The Big Book of Fandom & Internet Law

A Query

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:55:44 GMT

I have a question.

If Snapefen accuse their opponents of "being bullies just like the Marauders" or "hating them for existing", does it invoke Snacky's Law? And what about accusing the other side not of being bullies, but of rabidly defending bullying?

I saw this "argument" three times yesterday.

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:33:11 GMT

I couldn't find anything like this in this comm or the wiki, so:

Anyone who accuses a male opponent of 1) having a small penis or 2) not getting laid, automatically loses the argument.

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:43:33 GMT

I haven't seen this anywhere in the wiki, or in older posts... therefore I present it for your judgment.

The Comparing ~~Wands~~ Wank Decree

Anyone who, in the course of commenting on a wank in Fandom Y, claims that it "makes Fandom X look sane!" shall be forced to read every damned article in the Fandom Wank wiki. Thereby putting to rest that age-old question: Who Is the Wankiest Of Them All?

(So named because usually, X = Harry Potter.)

The Sheeple Law

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:09:10 GMT

Any use of the word "sheeple" in a serious context automatically disqualifies you from ever being taken seriously again.

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:19:52 GMT

Herongale's First Law of TMI.

You're not a TRUE FAN unless you've beat off to the idea of your favourite character/characters at least once.

Herongale's Corollary.

All other activities of fandom are optional and are neither required nor rule out TRUE FANDOM.

*brought to you by fine IRC crack chat everywhere*

Ghandi's Corollary

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:55:10 GMT

Works like Godwin's with a unique flavor of Civil Disobedience to justify wanking. Best exemplified here.

Peachespig's Rule of Entitlement

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:31:01 GMT

The first entry in a series that sucked was always the first one after you, whoever you are, got way too emotionally invested in an unreasonable outcome. Always.

Created by peachespig, modified and reposted with permission.

EDIT: Velvet_mace rephrased it better than I did.

Canon starts getting sucky the installment after fans get way too emotionally invested in an unreasonable outcome.

Zee's Godwin Corollary

Mon, 19 May 2008 22:02:28 GMT

Zee's Corollary to Godwin's Law:

In the context of Godwin's Law, George W. Bush is apparently the new Hitler. Therefore, the same rules apply to comparisons to G.W. as they do to comparisons to Hitler.

(Obvious exceptions for genuine comparisons of a politician or political candidate's policies to those of the Bush administration's.)

Axiom of Rose-Tinted Glasses

Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:53:23 GMT

Didn't see anything like this in the wiki, so here goes:

The length of time that passes between actual consumption of a piece of media and the present is directly proportional to a fan's nostalgia for said media.

The formula:

media + (this year - year in which media was last consumed) / fan's initial love = fan's current nostalgia

Corollary: The inverse holds true if a fan consumes the same piece of media again after a length of time.

Thusly:

fan's initial love / media + (this year - year in which media was last consumed) = fan's current nostalgia

Connor's Law

Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:27:15 GMT

If someone is clearly using a term for an oppressive political system that is not Nazism to avoid activating Godwin's Law, Godwin's Law is immediately invoked.
You guys are Fascists.
-Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:43:21 GMT

Please excuse me for intruding, but I thought these would make nice additions. In a pointing-out-the-blindingly-obvious kind of way.

The Galileo Fallacy: The fact that everyone disagrees with you does not make you Galileo; just because an idea is unpopular doesn't make it right.

The Gadfly Corollary: The fact that other people are pissed off about what you've just said does not make your statement automatically correct; you may just be an asshole.

Both are paraphrases and originated in this blog post.

Sun, 23 Dec 2007 04:00:38 GMT

I discovered an exception to Rule #2 (the 'creators don't care about your ship war' rule). It amused me, so I thought we might start a post for:

DOCUMENTED EXCEPTIONS TO RULE #2:

The Justice League and Justice League Unlimited TV shows - there's stuff on the DVDs where the writers admit to doing a certain number of things just to mess with the shippers. In fact, they actually use the word 'shippers'.

Truther's law.

Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:57:17 GMT

Anyone who uses the word "sheeple" in a non-ironic manner immediately loses.

EDIT 2: Jobs' Law
The above also applies to the pejorative use of the word "consumerist".

~~EDIT: Should I expand this to cover using "consumerist" as an insult?~~

Lissy's Law!

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:18:13 GMT

Anyone who agrees with, takes seriously or otherwise supports anything that Lissy aka Lysette aka The Batshit Queen of FAP says will never have any credibility in any argument ever again.

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:11:00 GMT

In reference to the recent amusingness in goth_macros and stupid_free, as metaquoted here and here:

Godot's Law (by dmlaenker)

In any given thread, the chance of Godot's arrival constantly approaches 0.

Scotsman's Law.

Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:24:15 GMT

Whenever someone defines what does or does not qualify someone for inclusion in the set of Real Xs, ("No real gamer would play the Wii!") the set in question will always include them.

~~Title needed.~~

My very first contribution!

Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:06:10 GMT

Ginevra's Principle states that, in any fandom of a work of fiction whose canon material is of predetermined length and comes from a restricted, consistent creator base (i.e. a book series with a single author, amirite?), there will be factions of fans whose..."ideas" for the canon material run contrary to the creators' plans and are, therefore, doomed to be proven wrong as the canon material reaches conclusion. Furthermore, the Principle observes that, the more specifically the creator(s) answer(s) the questions in debate by various fandom factions, the more members the contrary groups will lose to the vacuum of Real Life and Reasonable Behavior. However, at the same time, the smaller those groups become as their arguments are increasingly rendered null and void, the more batshit their theories will become, and the more intractably stubborn those fans will get in their "beliefs."

Ginevra's Law states that the activity of "debate" or "exchange" or "reasonable discussion" is logistically impossible and epistomologically inapplicable when dealing with these people. Any fan, no matter how well-intentioned or soundly argued, who attempts debate with the factions that bring Ginevra's Principle into action will be fined one week of Internet access for each attempt. Any fan from the Contrary Factions who attempts to trap an opponent into a "debate" over the issue in question will never be allowed to consume fictional materials again.

This law will also be known as The Law of JKR's Thesaurus

A corollary to Azalais' Carousel Law

Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:08:56 GMT

I'd like to suggest a corollary to Azalais' Carousel Law:

Anyone under the age of 22 who says that anyone over the age of 22 who is still interested in yaoi fandom must be a pedophile should be put on the carousel.

Anyone claiming they'll stop liking yaoi or other fannish interests as soon as they reach over 22 because to do otherwise is to be a sad and pathetic person (and/or a pedophile) should retroactively be put on the carousel at 15.

In short, fandom does not only belong to self-righteous 14 year olds.

The Gay & Slippery Slope

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:45:08 GMT

Presented for your approval. The idea was put forth by pantyless_angel in this thread, and I reworded it. I searched the Wiki and couldn't find a law regarding this exact subject, but feel free to let me know if it's been done or you have a better name for it.

The Gay & Slippery Slope
In any discussion about homosexuality, gay relationships, and/or same-sex marriage, should one side compare one or more of those things to/argue that one of those things will lead to:

1. Rampant llegal and/or harmful activities such as illegal drug use, pedophilia, or bestiality
2. Legalizing marriage to one's close relatives, to pets/animals, or to inanimate objects
3. Threatening the rights of heterosexual couples and marriage
4. Destruction of the family unit in America
5. The eventual dying out or destruction of the human race;

The person who made the comparison automatically loses the argument and shall be thwacked over the head with (Link NSFW) this blunt instrument, wielded by a frothing, bug-eyed Lewis Black, until such time as sense is beaten into their head. Repeat beatings may be administered if the subject loses consciousness before sense enters. Actual penetration with said blunt instrument is permissable if the subject uses the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument in their comparison or claims that equal rights for homosexuals are "special rights".

ETA: Punishment amended at the suggestions of pastri_archy, ladybirdsleeps, and sorchar.

ETA 2: Number 5 on the list added per firebad's suggestion.

Addendum to the Faux-Cred Card Ordinance.

