These are mostly for comments, but will also apply to any correspondence. For the most part, the rules are based on the excellent list set out by Vox Day for his blog.

Rule 1: This site adheres to the Welborn Protocol: all correspondence and comments are bloggable unless you specifically request otherwise.

Rule 2: Do unto others as you would have them do to you. We’ve no problem treating you in a respectful, courteous manner, provided that you extend the same courtesy. If you opt to play the role of the jackass, we will either respond in kind (if it amuses us to do so) or ban you.

Rule 3: Burden of proof works on a simple principle: if you make a claim, you provide evidence to support it. Nobody is under an automatic burden of proof by virtue of simply holding an opinion; a formal claim is necessary to subject someone to such a burden. It is also the case, however, that a rote denial of a claim is unacceptable. If you formally articulate that you do not hold, or otherwise reject, someone else’s opinion, the onus is on you to substantiate your rejection of that claim with evidence or reasoning of your own; gainsaying is a big no-no around here.

Rule 4: If at any point one of the authors of the blog puts you in the spotlight and demands evidence or reasoning in support of a claim or rejection on your part, you are required to produce that evidence. If you fail or refuse to produce that evidence or reasoning to the satisfaction of the requesting author, any other comments you post at the site will be deleted without warning.

Rule 5: Try and keep things on topic and focused. This primarily means keeping the main body of your comments relevant to the topic of the article (e.g. don’t bring up creationism in an article about Islam). It also means, however, that you sleep in the bed you make. If you bring up off-topic subjects in a comments form, or if you attempt to suddenly tiptoe around a train of thought that you set in motion in an earlier comment, your comments will probably be deleted. And if it becomes apparent that you are just adding useless fluff to a discussion, you’ll probably be asked to butt out.

Rule 6: If you are having trouble restraining yourself from hijacking a comment thread onto another topic, keep in mind that we do occasionally entertain requests.

Rule 7: If we correct erroneous assertions made in a comments thread, this by no means signifies that the topic of the thread is now turned to the matter of those errors or the applied corrections. Deletions will ensue if the discussion should detour into a discussion of the errors and corrections.

Rule 8: If you’re asked to leave, leave. And don’t come back. Yes, we have tools in place to identify you.

Rule 9: You are welcome to go after Saint Angilbert, Nithard, or King Pepin — the current authors of this blog. If you go after anyone else commenting here, you will have your comments deleted and may be asked to leave. This is not to say that you cannot criticize the statements of other commenters…just don’t be nasty about it. (This also extends to making unwarranted assumptions about commenters based on what few facts you have about them. Not all Christians are Biblical literalists or Young Earth Creationists, for example.)

Rule 10: Read the article, and read the comments to the article, before leaving a response. If you re-iterate a point already addressed, your comment may be deleted or edited depending on the mood of the author who catches you in the act. Occasionally, authors like Saint Angilbert will predict possible responses to statements they make; if you fail to read this prediction and then fulfill it…almost anything can happen.

Rule 11: Your argument may have been dealt with before. Please consider this, and don’t get snippy if one of the authors — pressed for time as he may be — responds to you with a link to another article or comment. If you have time, you would benefit from a quick stroll through the blog archives.

Rule 12: Sometimes, the blog authors may permit mindless trolling to go on within comments forms. If we don’t respond to it, however, this in no way means that we are overthrown by your winnowing logic and cringing in the warm glow of your incisive reason. It probably just means you’re not worth the electrons you’re wasting leaving your remarks here, and we haven’t got the time to deal with someone who is so obviously beneath our intellectual level.

Rule 13: Pick your battles. We cannot stress this enough.

Popularity: 2%