Unwritten rules

DialecticAspirations

Hi,

It seems like there are some "unwritten rules" for the forum in general that I was hoping to get some information on.

It could be that you're supposed to just learn as you go, but as not knowing one of these un-written rules has resulted in my first warning, I thought I'd seek clarification here before I get bashed by a banhammer. I'm hoping I'm wrong, and there are pages already written on these topics.

1 - Anecdotes. These seem to be not allowed in some threads. Is it just a rule specific to Current Affairs? I get the idea behind it - people can just make stuff up to back up their opinion, so it can be abused. But at the same time it can make communication/posting very difficult in some instances. Is there any existing thread/post that gives some information/definition on this? Is it just done on a case by case basis, as applied by a mod who subjectively decides?

2- Back seat modding. Again, I get the idea, but the application seems a bit unclear to me. Example : Person 1 attacks Person 2 instead of Person 2's post. Person 2 posts saying "Person 1, you are attacking me, not my post" → is Person 2 back seat modding here and will get a warning? If so, what should they do instead? Simply report the post?

It feels a bit heavy-handed /overly process-focused to report that kind of thing every time, when you could just highlight that Person 1 is attacking Person 2 (i.e. engaging in an ad-hominen attack), the same way you might point out a straw-man argument when it is made.

3 - Stating that you are going to ignore someone. This one I don't understand well. You're simply letting the person know that you won't be able to see their posts again. If you don't say it, it could cause confusion within that thread or elsewhere. I guess the idea is to avoid offending the ignored person? In any case, again - is there more detail written somewhere on this?

If there are more that I have not mentioned, please let me know.

And btw, saying that all these follow from the rule : "don't be a dick", and so we don't need this level of detail is clearly untrue. The anecdote rule, for example, is just one solution to solve the problem of that particular kind of lie, and offering a truthful anecdote is not "being a dick". So it's unreasonable to expect people to logically extrapolate all these rules from that one rule.

Thanks for any help that anyone can provide.

Cheers.