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:52:28 GMT

I need to add a corollary to The Faux-Cred Card Ordinance, courtesy of a rant my GF had about some people in her college classes. In a stunning instance of the stars coming into alignment, this exact situation just cropped up on otf_wank. Go figure. Therefore, I humbly present to the assembled of jurisimprudence for their consideration:

WAC 375.1.45.1. Faux-Authority Card Statute.

Anyone claiming to be an authority on the discrimination leveled towards a societal group by virtue of associating with/being descended from members of said group -- without actually being a member of the group themselves, or experiencing said discrimination firsthand -- will automatically lose the argument and be transported back to the 1800s for a crash course on segregation and racism.

Examples:

"I know all about homophobia. I have gay friends."
"I know all about racism. My boyfriend is half-black." (This was an actual argument point.)
"I know all about slavery! My ancestors were slaves!" (This was an actual argument point as well, by a girl with some Irish in her background.)
"I know all about discrimination! I'm descended from Pocahontas and a black slave!" (See wank mentioned.)

I consider it very eerie that I wrote this up in my JF a couple days ago and it suddenly became oh so apt.

Wiki Update!

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:12:43 GMT

Our delicious Jurisimprudence wiki is once again up to date. I also added some navigation links along the side to help you...navigate. If you have any suggestions for how to make the wiki better, please speak up!

Public editing is still open, so if you see mistakes or ommissions, feel free to fix them. Or if you don't want to, mention it to me or Tangentialone and we'll take care of it.

As a side note, there was apparently a problem where the search function was searching the page titles, but not the full text of pages. I got the Wikispaces staff to fix it, but this is evidently caused by an ongoing bug that they are still working on fixing. Bottom line, if you notice the search function going screwy again, please notify one of us so we can get it fixed.

This one's probably been done...

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:56:33 GMT

The Laws of Uficuity:

1) No matter what subject is under discussion on a wank community, somebody will always find a way to relate it to a sexual fetish.

2) Once somebody has related the topic to a sexual fetish, somebody else will always claim they've read a fic like that.

Submitted for your approval

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:10:55 GMT

This is a piece of legislation that came as a result of this wank-
http://www.journalfen.net/community/otf_wank/547592.html

Statue proposed by me with name change suggested by kadath and instrument for punishment suggested (and measured) by fernwithy

Proposition 2.401- Alien vs. Predator Statute

Prop. 2.401, hereafter to be referred to as the Alien vs. Predator Statute, states that anyone who claims that his or her ancestry has bearing on how well he or she is able to speak the language most prominent in his or her background shall be beaten with Webster's Third Unabridged until such time as sense is found within the statute violator's brain.

Example:
Actually, a former friend of mine who is from England said that yes we speak "American English". I totally agree with her. Of course, I'm biased being as I've got heavy British ancestry and have taken the time to learn "proper" English.

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:36:49 GMT

Because someone asked for it, and in case there isn’t a law for it, here’s my proposal.

The name for this particular proposed piece of jurisimprudence shall be known as misstyzek’s “cry rape” Substitution:

This is a variant of Godwin’s Law: therefore Godwin’s Conundrum and its subsequent corollaries apply as well. The substitution is as follows:

As per Godwin’s Law, but replace “Nazis or Hitler” with “rape”.

Included in this proposal is a formulation of Godwin’s Conundrum, which is as follows:

Is Godwin’s Law supposed to be observational or legislatory? In other words, do you break it, or does your behaviour conform to the law’s predicted observation?

This is followed with a Corollary, which could be called Godwin’s Conundrum’s Substitution, but for some reason strikes me as an extremely convoluted and stupid name. Suggestions for a better name are welcome:

This is a variant of Godwin’s Law: therefore Godwin’s Conundrum and its subsequent corollaries apply as well. The substitution is as follows:

As per Godwin’s Law, but replace “a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler” with “a pointless argument based on the premises of Godwin’s Conundrum”.

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:38:42 GMT

I thought this one needed to be enshrined here:

BARRY'S 22nd LAW:
No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously.