BackSet

BackSet

Ray of Sunshine From Camp Half-Blood, Half-Blood Hill, Farm Road 3.141
Joined
Messages
7,919
Reactions
7,093
Medals
0

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About Post areas

  • BackSet
    The Bully Theorem:
    • In every community, there is one member who will consistently display a negative or malicious attitude toward other users, the forum staff, or the forum itself. Said user will:
    • Insist their antics shouldn't be taken seriously,
    • Eventually be warned or banned by the forum staff,
    • Complain up and down that the forum staff which banned them has no sense of humor or is taking things way too seriously.
    BackSet
    BackSet
    • Corollary - If said user happens to also be a moderator or an admin, said user will likely be:
      • The creator of the forum and thus a root admin by default.
      • Friends with one or more of the mods or admins on the forum.
      • Often use their power to justify their attitudes toward other members or warn and/or ban any naysayers.
      • Often make a name for themselves because of their attitudes.
      • Will have little to no chance of being banned, punished or otherwise stripped of their rank for their attitude.
      • May have a small chance of prompting one or more moderators, admins or members to share that same attitude, but unlike the original, they will be punished.
    BackSet
    • The Iron Bubble: Bloggers screen for spambots by necessity. They can screen for grammar or vulgarity without trouble. But if they screen out opinions, even if the opinion is "the Holocaust didn't kill all that many people and that's too bad," they'll be the petty tyrant of their domain within two months.
    BackSet
    The Third Fundamental Theorem of Fan Feedback:
    • When the average user reads any kind of review, it does not affect their opinion of the work in question. Rather, it only affects their perceived peer pressure, serving to help them gauge how much they are allowed to like or dislike the work in public.
    • Corollary 1: Some users are so sensitive to peer pressure that they will stop enjoying a work if it receives too much negative feedback. These users will feel obliged to fight back against the criticisms to "prove them wrong", thus fighting for their right to enjoy the work.
    BackSet
    BackSet
    • Corollary 2: If a user enjoys a work which they know to be unpopular, a good portion of the user's enjoyment of the work will come from the thrill of standing out from the crowd. Similarly, users enjoy standing out from the crowd if the work is popular.
    • Corollary 3: Reviews have a greater chance of improving or damaging the reader's perception of the reviewer than the work based on the reader's perception of it and whether or not the reviewer agrees.
    BackSet
    • The Second Fundamental Theorem of Fan Feedback: Most professional critics and reviewers are just honest people trying to stay employed, and couldn't really care less about whatever it is they are reviewing.
    BackSet
    • The First Fundamental Theorem of Fan Feedback: Most non-professional critics and reviewers are just honest people who want to make a statement about some work and have their opinion taken seriously.
    BackSet
    • Holy War Syndrome: If a user posts about a problem with a computer program that is one of a number of programs serving the same purpose, several replies will be people suggesting another of those programs, claiming how it is the best out of all programs of the kind. At least one such reply will suggest that using the program is, itself, the problem. In other words, God help you if you ever need help with anything Microsoft-related.
    BackSet
    • The Field Expert Effect: Separating all or part of the content of a post into a list of bullet points will make the poster feel more important.
    BackSet
    • The Law of Diplomacy Futility: In a heated debate, occasionally one or more participants will try to make a concession in an attempt to make peace between sides because they are not looking for a fight. At best, this will have no effect, and at worst, this will just encourage the belligerent minority who are looking to pick a fight. This is because the belligerents are also the ones who are intent on shoving their views down everyone else's throats and likely believe that the opponent backing down is a victory, which makes them interpret the attempt at diplomacy as a sign that their obnoxious, forceful tactics are actually effective.
    BackSet
    • Debate Corollaries of Sturgeon's Law:
      • 90% of all debate threads degenerate into crud.
      • 90% of all posts in debate threads are crud.
      • 90% of all people can't keep a debate intelligent and civil worth crud.
      • 90% of all people in debate threads are not interested in having an intelligent and civil discussion, but are only interested in shoving their opinion down everyone else's throats and/or trying to make themselves feel superior.
    BackSet
    • The First Law of Discussion Non-Response Bias: Discussions tend to attract those with strong opinions, because moderates are less likely to make an effort to give their opinions.
    BackSet
    BackSet
    • The Second Law of Discussion Non-Response Bias: Any posters who dovoice a moderate or reasonable opinion will be ignored completely as the extremists continue sniping at each other. This may also be due to CAD's Theorem of Topic Closure, mentioned earlier.
    BackSet
    BackSet
    • The Third Law of Discussion Non-Response Bias: If a discussion starts getting heated from extreme opinions, the non-moderator members of Team Switzerland will give up on having a reasonable discussion and leave, causing the debate to get even more heated. Once this has occurred, the probability of a Flame War erupting in the thread start to asymptotically approach one as the discussion continues.
    BackSet
    • Skew Line Debate Rule: There will always be one debater whose clear grasp of grammar, facts and logic only serves to terrify the other forum denizens. This is because, despite their admirable education, they simply can't see why people keep thinking Robespierre did something wrong.
    BackSet
    BackSet
    Join Black Eagles we have:

