Taste
Taste
General Doctrine
T.01 - Evidence lacking intentionality may be challenged.
T.02 - Citizens introducing aesthetic claims shall provide rationale.
T.03 - Arguments relying upon excess may be reviewed for necessity.
T.04 - Visual decisions require contextual support.
T.05 - Proceedings favor clarity over spectacle.
T.06 - Evidence demonstrating restraint receives procedural consideration.
T.07 - Parties introducing contradiction must establish purpose.
T.08 - Aesthetic noise may be reviewed.
T.09 - Arguments dependent upon trend participation require further explanation.
T.10 - Positions lacking internal continuity may be reconsidered.
T.11 - Supporting details may affect credibility.
T.12 - Proceedings prioritize coherence.
T.13 - Unnecessary additions remain challengeable.
T.14 - Visual hierarchy concerns remain admissible.
T.15 - Claims of timelessness require explanation.
T.16 - Citizens introducing novelty must distinguish novelty from variation.
T.17 - Repeated elements may be evaluated for fatigue.
T.18 - Appeals to elegance require supporting evidence.
T.19 - Proceedings prioritize intentional structure.
T.20 - Absence alone shall not constitute sophistication.
Architect / Refiner Rules
TC.01 - Counsel appearing before Taste proceedings shall demonstrate visible intentionality.
TC.02 - Accessories lacking purpose may receive scrutiny.
TC.03 - Arguments introduced visually shall maintain continuity.
TC.04 - Color appearing within garments should establish supporting relationships.
TC.05 - Counsel shall distinguish restraint from absence.
TC.06 - Visible excess requires procedural explanation.
TC.07 - Outfits displaying unresolved tension remain challengeable.
TC.08 - Counsel should avoid introducing unnecessary visual competition.
TC.09 - Claims of timelessness may be reviewed against presentation.
TC.10 - Repeated visual elements should establish rhythm.
TC.11 - Supporting details remain admissible.
TC.12 - Visible structure shall receive consideration.
TC.13 - Counsel introducing contrast shall identify intention.
TC.14 - Procedural presentation favors coherence.
TC.15 - Silhouette decisions require internal logic.
TC.16 - Visual hierarchy concerns remain reviewable.
TC.17 - Novelty alone shall not establish sophistication.
TC.18 - Counsel should avoid unresolved styling narratives.
TC.19 - Presentation shall support argument rather than overpower it.
TC.20 - Elegance remains challengeable if unsupported.
Fashion
TA.01 - Excessive visual noise may constitute aesthetic misconduct.
TA.02 - Intentionality fraud remains challengeable. Definition: Presenting randomness as design logic.
TA.03 - Unresolved visual contradiction may trigger review.
TA.04 - Color relationships lacking continuity remain reviewable.
TA.05 - Excessive additions without purpose may receive scrutiny.
TA.06 - False timelessness claims remain challengeable.
TA.07 - Novelty without distinction may trigger inquiry.
TA.08 - Silhouette inconsistency may receive review.
TA.09 - Visual hierarchy disruption remains admissible offense.
TA.10 - Excessive styling competition may constitute procedural concern.
TA.11 - Restraint fraud remains challengeable. Definition: Confusing absence with sophistication.
TA.12 - Excessive dependency upon trends remains reviewable.
TA.13 - Decorative overload may trigger examination.
TA.14 - Visual clutter may receive scrutiny.
TA.15 - Misuse of elegance claims remains challengeable.
TA.16 - Contradictions lacking rationale remain punishable.
TA.17 - Excessive dependence upon styling explanation remains reviewable.
TA.18 - Unintentional visual imbalance may receive scrutiny.
TA.19 - Coherence abandonment remains challengeable.
TA.20 - Collections introducing unresolved aesthetic narratives may trigger investigation.
Beauty
TB.01 - Intentionality fraud remains challengeable. Definition: Presenting disconnected choices as design logic.
TB.02 - Packaging incoherence may receive scrutiny.
TB.03 - Visual hierarchy disruption remains reviewable.
TB.04 - Aesthetic contradiction lacking rationale remains challengeable.
TB.05 - False sophistication claims may trigger inquiry.
TB.06 - Restraint impersonation remains reviewable. Definition: Confusing emptiness with elegance.
