Asklemmy

43783 readers

849 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What rule or rules would you add to the ten commandments of web etiquette? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 months ago by CraigOhMyEggo@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

            
              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.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

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.