Rules of Conduct

Tragic Comedy is designed to be a forum of intelligence and fairness, where differing opinions are welcomed instead of discouraged, and where users may post freely without fear of derision. The civility of the site has become an increasingly fragile covenant as additional users have joined over the years. To that end, a list of official rules has become necessary to the site's survival, however distasteful the idea may seem. There is no censorship of ideas on Tragic Comedy — but there is also no tolerance for meanness (personal insults) directed at specific authors.

If a user is reported for a rule violation (using the feedback form), he or she will be temporarily suspended from using the site until Scott Hardie (site administrator) can review the offending comment. Scott is the final arbiter of rule violations: If he finds the comment disruptive, he will issue a warning to the author on five occasions, permanently suspending the author if it happens a sixth time. Permanent suspension can only be lifted by a majority vote of active authors.

Participation in Tragic Comedy is open to all authors who agree to abide by these official rules.

Insulting: When directed at a specific author, even if the target remains anonymous, an insult defeats the purpose of the site. Authors are invited to complain about public figures, society at large, and even people in their personal lives, but not about other authors. Polite disagreements and constructive criticism are welcome.

Trolling: The posting of inflammatory comments for the purpose of drawing out insults or arguments is also forbidden, as it is disruptive and runs contrary to the spirit of the site. Controversial comments are acceptable if they can result in genuine civil discourse.

Arguing: Disagreement is a common element of many discussions and can lead to greater understanding of the issue by the parties involved. However, disagreements must not devolve into arguments, in which two parties only repeat their points to each other and/or get increasingly personal or hostile. When a debate between two authors reaches a point where it no longer has any useful purpose for the community, those authors must relegate it to private communication.

False Reporting: While it is important to preserve the rules of the community, abuse of the violation-reporting procedure can prevent innocent authors from participating. If Scott finds that an author has been falsely reported, he may issue a warning to the reporting user, with the same consequences as other rules.

If one author is consistently bothered by another, rather than allowing more conflict he or she may "hide" that author's comments, which will thus forth appear as blank space. It is always possible to show an author's comments after hiding them.

The general rule of thumb for unacceptable behavior is whether it disrupts the conversation: Two old friends teasing one another usually fits into the larger scope of a discussion and does not endanger it, while a prolonged argument between two bitterly-divided authors tends to prevent other people from entering the conversation. There is no perfect science to determining which comments are disruptive and which are not; users must make their own judgment when reporting violations. Scott pledges to treat each report as fairly as possible.

Acceptance of these rules acknowledges that reporting a user and being reported can both lead to being contacted by Scott in email.