TB.07 - Decorative overload remains challengeable.
TB.08 - Excessive aesthetic competition may receive review.
TB.09 - Visual clutter may trigger investigation.
TB.10 - Timelessness claims unsupported by continuity remain challengeable.
TB.11 - Novelty lacking distinction remains reviewable.
TB.12 - Excessive dependence upon explanation may receive scrutiny.
TB.13 - Packaging identity drift remains challengeable.
TB.14 - Visual imbalance may trigger inquiry.
TB.15 - Silhouette inconsistency remains reviewable.
TB.16 - Elegance misuse remains challengeable.
TB.17 - Coherence abandonment may receive investigation.
TB.18 - Supporting details lacking purpose remain reviewable.
TB.19 - Unresolved aesthetic narrative remains challengeable.
TB.20 - Failure to establish visual intentionality remains admissible offense.
Lifestyle
TL.01 - Intentionality fraud remains challengeable. Definition: Presenting disconnected aesthetic choices as coherent atmosphere.
TL.02 - Atmospheric incoherence may trigger investigation.
TL.03 - Visual hierarchy disruption remains reviewable.
TL.04 - Color continuity neglect remains challengeable.
TL.05 - Contradiction without rationale may receive scrutiny.
TL.06 - Restraint impersonation remains reviewable. Definition: Confusing emptiness with sophistication.
TL.07 - Decorative accumulation may trigger inquiry.
TL.08 - Visual clutter remains challengeable.
TL.09 - Narrative fragmentation remains reviewable.
TL.10 - Timelessness misuse may receive scrutiny.
TL.11 - Excessive environmental competition remains challengeable.
TL.12 - Styling dependence may trigger investigation. Definition: Environment requiring explanation to function.
TL.13 - Elegance inflation remains reviewable.
TL.14 - Structural incoherence may receive scrutiny.
TL.15 - Atmospheric imbalance remains challengeable.
TL.16 - Coherence abandonment remains reviewable.
TL.17 - Decorative dependency may trigger inquiry.
TL.18 - Visual rhythm failure remains challengeable.
TL.19 - Unresolved experiential narrative remains reviewable.
TL.20 - Failure to establish intentional atmosphere remains admissible offense.
Sentence
TS.01 - Aesthetic Misjudgment Proceedings
TS.02 - 30 Days of Excess Exposure
TS.03 - Restraint Rehabilitation
TS.04 - Elegance Reconstruction
TS.05 - Temporary Refinement Suspension
TS.06 - Public Taste Review
TS.07 - Overindulgence Correction Proceedings
TS.08 - Mandatory Editing & Reduction
TS.09 - Visual Clutter Rehabilitation
TS.10 - Luxury Identity Review
TS.11 - Excessive Ornamentation Monitoring
TS.12 - Disciplinary Restoration Proceedings
TS.13 - Minimal Judgment Probation
TS.14 - Temporary Sophistication Withdrawal
TS.15 - Extended Refinement Hearings
Penalty
TP.01 - Mandatory Editing Therapy. Defendant required to remove one unnecessary element weekly.
TP.02 - Elegance Rehabilitation Program. Compulsory archive review of timeless references.
TP.03 - Excess Exposure Restriction. Over-accessorizing privileges suspended.
TP.04 - Refinement Probation. All future aesthetic decisions reviewed by Taste Counsel.
TP.05 - Luxury Identity Recovery. Required to identify distinction between expensive and luxurious.
TP.06 - Visual Noise Reduction Program. Defendant limited to simplified styling.
TP.07 - Public Restraint Supervision. Must justify every design addition.
TP.08 - Sophistication Monitoring. Quarterly reviews for elegance decline.
TP.09 - Compulsory Reduction Proceedings. Excess details removed by force.
TP.10 - Taste Restoration Hearings. Monthly evaluations under BTW review.
TP.11 - Aesthetic Maturity Program. Repeated exposure to strong editing principles.
TP.12 - Overindulgence Restriction. Decoration privileges suspended.
TP.13 - Minimal Exposure Assignment. Mandatory study of restraint.
TP.14 - Visual Discipline Training. Failure to edit extends sentence.
TP.15 - Permanent Placement on Taste Watch. Repeat offenders monitored indefinitely
