<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>My Bad Pants &#187; arbitrary decisions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mybadpants.com/tag/arbitrary-decisions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mybadpants.com</link>
	<description>Like genetics, only funnier!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:43:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Ground Rules</title>
		<link>http://www.mybadpants.com/2010/02/08/ground-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mybadpants.com/2010/02/08/ground-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bad Pants</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrata]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitrary decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rules]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mybadpants.com/?p=60</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Alrighty then&#8230;
So I&#8217;ve spent some time over the last couple of weeks actually drafting up a series of posts.  I tend to work better that way: outlines, synopses, drafts; you&#8217;d think I have a &#8220;workflow&#8221; for this stuff all worked out!  Anyway, before we start down that path, I realized that I need to set [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alrighty then&#8230;</p>
<p>So I&#8217;ve spent some time over the last couple of weeks actually drafting up a series of posts.  I tend to work better that way: outlines, synopses, drafts; you&#8217;d think I have a &#8220;workflow&#8221; for this stuff all worked out!  Anyway, before we start down that path, I realized that I need to set forth the rules I&#8217;ve been using for the last few years when it comes to comments.</p>
<p>These rules are the result of years of occasionally blogging on topics that bring out a different crowd from my usual collection of like-minded blog readers and fellow leaky-brain ramblers.  More than ninety-nine percent of my non-spam comments are approved.  Hell, even the occasional spam comment is approved just because it&#8217;s sorta funny in an ironic way.  So these rules very rarely come in to play.  But when you need them, you REALLY need them; so what follows are my time tested criteria for why I won&#8217;t approve your comment:</p>
<ol>
<li>No Punctuation.</li>
<li>Comments in ALL CAPS.</li>
<li>Comments longer than the original post.</li>
<li>Comments that reference more than three verses from the religious works of your choice.</li>
<li>Comments that actually include entire citations from the religious works of your choice.</li>
<li>Comments that insult either my position or the position of other commenters.  I reserve the right to decide the difference between ardent disagreement and out-and-out insulting.</li>
<li>Obvious Trolling.</li>
<li>(corollary to # 7) Obvious Troll-Baiting.</li>
<li>Having a worse potty-mouth than I do.  I have been known to edit particularly foul-mouthed comments, substituting humorous non-swear words and phrases (or archaic and out-of-vogue ones) for over-used examples from our current spoken English.  I do this rarely.  Generally I just hit delete.</li>
<li>Using the &#8220;C&#8221; word (and no, I&#8217;m not talking about &#8220;crap&#8221;) under any circumstances.  Why is this different from #9?  Because all other criteria are flexible, this one is not.</li>
</ol>
<p>As I point out in rule 10, these are basically criteria, not hard rules.  I&#8217;m likely to let a reasonable comment that only breaks the first rule pass if the comment is short, and the intent is clear and vitriol free. Likewise with a comment that seems reasonable except for the (perhaps accidental?) use of the caps-lock key.  I myself have posted comments that were longer than the original post, so the third one is highly flexible&#8230;but not if it&#8217;s trolling, quotes the Koran for 33 verses, or if seven hundred of its thousand words can&#8217;t be repeated on broadcast television before the watershed hour.</p>
<p>Also, these rules essentially only apply to new commenters.  If you&#8217;ve been approved, commented consistantly in the past, and have a generally reasonably position that you are defending ardently in a way that bends these criteria, I&#8217;m VERY unlikely to revoke your comment.</p>
<p>Except for rule 10.  Break rule 10 and I will delete your comment and assign you to the spam filter for all time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mybadpants.com/2010/02/08/ground-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
