Second Law of Forum Necromancy: If a poster decides to start a new topic with the same subject rather than dig up an old topic, the first response will typically be a link to the old thread and/or an exhortation to "use the search button". Also see the Search Button Paradox rule.
First Law of Forum Necromancy: 50% of attempts at Thread Necromancywill result in a stillborn topic that sinks to the bottom of the forum like a lead stone. The other 50% usually reignite the Flame War that killed the topic the last time. Either way, the chances of rekindling a meaningful discussion from a raised thread are very slim.
Thread Resuscitation Rule: If a thread has more than two replies in a row by the same poster (and it's not a double post or posted within a couple of hours of each other), then the topic is officially dead, and no amount of bumping can revive it. It's best to abandon it to the graveyard of the forum archives.
Hell Hath No Trollbait: Never complain that a person has just callously spoiled a plotline where novices can see it. Trolls will flock in from all the forum, unleashing several missile salvos' worth of game-changing spoilers for everything from Citizen Kane to the eighth Harry Potter book.
First Corollary: Most of these spoilers will be true.
Application Paradox: Unless you are deliberately doing this in order to invoke the effect and get the entire plot for free. In that c
The "Information Wants to be Free" Paradox: On the official forums for any work, the harder the staff tries to censor spoilers and/or secrets, the easier it will be to find the same information on a fansite.
This is a corollary to the Streisand Effect, a law of the internet which states that the more effort is put into removing information from the internet, the more attention is called to that information, and the further it will spread.
Corollary: The most efficient way to keep a spoiler or secret hidden is to just ask nicely once, within the spoilery section of the work itself if possible.
The Law of Cherry Picking: If a user posts his or her side of an argument, and a number of other users try to refute it with well-thought-out posts and cited sources, the original user will only respond to the easiest replies to argue with, ignoring all of the others.
Corollary: If a posts demands a source for a claim, and a source is produced, the next post invariably attacks the credibility of that source. Usually, this is solely on the basis that the source of a specific argument they disagree with also happens to disagree with the poster in general.
Corollary: No matter how many sources a post cites, someone is still bound to think they know better than the original poster based entirely on the fact that the original poster has a view different from their own.
Corollary: If a user says "call me X, but..." in a post, as the number of direct replies to that post increases, the odds approach one that one of those replies will consist of "You're X." and contribute absolutely nothing useful whatsoever, yet the poster of that reply will still somehow think that completely refutes the original post's argument.
Conservation of Intelligence: For a well-thought-out post, the longer it is and the more sources it cites, the more likely replies to it will consist of only one sentence that dismisses the entire argument through use of a straw manand/or logical fallacy, usually both.
The Storm Shelter Corollary: Waiting until the initial wave of pointless replies passes by and then bumping the thread is a recipe for success.
The "OK" Corollary: If two consecutive troll replies in a thread are exactly the same, every subsequent reply will be exactly the same as well as people flock to the bandwagon. Once this happens, the thread is impossible to salvage, but a new forum meme may emerge.
Harkster's Law of Logical Backfire: If a logical pattern or law is proven and defined as true, the law will more often be cited in support of ambiguous statements or falsehoods which appear to resemble the pattern, than it will be cited in support of the truths which it actually defines.
+b Coherency: The topic of every chatroom, regardless of the site it is affiliated with, is randomness. Anyone who attempts to start a meaningful conversation will be disregarded or scorned for going off-topic.
If two or more users attempt to start a meaningful conversation of any sort during a session of randomness, they will be directed to take their discussion somewhere private.
If the site has multiple affiliated chatrooms, with one "general" chatroom and the rest dedicated to special topics or on-topic conversations, the "general" room will be devoted to randomness and all chatter will take place there, while the other rooms will remain mostly silent and/or empty.
The Time Sink Theorem: A forum with an associated chatroom, IRC channel or similar will be less active than it would have been if it had no chatroom.
The Twin-World Hypothesis: Over time, the forum and the chatroom will develop into separate communities, as the members of the chatroom eschew the forum and the members who join the forum remain unaware of the chatroom's existence, as the people who could have introduced them to this chatroom have left the forums for that very chatroom. Any joining forum member who joins the chatroom will inevitably leave shortly therweafter due to the Lock-The-Gates phenomenon mentioned below.
The Loser's Fallacy (The First Law of the Special Olympics): 95% of all disputes on the internet are settled by maneuvering the losing party into a position where further dissent of any nature, correct or incorrect, demonstrates that they have no life.
The Private Clubhouse Effect: If a small, tight-knit community gathers around a forum, as time passes more and more postings will have little to do with whatever is the forum's subject and instead will be just the regulars chit-chatting and hanging out with each other. This also applies to individual threads, which will go on pages-long tangents.
Party on the Totem Pole Law: If a forum is made of a small group of tightly-knit friends, over 60% of the active users on the board will have moderator powers.
The CoSC Corollary of Stubbornness - If the forum in question is a Role-Playing Forum, then this group of staff is often the only thing that keeps a site alive in periods of slow activity. Which may or may not be all the time.
An Armed Society Is A Polite Society Theory - As the number of moderators as percentage of the forum population grows, the less their mod powers will see actual use.
Gideon's Rule (The Red Flag of Masochism): If a user openly invites opposition to themselves — be it competition in a video game, criticisms of their works, or counterpoints to their arguments in a debate — and qualify it with something along the lines of "I always welcome being beaten/proven wrong/criticized, I enjoy it, it's how I learn"... it's your cue to run far, far away. This is because, 85% of the time, what the user really means is "I dare you to try, because I don't think it's possible". Either they're right, and they will pummel you into submission with their expertise, or they're wrong, and they will throw a tantrum when they are beaten. Either way, it's not someone you want to be caught disagreeing with.
Note: If the user is part of the forum staff, this is probably an illustration of GreenCobra's Law.
Corollary: If the user is part of the small percentage that is genuinely seeking healthy competition or honest feedback, someone else will still wander into the conversation and start the war instead.
GreenCobra's Law: "Arguing with the mods is allowed. Winning an argument against the mods will get you banned." When the staff of a forum is strict, mods and admins will allow people to argue against their points in order to shoot down the counterarguments and strengthen their own opinions. When this fails and a user's rebuttals become increasingly difficult to counter, expect the staff to start pulling out topic locks, demerits, and banhammers.
McHabe's Rule: The mods are generally decent folks just trying to do their jobs. The forum creator is all but absent. However, the administrators' level is home to all the petty tyrants on the board - in the rare instances that they can resist the allure of the banhammer, they'll still have no mercy in jeering you out of your insolent deviance.
Visual Zombification Postulate: The more images are used as discourse in any given thread, the less said thread will tolerate independent thought. Imageboards, being at the very extreme of images-as-discourse, are hive minds that instantly detect a nonassimilated psyche.
As the length of any "random/humorous image thread" grows longer, the probability of somebody getting the thread locked by posting an image that flagrantly violates forum rules approaches 1. They will then be angry about it after the fact.
If the forum has no rules regarding images, the thread will eventually degrade into porn.
Paula Bean's Law:If a project goes for an unusually long time without being updated, and the project creator continually posts progress reports that are vague in nature ("It's going great!") or tiny inconsequential scraps of material without any specific references to the project or any solid evidence that they've made progress, they have almost certainly done absolutely nothing. If this happens from the start, the project itself might not even exist. This is especially true if the person is known to frequently post works-in-progress without actually finishing anything, showing that they are desperate for attention in any way they can obtain it. If they have something to show, they would have shown it by now.