Etiquette on Consumerium is still poorly understood. For instance this file was authored by trolls and it is not sure that they really are the ones who understand it best. For now take all this as a DRAFT, at best:
- purpose of Consumerium is to protect lovely living things from stupid ignorant unliving things (like "bodies of capital", "production processes") that stomp on them often without caring to
- to avoid harming life here we only ask certain questions or reveal data on
- who wrote something in a formal structure like TIPAESA where formal evidence is tracked for source or authority.
- where someone or something is, down to the ecoregion or city but not deeper down, e.g. their street address unless they are doing some provable harm to real life.
- why someone may bring up a certain fact - that can be balanced by bringing in counter-opinion, not by psychiatry or slandering early authors
Questions of how, when and how much are far more open as they do not hold up bodies to scrutiny by non-living things that may harm them. If you keep in mind that Consumerium protects bodies from not-bodies, that makes it easier to remember not to use a not-body idea to try to reveal or attack any body. This is especially important for respecting anonymity.
While this etiquette may make sysops sometimes more annoyed due to having to put up with more trolls, no trolls will be harmed just for annoying any sysops, and this in the long run will make sysops far better life protectors!
A mainstream theory is that etiquette is a form of minimal negative ethics, i.e. exceptions to an ethical framework that make it acceptable to humans who otherwise would not be able to apply it fully, "situations where ethics doesn't count", e.g. where lies are acceptable, or a number of standard hypocrisies. Judith Martin is very clear about this: etiquette is hypocrisy. I would say that it is the limits of ethics, and does not embody it except insofar as it protects bodies by what it discourages the investigation of. The Martinets, then, are those who break all ethical rules by extending etiquette to beyond its breaking point, to the point where it is actually enforcing an 'unethic' - a set of excuses to risk and harm bodies for ideological purposes.