As opposed to how clear the criteria for "demon like" board behavior is now?

I'm in favor of not specifying. If it becomes a large issue, then reconsider.

I'd rather have cultural rather than official enforcement. I think a round of "Dude, that's rude" would be sufficient in most cases. If it's not - then I expect other problems are going on that would bring it up on the stompy radar.

I'm all for the civil discourse, and I would want everybody to treat filtering seriously - much like warnings. We don't joke about warnings here because we've all got the bruises from the disciplinary actions we've taken.

I would think that threats of filtering would be treated the way personal insults or hateful language are treated here: "That's incredibly inappropriate" or "That's rude. Please don't do that." or perhaps with newbies "We don't talk about filtering here and we don't use it as a way of sniping or backbiting. It's a tool, but we expect you to use it with discretion. Announcing who you've filtered is the height of rudeness."

Wouldn't that be sufficient in almost all instances? And when it isn't, again, I'd have to believe other demon like behavior was going on.

I think it needs to be clear that saying you're filtering someone counts as "demon-like behavior".

That's not covered by calling it "extremely rude"?

The other thing I was just thinking about in the shower (shut up) is whether we have to say that the filter is not an excuse for people to behave badly. You can't say to someone "I'm filtering you!" and you can't say "If you don't like what I'm saying, just filter me!"

You can't say to someone "I'm filtering you!" and you can't say "If you don't like what I'm saying, just filter me!"

Good point, Dana.

Does that sort of thing happen in other forums? I've not seen it, but then I don't hang out at too many other forums where it's an option.

I'm pretty sure it happened at Table Talk.

Yeah, it happened endlessly at Table Talk.

Happens all the time on USENET too.

I'm sure if we wandered afar in PF, it'd be there too.

You can try to teach people class in the FAQ, sure. But assholes will be assholes.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one specific thing is the exclusion of others. The more specific our rules, the less leg we have to stand on when we attempt to warn on something not in the rules. Allyson is right that that's just assholishness, and we should follow our regular procedures when it comes up.

If we all agree that this is assholishness, why do we need to give advance notice? It's obvious that telling someone they're blocked or that they will be blocked is intended to be hurtful.

Sometimes, I think there's a sort of strange effort to codify every behavioural nuance into neat little boxes within the FAQ.

Tripping in the Guac seems to cover most things in a very general way.

I'm not big on Rules, though. It's probably my ish. It raised my hackles a bit when Cindy suggested that asking Tim for a job should be a codified no no in the FAQ (which, you know, didn't get pressed, so point is moot, I know).

I'm just wary of the day when the FAQ becomes the length of War and Peace and includes rules on Passive-Aggressiveness, Snacky's Law, and the appropriate way to Wrod someone.

I'm all for less FAQ, and assuming that people are not assholes until they prove otherwise, at which point peer pressure naturally comes into play.