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.

If we're going to have any official mention of the first three rules of user filter club, I think it should be in the How To document, since part of how to use the user filter is how to use it politely.

And I agree that all it needs to say is "talking about who you're filtering or who you think is filtering you is rude, so don't do it." There's no need to mention possible official Stompy action.

And I agree that all it needs to say is "talking about who you're filtering or who you think is filtering you is rude, so don't do it." There's no need to mention possible official Stompy action.

I like the lack of official, but still out there implication of this. My biggest worry with some official quantifier is that you're going to start seeing all kinds of cute euphamisms for filtering (e.g. "Ok, that's it, I'm off to Fight Club" to use the most recent one, which I do find slightly less...clique-ish a term, I guess than Marcie) in thread.

If someone does this, and it's rude, our normal procedure still works.

I suppose it's possible that people will do it, insisting it's not rude, but that's why we have been loose in the discuss-warn-ban scenario.