They’re semi-famous now, but it was actually a friend of mine who originally wrote them. They’re a list of ten rules of thumb to go by when using the internet. They imply things like the potential drawbacks of assuming someone’s other identities, how to caution against archive forgery, when the best time is to complain about mods, etc. and serve as a go-to for advice on interpersonal relations when indirect contact is at play. Written in the style of a Greek philosopher, they were written in a setting where people were committing massive collateral damage with their animosity/gullibility/skepticism and they have paved a better modus operandi than many contemporaries can. Confidently asserted but open to at least some change, what would you add?
Fanservice can be good, but it’s up to the author if they want to go through with it, even if that also means it’s up to the fans if they want to indulge. In the same line of thinking, we have a fine line between “canon” and “headcanon”.
The rule also applies to associations. Suppose people in it begin to disassociate from other members. They shouldn’t consider it “wrongful” on the part of the leader and do the whole “oh noes I was removed” routine. It’s an extension of the people who formed it, and imagine (excluding hostility) you being the one in charge and having your claims to your niche crushed. To be an outsider is simply to lack the status of an insider.