Apparently, "wheaton's law" is "don't be a dick" which is, largely, to encourage sportsman-like behavior. I think that if A points to B and says "don't be a dick" and B's response is "okay" - then I think that is a fair application of "wheaton's law." B was getting a bit carried away with rejoicing, and maybe talking a bit too much smack. B recognizes this, agrees with the analysis, and cools his jets.
As a stepping stone to "wheaton's corollaries" I need to first introduce "wheaton's dick score". A simple tool to move to a larger point.
I wish to start off by stating a given: some people are bigger dicks than others. Therefore, it is fair question to ask "how much bigger?" which then requires a scale. For the point I am about to make, I don't need a perfect scale, I just need one that is "good enough".
This is a zero to 100 scale. The number assigned to a person might change over the years. Most of the population has a score of about 50. It is not possible to get a score over 100 or below zero. Scores of 10 to 100 are for dicks. Scores of less than 10 are for lovely people.
Note that in the following chart, "don't be a dick" could be replaced with "don't be an asshole" or "don't be a douchebag" or "don't be a cunt" or "don't be a fuckwit" or "don't be a shithead" or dozens of other possibilities. It could also include "stop being a dick", "dick much?" "are you done being a dick now?" etc. The key is that the english language allows a rich variety of poetry that bears the command to another to change their behavior.
don't be a dick
falls under the scoring for "wheaton's law"
helpful. thanks bro!
don't be a dick
YOU don't be a dick
both parties are normal human beings
if score is less than 60, score is increased to 60. Otherwise +3
if score is less than 40, score is increased to 40. Otherwise +1
A is the greater dick for having wandered off topic.
don't be a dick
(no response to being a dick) or (reference to this document) or "Yes, I suppose, by your standards, I am a dick, and, by your standards, I suppose I will continue to disappoint you"
Person B has shown a noble and excellent response. Well played.
if score is less than 70, score is increased to 70. Otherwise +20
If score is greater than 40, then score is reduced to 40. Otherwise -20
If A can admit that B has won this round, then A is allowed to continue the discussion. Otherwise, I proclaim that B has won the argument. Congratulations B.
Now I wish to exercise my right as some nitwit on the internet to make up a law. My last name is also wheaton, so I must respect the law of dibs and allow "wheaton's law" to stand. Therefore, I need to distinguish this new law from that law.
At the same time, I wish to add to the existing law. Therefore, the word "corollary" is appropriate. This is, effectively, a summary of the last row in the above table.
Wheaton's Law Corollary 1:
If a person, A, expresses to another person, B, "don't be a dick" (or some variation) and person B does not respond in kind (variations of "no, YOU are a dick") then person B has expressed truly noble behavior and has left person A as appearing to be a bonafide dick. If person A cannot own this new status, then I proclaim that person B has won the argument.
Location: Unincorporated Pierce County, WA Zone 7b
posted 2 years ago
Where's the corollary to deal with people who are intentionally harming another person?
Not just being argumentative. Not just being contrary. Not just being loud or sounding off. Not just being sarcastic. Not being a know it all. Not being any of the things that are generally irritating but also generally completely ignorable by adults.
Where's the corollary for the person whose dickishness comes in the form of actually trying to harm? Because those dicks definitely exist and need their own special rule.