    • Scary man
    • A Friendly Ghost
    • Basically me
    • A Jojo character
    • Petra
    • #CherishBernie
    • I am Ferdinand Von Aegir


    Led by

    • Edgelord with a crush on the teacher
    BackSet
    • Skarka's Law: Similar to Defending The Indefensible above, there is no behavior, practice, or act so reprehensible that you cannot find someone to defend it on the Internet.
    BackSet
    Defending The Indefensible:
    • No matter how much of a no-brainer a particular opinion may seem to the person who posted it (particularly where politics or religion are involved), someone is bound to take an opposing position even if doing so in Real Life would render him a pariah.
    • Corollary: When this occurs, the chances of Godwin's Law being invoked rises exponentially.
    • Second corollary: There is at least a 90% chance that at least one person discussing the position (on either side) is a Troll. The chances that this is the original poster are about 2%.
    BackSet
    BackSet
    • The Pet Peeve Phenomenon: On every forum there will be certain things that no-one is allowed to be in favour of, usually related to the forum's history. Establishing what these are in advance is one of the primary tasks of lurking.
      • No Love For The Follow-up: Forums based around a particular piece of media will often regard any derivative works as an automatically-nixed subject. This is not inherently reciprocated, depending on the general level of respect for the original and the nature of its fanbase. If the derivative is regarded as a Follow the Leader work, though, civility will usually go out the window on both sides.
    BackSet
    Everything we do in the grand scheme of the universe is insignifigant and worthless. Life is fleeting and we all die eventually. But why bother griping and complaining about it. Go on an adventure instead. If you're going to do something insignifigant in a short span of time, might as well have fun doing it, right?
    Truff
    Truff
    Me talking myself into another cookie
    BackSet
    The Lawful Stupid Law of Morality:
    • Any discussion on whether or not an action X is justifiable will eventually see at least one poster whose entire argument boils down to either "X is good because there is no law against it" or "X is bad because it is illegal".
    • Corollary: In at least 4 out of 5 cases, this will also be based purely on the law where they live, completely ignoring any foreign laws on the subject.
    • Corollary to the Corollary: If two such posters in the same thread are from two different countries and X is only illegal in one of those two countries, the thread will promptly explode into a very long and completely pointless Argument of Contradictions between those two posters.
    BackSet
    BackSet
    • The First Amendment Corollary: 90% of invocations of the First Amendment to the US Constitution will be done by someone trying to excuse something incredibly stupid they (or their friend) just said, while simultaneously failing to understand that the First Amendment only guarantees that the US Congress can't abridge your right to free speech, and says nothing about forum moderators. This goes double for sites set up outside the United States.
    BackSet
    • The Morality (Fandom) Wank Law:
      • Any mention of morality or ethics will not only trigger a debate, but will also prompt at least one egotistical claim of moral superiority. This usually is done using Insane Troll Logicand some variation on one or both of the following base arguments:
        • "Agreeing with my position makes one a perfect saint and disagreeing with it makes one a horrible immoral person."
        • The Ad Hominem: "Clearly you're a horrible person, which makes me superior to you, which makes me right."
      • The Perish Song Corollary: If someone in a discussion attempts to support their position using morality or ethics, that conversation is immediately doomed and unsalvageable. If you're in the conversation, your best bet is to simply withdraw from it before the flame war erupts.
    BackSet
    • Politico's Law:
      • Any mention of politics will trigger a debate.
      • Corollary 1: The longer said debate goes on, the less likely it is to ever be resolved or end.
      • Corollary 2: There will be at least one Single-Issue Wonk who will jump onto any use of a word that could conceivably be related to politics, no matter the context, and attempt to make a flamewar out of it.
      • Corollary 3: As said debate drags on, the ratio of posts containing Insane Troll Logic genuinely believed by the author to be true approaches 1.
    BackSet
    • Last Post Wins Theorem:
      • As a flamewar gets longer and longer, all participants will find it increasingly boring, particularly if the original topic is forgotten, but will not stop until something forces them to in order to avoid giving their enemy the last word.
      • Corollary: If you see a mod put in one last word on the subject of the debate immediately before locking a flamey thread, run far, far away from the forum as fast as you can. Chances are either the forum is about to implode in another flame war over this mod behavior, or the implosion has already begun.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Back
Top