Acceptable or No?

[Ragoczy]

I agree, but we don't know in what context the safe word existed. If this was a no limits relationship, the safe word may have only existed for the sake of new types of play in which they were both inexperienced.

That's true, and the problem with hypotheticals, the discussion has to be in generalities. So, in general, I assume safewords apply at all times.

This is true. Usually, the reason for having no limits is that the couple know each other sufficiently well to trust that they have the same basic limits and, therefore, no limits will ever be breached.

I guess one of the problems is that I view safewords as a communications tool that's valuable regardless of how well I think I know someone. It's not just about limits, it's about things going wrong.

Maybe she was commanded to get him something to drink, and she had just painted her toenails.

Well, the trust goes both ways -- that the safeword will be honored, but also that it won't be used frivolously. And that's something for the two to discuss after the safeword's been honored -- "I just painted my toenails and don't want to have to redo them", frivolous; "I just painted my toenails and it'll get on the new carpet", not so much.

Do you allow them to be used to get out of punishment? You brought up a good point, though. Maybe after 2 swats, she used the "yellow" safe word, and he determined that she could take some more without any permanent damage.

Not to "get out of", but to halt/delay/discuss if there's some serious problem, yes.

The second part of your question goes to the caveat I added. Obviously if it's within the dominant's agreed discretion to ignore a type of safeword, then it's an acceptable scenario.