zlacker

I agree. Just a decade ago, jeans would have me escorted from work. The business dress code was 'pants', jeans were not allowed.

Everyone is arguing about 'jean's not being a big deal. And, all dress codes are wrong. So, can a female player wear a bikini? By the arguments here, then yes, that should be allowed. Would it interfere with game play? I think yes.

Can someone wear a bright orange Sarang with blinking lights?

How do you draw the line? Doesn't there need to be a line somewhere so there isn't chaos? It's just that todays generation now thinks 'jeans' are ok. 20 years ago they were not.

>>Frustr+(OP)
> The business dress code was 'pants', jeans were not allowed.

> It's just that todays generation now thinks 'jeans' are ok.

'jeans' literally are 'pants' though. If a dress code specifies pants, jeans are fine, unless they specifically exclude jeans as a type of pants.

>>ruthma+z2
Obviously, you have never had to use that vacuous argument with an HR department.

This is completely not True.

Either

1. You know it is not true, and are just trolling.

or

2. You do believe this, and have just redefined these words to fit a particular world view. Which I guess can happen. If this generation has re-defined the words 'jeans' and 'pants', then guess, I can't argue against how people re-define words. Just goes to how the world is being divided by re-defining entire vocabularies.

>>Frustr+Vq
I'm not trolling and correct, I've never had to use that argument. Are you British or something? In the US and most western countries, pants simply means some kind of full leg covering, and generally that's going to be jeans, chinos, or trousers/slacks. All are pants.

A companies dress code will generally exclude jeans if they are not acceptable.

I haven't redefined anything.

>>ruthma+xt
They were Unites States based HR Departments. Pants, did not include Jeans.

You are correct. Looked it up, and Jeans are sub-category of Pants. Though, I live in the US and have never had someone refer to jeans as pants. It seems a technical definition that I've never seen used that way. I know arguing with HR they did not see it that way.

Perhaps HR really meant 'slacks'. as in Dressy Pants.

>>Frustr+WH
So we just both have different anecdotal experiences. I live in the US also, and the places I've worked were pretty clear. For example, working at a big4 accounting firm, they specified pretty clearer in the dress code that pants didn't include jeans, as where at the consultancy arm of a fortune 500 tech company, it was fine and pants included jeans unless meeting with a client, but that was clearly specified.

>>ruthma+5L
Yep. And, probably HR departments are also variable in their definitions, and accuracy.

Really, I had to look it up. I had always thought of 'pants' as 'dress pants'. So to have such a broad category of 'pants' seemed like an older technical definition I've never seen used commonly.

But, if you saw in other posts. For the Chess rules. There was another section of the rules that specified 'no jeans'. So for the current controversy, it didn't specifically hinge on this definition of 'pants'.