If you could bring one "rule" to the internet, what would it be?

[PatrickG]

Mine would be this:

If you ever put words in someone else's mouth, say someone's tears taste sweet, say "whaaaambulance" (or some variation thereof) or use "QQ" to describe someone else's point of view, you become magically unable to use the internet for 7 days.

If you need it simplified, I'd settle for anyone who uses any form of "Reductio ad absurdum" argument to be struck with Chicken Pox.

Examples:

So what you're really saying when you want Barack Obama to win is:

"Waaaaah! I'm a bum who wants socialism! Pay for my abortions because I'm an immature 11 year who can't control my genitals!"

So what you're saying when you say you want John McCain to win is:

"Waaaaah! I'm an old person! I'm Crotchety McAncient. Give me the blood of innocents and launch us into war with heathen infidels until we destroy the anti-christ with nukes!"

Ooh! You ACTUALLY miss New Coke, huh? Somebody call the whaaaambulance! It's the end of the world because you can't drink your crap in a can.

The tears of lawyers taste sweet.

QQ! Cry more, loser.

These yank my chain whenever I see them applied because they assume that anyone who rants, expresses displeasure, discomfort or calls for any kind of change is WHINING, SAD and CRYING. They may, in fact, be angry, miffed, nostalgic, hopeful, helpful or simply rational. But if you don't like what they have to say, you get to define the argument in most of the 'net (most of which is pretty immature) by painting the opposition as a pouty little brat.

This is really the only type of behavior that bugs me online. I don't mind Godwin's Law or stupid horny people looking to cyber or egomaniacs looking for affirmation.

But I HATE the idea of anyone trying to WIN anything based on anything other than direct analysis of the issue. This is the one thing I could probably see myself snapping and becoming a serial killer over. Or at least writing a quasi-intellectual slasher flick about.

[Agent Helix]

QQ more noob.

[JonniRandom]

I HATE "forum expressions".

Rule: Anybody who uses the internet to hurt somebody is electrocuted by their own computer.


"Word".

[MartinRedmond]

Replying with the variations of "fail" or "facepalm" = instant ban forever.

[Infra-Man]

I'm torn between these:

If you insult someone on the internet and that person insults you back, you cannot whine about it.

and

If you are factually wrong about something during an argument or assert something that is factually wrong and someone calls you out on it, you must admit you were wrong instead of spinning and obfuscating.

[Mr.EZ]

I hate the terms "QFT" and "FTW."

[Chiroptera]

Rule: Anyone who uses the word "Gay/Queer/Homo" as a derogatory term for anything has an electrical charge the equivalent of a police stun gun strike them through their keyboard.

[K-DoG7p7]

So Fag is still ok??

Rule: No n00bs

[Infra-Man]

Mine would be this:

If you ever put words in someone else's mouth, say someone's tears taste sweet, say "whaaaambulance" (or some variation thereof) or use "QQ" to describe someone else's point of view, you become magically unable to use the internet for 7 days.

...

These yank my chain whenever I see them applied because they assume that anyone who rants, expresses displeasure, discomfort or calls for any kind of change is WHINING, SAD and CRYING. They may, in fact, be angry, miffed, nostalgic, hopeful, helpful or simply rational. But if you don't like what they have to say, you get to define the argument in most of the 'net (most of which is pretty immature) by painting the opposition as a pouty little brat.

Surely we can make an exception for this rule when it applies to Kanye West being a douchebag on his blog, yes?

[Darediva]

One rule? It would have to be use some grammar, spelling and punctuation. Texting is one thing; posting on forums and sending email are quite different.

I am constantly annoyed when I see the non-use of the shift key when needed, or the length of a run-on sentence that should be a paragraph.

Go ahead. Call me anal. I have a great in-joke about that.

[beetlebum]

Ugggh...

You're anal.

And Infra, I heart you so much for your suggestions.

As for me, the only rule I would like to add is weigh the possible perlocutionary effect your utterance may have on others.

In other words? Exercise some common sense before posting.

Don't post things that are intentionally provocative, as I'm just plain getting sick of it.

[GozertheGozarian]

No more smileys, ever.

[Darediva]

Ugggh...

You're anal.
.

I was going to PM you the "joke" but found you don't accept PMs. It's not really that funny, just ironic.

[LewisH]

like my Outback Steakhouse: No Rules. Just Right. If you don't like the behavior of individuals at the sites you currently visit, you are free to start your own moderated site with whatever rules you personally choose to impose.

One universal rule for EVERY site on the internet is a ridiculous idea as each site is established for different purposes and aimed at different audiences. Besides it isn't that hard to ignore posters that annoy you. See you just did.

[Sally Sensational]

I'm with Darediva on this one. Forcing most people on the internet to use proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling - or at least their best efforts at such (I am aware that there are spelling-challenged people in the world and that folks who are trying to use English as a second language face even more challenges) - would actually eliminate a great deal of the general stupidity as things like L33T would have to go away.

Typos and honest grammar and spelling problems are excusable - forcibly mangling the English language is NOT.