The "What constitutes being a dick" thread.

MISSION STATEMENT: I am not a mod. I have no authority on the forum. I am not an authority on authority, if that makes any sense. This thread is about the "unwritten rules." The purpose is to help tropers think about the more subtle elements of what makes for a civil forum, because these aren't rules that can be simply put in stone. People will often say "Well, I didn't know!" and it's not necessarily the mods job to make sure every potential banworthy offense is covered somewhere. But that doesn't mean it can't help to bring attention to some of the more subtle elements of appropriate behavior.

Let's start:

Rule Zero: Do not intentionally make more work for the mods. If you accidentally do something that causes the mods grief, that's one thing, but any indication of a "Clear and present intention to annoy the mods" is a pretty good sign that you're doing it wrong.

Zero point one: Don't troll this thread, or any rules thread, expressing distaste for the mods or the rules. It makes you out to be an asshole, and if the mods think you're an asshole, you're more likely to be banned, regardless of cred.

1.) Subverting the rules: This doesn't mean breaking the rules. This means deliberately being clever to do something that is not technically against the rules, but is against the spirit of the rules. If you're posting something IJB Mish and then rewording it so it's not an IJBM thread, that's subverting the rules.

1a.) No matter what the rule is (formal or informal), being meta does not necessarily make it okay. I've learned this first-hand. It's too easy to fall into the trap of "I'm not trolling-I'm just parodying trolling."

2.) Subverting the rules: Really, I can't say that enough. So much of "being a dick" is really just "Breaking the rules despite following them."

2b.) Specifically, if you're saying something that's "TOTALLY NOT ABOUT TROPER X" but whenever anyone reads it, they automatically think of Troper X, then you're saying it about Troper X. If saying things about Troper X is against the rules, then you're subverting the rules.

It's not really complaints that are a problem, so much as direct attacks on a suspiciously specific "type of person" which just so happens to be an exact description of another troper, e.g. Major Tom. That's considered a personal attack, and it is expressly forbidden in the rules.

2c.) By the same token, don't make a thread about yourself if it's critical in nature-that's a surefire way to start a flamewar.

3.) Deliberately subverting the intent: If you go into a thread with the intention of derailing it, you might be a dick. Let these things be organic; if a thread gets derailed because that's the natural flow of the thread, it's not a problem, but going into a properly railed thread with the intention of derailing it is essentially trolling.

4.) Don't pointlessly sow discontent: That's not saying you can't question the administration. It merely means that if you're going to do so, give it substance. Saying Fast Eddie is a tyrant is generally a bad idea. Explaining how forum culture tends to work in response to otherwise draconian policy is probably okay Unless Fast Eddie is a tyrant, in which case, no amount of helpful guidelines will be useful anyway, but we're sort of operating on the principle that everyone's at least reasonably ... reasonable.

5.) Know your audience: If you and Troper X are good friends by this point, you can probably get away with pushing the envelope in terms of "personal attacks" more than with Troper Y (That is to say, gentle friendly ribbing). Ultimately, what determines whether or not something is brought to the mods attention is usually whether someone hollers about it. Pay attention to what you say, and to whether or not by virtue of saying it, someone will holler-if not, you're probably safe.

5a.) Be nice to people you disagree with: This is just a safety precaution; if you disagree with someone and are arguing with them, there's a higher likelihood that witty comebacks will be interpreted as grievously offensive. I really hate to even suggest "Don't make fun of people you think are being stupid" because satire of bad ideas has a place-but to the extent that this thread is about "avoiding being a dick," it really is an issue that can't be missed. If you're going to satirize people in arguments, do so carefully-it's easy for them to blow up in your face.

6.) Don't bring up Soulbonding.

6a.) Don't ask what it is. I mean, sure, people can explain, but it often turns into a big mess.

...

Yeah, that's about all I've got, anyone else have anything more insightful?

