TAPP's support of a candidate is conditioned on the candidate's good faith compliance with these rules. The rule are intended to impose intellectual honesty on public debate, so compliance with them distinguishes stateswomen and men (who see themselves as servants and the public as masters)from politicians (who see themselves as masters and the public as clients).

The rules make the use of intentionally ambiguous, and emotionally inflammatory, rhetoric impossible as a means for to rationalize false claims and arguments.

1. Consistency does not guarantee honesty, but a single inconsistency guarantees dishonesty. Never accept a response that begins with any variation of "yes, but ..."
2. Avoid the verb "to be". Substitute the traditional who, what, when, where, why, and how. E.g. "He lied when he said X" is and honest statement (which may or not be true). "He is a liar" is intellectually dishonest. It is ambiguous, because it offers no information about frequency or severity. It offers the listener no facts she or he can evaluate, and it offers the target no specific to acknowledge or refute.
3. "Intelligent, intellectually honest people are attracted to the discussion of ideas and events: Ignorant people prefer to discuss other people". Therefore, all questions of the form "What do you think about Sara Palin?" are dishonest ones. Reject every invitation to discuss other people with a demand for the action, statement, or idea under discussion.
4. 

   Do not use "unreferenced" plural pronouns or proper nouns: They are intellectually dishonest and display foolish arrogance.
5. 

   Adjectives signify babble, unless replacing them with their antonym would make sense and express a materially different idea.
   
   
6. 

   Do not use the terms "government-funded" or "government-paid": The honest term is "taxpayer-paid" or "taxpayer-funded".