They’re semi-famous now, but it was actually a friend of mine who originally wrote them. They’re a list of ten rules of thumb to go by when using the internet. They imply things like the potential drawbacks of assuming someone’s other identities, how to caution against archive forgery, when the best time is to complain about mods, etc. and serve as a go-to for advice on interpersonal relations when indirect contact is at play. Written in the style of a Greek philosopher, they were written in a setting where people were committing massive collateral damage with their animosity/gullibility/skepticism and they have paved a better modus operandi than many contemporaries can. Confidently asserted but open to at least some change, what would you add?
Wild assertion that these are semi-famous with only just over 4k views on the original post. And on DA in 2021 no less. I’ve seen no name YouTubers with higher subscriber counts.
- Always err on the side of scepticism when reading things online, especially when those things assert themselves as truth.
That’s already in number three.
Thou shalt thank or otherwise acknowledge thine responders whomst volunteer their time to provide helpful comments and posts.
One’s true character shines when no other light is present. Who you are when you believe yourself anonymous, is the real version of yourself. This is the version without the mask that peer pressure forces upon you. The mask of accountability to others, if you were to act like your true self, is a powerful motivator to alter your behavior. The person you are without the mask of social accountability, is the truest version of yourself.
- With authorship comes authority. They get the final say who made something, except where this rule violates or complicates itself. The context in this statement does not matter.
I think J K Rowling is living proof that this shouldn’t be codified, as authorship and fanship should align at least on some axis
Fanservice can be good, but it’s up to the author if they want to go through with it, even if that also means it’s up to the fans if they want to indulge. In the same line of thinking, we have a fine line between “canon” and “headcanon”.
The rule also applies to associations. Suppose people in it begin to disassociate from other members. They shouldn’t consider it “wrongful” on the part of the leader and do the whole “oh noes I was removed” routine. It’s an extension of the people who formed it, and imagine (excluding hostility) you being the one in charge and having your claims to your niche crushed. To be an outsider is simply to lack the status of an insider.
