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.

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.

Yes, this.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to mention filtering responses as a point of conduct, though. I would think it's common sense to not broadcast that you are filtering someone, but it might not be as obvious to not whine about feeling ignored. I like the "it's considered very rude..." line. It doesn't mandate or codify what to do--it simply clarifies board culture on the issue.

I've been leaning toward simplicity in the way we officially talk about the filter. Just something like, "For one reason or another, you might not want to see a particular person's post. You can filter them like this. [explanation] In this, as in all your interactions at the Phoenix board, don't be rude. We hate that."

I've always liked our way of not writing down very clearly and trying-to-cover-all-corners regarding what is considered a rude behavior.

Once these things start to be codified, in my eyes, the discussion regarding these subjects is in risk of becoming details-oriented, splitting-hairs kind of "but you said you shouldn't throw a bowl of guac on somebody's hair, and I threw a cup, not a bowl, and it was on somebody's shoes, not hair, so that's OK, right?".

I agree with those who said that every taunting regarding the filter (either by the person who is using it or by the person who is talking about it being used by other posters) fall under the definition of "rude" we already have written down.

Other thing is, there's a really high probability the the folks most likely to misuse the filter are t he least likely to ever read the faq. The faq seems a bit like preaching to the choir sometimes.

I'm against making anything an officially warnable offense, even "I'm filtering you! Nyah!" For all of the reasons already specified. Basically, I feel we can't really exert control over how the filter will be used. Someone at some point will say it. We knew that when we decided to go ahead and create it.

I really would like to see less policing of language and behavior in general, not more.

What Burrell said.

I really don't like micromanagement, and lately it's been feeling like we're heading that way.

The longer the FAQ gets, the more I think we should have gone with the two rules Victor suggeted:

1) Don't be an asshole.

2) We decide what's being an asshole.