Friday, January 22. 1999
The Ten Rules of Hypocrisy
In this ancient relic from the alt.fan.furry USENET newsgroup, an individual known only as 'Stukafox' reveals a set of rules which, although clearly meant as parody, apply just as well to the current furry generation as they did to prior generations (and likely to future generations). The terms may have changed along with the medium, but the sad truth remains.
The Ten Rules Of Hypocrisy
on Alt.Fan.Furry (v. 1.1)
by "StukaFox" 1/22/99
1. Any thread that questions the state of Furry is a troll.
1.1 Anyone that questions the state of Furry is a troll.
1.2 Anyone calling into question the behavior of a non-critical poster is a troll.
1.2.1 Anyone calling into question the behavior of a critical poster is simply making a valid point.
2. Those critical of Furry shall be held to a different standard than those who are not critical of Furry.
3. Any post critical of Furry is a flame.
3.1 We don't want flames.
3.1.1 Unless they're from the non-critical segment of the fandom, then they're peachy-keen. (see rule 2)
3.2 Oh, yeah -- and people from fringe interests who come here for the expressed intention of flaming. Them folks are okay, because even if they're flaming, they're flaming for reason 4.1.
3.3 Any post critical of a poster deemed a member of the "Cute" crowd is a flame. "Cute" posters are beyond reproach, regardless of asininity of their behavior.
4. Flames must be roundly denounced as being bad for all.
4.1 Flaming Flamers is okay, of course, because Flamers are bad, and bad people deserve to be flamed.
4.2 Flaming to stop a flamer-war is okay, because even though it's flaming, it's the right kinda flaming, and that makes it all okay.
4.3 Those flaming Flamers will be held to a much lower standard than anyone publicly proclaimed a Flamer, because of reason 4a.
4.4 Any flaming done by a non-critical poster is okay, because someone else started it, and non-critical posters NEVER start flame wars!
5. Once a post is proclaimed a "flame" or a "troll", all content of that post may be ignored, regardless of validity. Remember, style is everything and substance is meaningless.
6. If a valid point is raised by a person deemed a Flamer, that point must be immediately dismissed by the Apologists with a quick ad hominem post.
6.1 Valid points may be rendered null in the following ways:
6.1.1 Questioning the poster's motivation for making the point.
6.1.2 Faux psychoanalysis from posters in NO position to talk.
6.1.2.1 Adding faux witty disclaimers is optional.
6.1.3 Making absurd over-cute follow-up-posts.
6.1.4 Claiming the poster doesn't meet certain standards of rhetoric.
6.1.4.1 These standards are for critical posters only. All others may post complete nonsense, and no outcry will be heard.
6.1.5 Immediate questioning of the poster's religious background.
6.1.6 "Bigot", "Hate-Monger", "Intolerant".
6.1.7 Claiming the poster doesn't meet certain standards of civility.
6.1.7.1 These standards are for critical posters only. All others may be as nasty as they want to be with absolutely no rebuke.
6.1.7.2 Adding that you're actually an animal at the end of any such claim is optional.
6.1.7.3 Claiming that you've kill-filed a person, then responding to that same person within 24 hours to make your second claim is optional.
6.1.8 Immediate dismissal of the poster as a person of no worth, since if they had any worth, they'd think like us.
6.1.8.1 This works both ways.
6.1.9 An immediate appeal that the poster MUST STOP POSTING AT ONCE because this is bad for the Fandom!
6.1.9.1 Only critical posts are bad for the Fandom.
6.1.10 As a matter of last resort, a post MUST be made proclaiming that there is NOTHING wrong in Furry, it's all in the poster's mind, we must never again have critical posts, and that if we all think nothing but good thoughts all those problems that don't exist in the first place will go away, and peace will reign throughout the land.
6.1.10.1 Adding a war-lord .sig to this claim is optional.
6.1.10.2 Claiming you're actually an animal of the opposite sex at the end of such posts is also optional.
6.1.11 Dismissal of the whole post as unworthy of time or attention.
6.1.11.1 Claiming that all points have been made previous falls under rule 6a11.
6.1.11.2 This cuts both ways.
6.1.12 Replying to original post by cutting out the whole post and adding a one-word reply.
6.1.13 Replying with the claim that everyone in Furry believes as you do, so the original poster should just shut up since they're in the minority.
6.1.14 Posting a totally off-topic response in the thread, usually of a cutesy nature, so that the thread is disrupted and brought off-topic.
7. All critical persons must have IMMACULATE behavior, since they are all representatives of whatever movement they add to their .sig (whether aforementioned movement is stated or not).
7.1 Those not making critical posts are free to act as complete twats without fear of rebuke or as being seen as bad examples of whatever movement they include in their .sigs.
7.1.1 Aforementioned posters are just being cute, unlike those vicious bastards from rule 1b.
7.2 Those making claims of non-immaculate behavior on the part of critical posters must do such in the single most self-important way possible, as if their opinion is the Voice of Furry Its Self.
7.2.1 "The Voice of Furry Itself" can NEVER be a critical poster. See rule 6a10.
8. Thou shalt not swear (if thou art making critical posts)
8.1 Any critical posts with a swear-word in it may instantly dismissed as a flame and rule 5 goes into effect.
8.2 Any counter-reply that contains a swear-word is peachy-keen because of rule 2.
9. If you, in the course of trying to do a good deed for someone in Furry, get bent over and fucked by that same person, it's your own goddamn fault for trying to help someone in the first place.
9.1 Don't you even try to bring it into a public forum if the aforementioned fucker is a popular artist. Artists are gods, you piece of shit, and you go to hell and die for ever trying to seek recourse!
9.1.1 If you're a popular artist, you can commit rape, repeatedly, and get away with it, because it's gonna be your word against theirs', and they're a popular artist, and you're a fucking nobody.
9.1.1.1 It's your fault in the first place.
9.2 You are free to crucify any artist deemed "unpopular" since if they were a good person, they'd be popular, ergo they're scum and deserve what they get.
10. CENSORSHIP IS BAD!!
10.1 Unless . . .
10.1.1 The person has put up a web page critical of Furry. A campaign may be started to get the page removed and the person's internet access revoked.
10.1.2 The person has violated rule 9a, in which case a campaign may be started to have that person banned from Confurence (or any other Furry convention), have their on-line character's behavior tied to the poster's own, have their internet access revoked, have their friends told they can no longer be their friends if aforementioned friends want to stand ANY chance of not being harassed out of the Fandom, or have their business directly threatened in a manner that falls just shy of the legal definition of a "terrorist threat".
10.1.2.1 Blatant, criminal libel is okay to use, too.
10.1.3 The person makes repeated posts critical of Furry from an anonymous account. A campaign may be started to have that person's account shut down because of rule 1.
10.1.4 Their web-page password was easy to guess, in which case, they were asking for it, anyway.
10.1.4.1 You should also post the password, especially if it'll allow you to get in another swipe at the person running the page.
10.1.5 Hacking critical web-pages is totally acceptable if it's only being done as a joke. It's only critics who have malicious intents, anyway.