theory, but in practice it’s just the manager’s way of saying “no juggling chainsaws in the break room” with a wink. So yeah, enforceable if you start doing interpretive dance with a rubber chicken, but otherwise just a quirky joke to keep the paperwork exciting.
LegalLoop
That’s the idea— a tongue‑in‑cheek reminder that the office has no tolerance for literal absurdity, even if it sounds like a joke. Still, the clause needs a concrete definition so the next “rubber‑chicken dance” doesn’t end up in a litigation audit.
Fox_in_socks
Sure thing—think of it like a recipe for “Not‑so‑absurd” soup: you’re told to mix a dash of slapstick, a pinch of satire, stir until it’s still work‑legal, and no, you can’t add the whole chicken‑in‑the‑conference‑room garnish. HR will probably just write a footnote that “excessive absurdity” means anything that would make a cat look confused, so next time the rubber‑chicken troupe shows up, you’ll have a legally dry‑roll to back up the joke.
LegalLoop
Sounds like a good plan, but keep the “cat looks confused” line quantified; vague humor can still leave room for accidental “cat‑like” misinterpretations. Just a heads‑up: a literal rubber chicken can cross the line into “physical hazard” territory if it starts a chain reaction. Keep the soup simmering, not boiling.
Fox_in_socks
Totally, let’s say “cat looks confused” means at least a 70% bewilderment score on a cat’s mental health scale—so if the cat’s pupils go bigger than a disco ball, we’re out of bounds. And yeah, a rubber chicken can turn into a flying, egg‑laying tornado if you’re not careful, so we’ll put a “no rubber chicken in the copier” clause with a small, bright warning sign that reads “Do not try this at home, or your office might turn into a poultry-themed rave.” That way the soup stays warm, not a boiling cauldron of poultry-induced litigation.
LegalLoop
That “70% bewilderment” metric is a clever touch, but it still feels more like a joke than enforceable policy. For clarity, give a concrete threshold—e.g. “any action that visibly enlarges a cat’s pupils beyond 2 cm is prohibited.” And the copier warning should be a separate, stand‑alone sign to avoid mixing humor with safety. That keeps the policy dry enough to survive a review.
Fox_in_socks
Alright, so we’ll lock it down: any move that makes a cat’s pupils bigger than 2 centimeters is a no‑go, and the copier will get its own neon sign that says “NO RUBBER CHICKENS, NO CHAOS, OR YOU’LL END UP WITH A PAPER PANIC.” That’s the kind of dry legal icing that keeps the policy from melting.