Signs you might not be from LJ originally (some of LJ's rules, both social and not-so-social)

[azurelunatic]

• People in LJ tend to cluster into the same sorts of social groups that people face-to-face do, with the same kind of evolved social standards.

Comments

[lady_angelina]

I'm rather groggy right now and am not able to post much of an intelligent commentary on this at the moment. I may come back to this comment later, but for the moment, I'll just say this: You have written a valuable guide to LJ etiquette that really ought to be posted somewhere publicly, and at least made available to LJ newbies.

And yes, I completely agree with your comparison between an individual journal and a living room. I treat my own journal as such, and I do everything I can to make everyone who visits it feel comfortable. This includes treating everyone as equally as possible, and making sure that neither I nor third parties commenting in my journal cause awkwardness to anyone.

Again, I may come back to this when I'm more awake. Thanks so much for this, Azz. ^__^

EDIT (7:35 AM PST): Okay, not really any more awake now than I was last night, but eh. Anyway

Continuation of original comment

[lady_angelina]

As for replying to the original post instead of the comment thread that someone meant to reply to, this is a phenomenon that does bother me a bit because it means that the one for whom the reply was meant probably will never get notified of it. If I find that I have accidentally replied to the original post instead of the thread (and it does happen because of browser and/or temporary LJ issues), I just immediately delete the comment and repost it to the thread

Proper use of a cut.

[azurelunatic]

I think the

Re: Proper use of a cut.

[lady_angelina]

Oh yeah. ;) I'm like you with regards to "teasers"... an lj-cut text that is creatively written is definitely going to get my attention. I try to make mine sound clever whenever possible, although more often than not, I can't think of anything better than, "Cut for length/NSFW/HTML/whatever." But it's still far more descriptive than that boring old "read more." ;)

[aveleh]

"Hi, your writing looks nifty, I've decided to read it; I found you via ___" is rarely considered out of place if public comments are enabled.

On the other hand, "Hi, your writing looks nifty, can I friend you?" does come across as newbie behaviour, especially because I almost always see it in someone's journal whose profile specifically states that they post mostly public entries and welcome anyone to friend them.

People don't tend to sign their LJ posts and comments, not unless they come from somewhere that did teach people to sign their online interactions. Or are posting anonymously :p

[azurelunatic]

Both very true!

But posting anonymously and signed is not even nonresident alien behavior.

[torrilin]

No, anonymous and signed (at least on my journal) means it's Mommy! Anonymous and not signed means it's some random person who probably can't identify a primary source if it *bit* them.

But yeah, LJ's interface confuses Mom, so I keep anonymous comments on, just for her.

[synecdochic]

On the other hand, "Hi, your writing looks nifty, can I friend you?" does come across as newbie behaviour, especially because I almost always see it in someone's journal whose profile specifically states that they post mostly public entries and welcome anyone to friend them.

So much freakin' word to this. I get a handful of people doing that to me every month, and I know why people do it -- people on LJ are so paranoid about friending/etc -- but still, I've got explicit "no, it's okay, really. I swear."

I think any LJ etiquette guide (and this is a fabulous one, Azz -- you have no idea how much drama I could have prevented if I'd had this to point at and say "see? I'm not the only one saying this shit") should also cover "people are weird about friending, and everyone does it differently, and if you assume everyone does it your way, you will get your ass in trouble".

[camomiletea]

I think this must be one of the exceptions to the rules on fonts! :D

Hahaha on the Anna/Bit!

[azurelunatic]

This is true. It's deliberately used for humorous effect, and it's a puzzle. I'd wager that if leora were still active, though, it would have valid alt text.

[dark_blade]

First! I love your icon. May I copy it?

Second, I left a comment in your journal on your Sept post regarding Office 2007. :)

[camomiletea]

Yes! Note that I stole it from someone else, so please attribute to umihebizanomiko. :)

The deletion of community posts!

[azurelunatic]

This one is so antisocial that people have suggested it be able to be disabled, despite the fact that per LJ policy, a user should be able to delete their content unless the journal has been suspended.

People post to a community, and discussion commences. Usually, it's something wrongheaded or unpopular, but it's still generating community action. If the reaction is notable enough, the poster may decide to just delete the post, much to the consternation of the community, especially if it were a valid and viable topic for debate rather than being a spam-post or some other completely useless kind of post.

Re: The deletion of community posts!

[ruisseau]

There are certain communities (that thou shalt not discuss in public) that have very strict rules about posts. If someone breaks one of those rules, there has to be a way to delete the post (to discourage another person from breaking the rule and being able to say, "but I just saw a post like this!") Yes, the mod can delete, but letting the OP remove it sort of teaches them a lesson and means they may deserve a second chance and not utter bannination.

Edited for grammar.

Re: The deletion of community posts!

[azurelunatic]

True. That's another thing about communities -- they are essentially dictatorships or oligarchies, and LJ does not step in over maintainers being dicksmacks. If you have a beef with the maintainer, you're probably going to resolve it between yourselves, or leave the community. You aren't going to get the LJ Powers That Be to override the maintainer's decisions unless it's something like inciting to dogpile or archiving your content without your consent, or something else that's actually illegal or prohibited under the ToS. Being a dicksmack isn't nice, but it's legal in many cases.

[clumsygyrl]

this was insightful and so very, very true.

[azurelunatic]

Thank you.