NOTE: This isn't really about "What do you think the unwritten laws SHOULD mean" but rather, in practice, what kind of general dickishness that isn't explicitly prohibited in the rules has a history of getting people banned or otherwise reprimanded. There's certainly plenty of things that can be done that are generally considered "bad" but unless they're likely to get the banhammer dropped, it doesn't belong on this list.

edited 13th Jan '11 12:22:17 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

2b) Making posts, or even threads that are TOTALLY NOT ABOUT TROPER X, but are clearly actually about Troper X. If people bother you that much, there are several ignore extensions available.

edited 9th Jan '11 6:53:20 PM by SpainSun

Not having the intent to take a thread seriously when coming in, I guess. My particular vice.

Note that I am actually taking this thread seriously.

^^That's just a variant of subverting the rules though.

^Added rule 3, though it probably needs more fine tuning.

edited 9th Jan '11 6:51:10 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

I'll make it rule 2b then, jeez. >_>

Gotcha, added. You're right-completeness is more important than avoiding redundancy.

If I magically get this thread to take off, maybe I can even get it stickied!

edited 9th Jan '11 6:55:52 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Tomu, 1 2 and 3 are all specific cases of "being a subversive makes you a dick."

I'll sign off on that.

"Being a dick" in this context means "the nebulous area of things that aren't explicitly against the TOS but that can still get you banned."

Being a dick isn't necessarily a bad thing-but it's something that might get you banned, or considered "Not fun to be around" by others.

We're not here to argue whether or not that's how it should be. We're just trying to sort of solidify the underlying concept of otherwise nebulous rules.

edited 9th Jan '11 7:49:11 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

What I have a bit of an issue with (although I admit I have no solution) is that tropers are able to voice very incendiary opinions explicitly insulting to groups of people, whether categorized by gender, sex, sexuality, race, religion, class, etc. without any recourse because they're A) "not attacking anyone personally" and B) taking pains to be as polite as possible in their hate speech. I don't advocate barring anyone's right to freedom of speech, but, by the same token, I think that people who are rightfully incensed by such behavior and statements should be cut some slack if they say something offensive to the person being offensive towards a group of people.

And this is nothing against you, Rott, you know I like you.

edited 9th Jan '11 7:54:49 PM by kashchei

Unfortunately, this really isn't a discussion of commenting on what the rules should be, but is more about what the "unwritten rules" are. I don't know that I disagree, but I'd rather keep the direction of the thread on understanding those unwritten rules.

And, for better or for worse, what Rott does is clearly acceptable, whereas what Bon does is not.

^Eh, the reality is that Fast Eddie is one of those people who overcompensates for things like that, hence Bon's banning and why Rott is able to get away with things that would get most tropers basically banned as being trollbait.

edited 9th Jan '11 8:10:43 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

The thread might be better served in OTC, yes.

ninja'd

edited 9th Jan '11 8:14:43 PM by kashchei

@Kashchei: You seem to be assuming that I'm racist and every other progressive mortal sin, so ideologically pure white males like Bon should have a free hand with violent personal attacks.

edited 9th Jan '11 8:25:22 PM by Rottweiler

I feel like I missed something with Rott and Bon. Could somebody fill me in?

Kash, this thread isn't about Rott.

Rott, this thread isn't about you.

Adding a counter-point to one of the rules about this.

No, I'd rather be friends with kashchei than fight.

@ Rott: I should have made it clearer, but I didn't mean you specifically. There are other posters, who shall go unnamed, who have said far more disturbing things without penalty. I only mentioned Bon because of him being a good example of someone who got punished for refusing to entertain unsavory ideas with cheerful complacence.

^ Ditto

edited 9th Jan '11 8:43:09 PM by kashchei

A dick consists of the stalk and the head.

Demonization of other tropers or a group of people that are fans of something that you dislike.

Good call.

On the other hand, I don't think there's ever been a precedent for people getting banned because they demonized people who like a given show, so I'm not sure it really deserves to be on the list. Hmmm...

edited 9th Jan '11 8:50:30 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

I don't think demonization is quite big enough a word to warrant linking to an explanation.