I disagree with good jokes = fu unless its something you're willing to have mean every good joke gets fu.
Otherwise, the other six seem good.
AS for discussion: Agreed. My point is that if two agree, two disagree, and two would be open to changing it if it would result in the other four being pleased, then we need to see if we can find a better method.
After all, "I think it works fine now, yes." is not the same as "I think this is the best possible method." (though it may involve that, it is a different answer.)
One thing I'd like to do regarding douches/asses/bad advice/derailing: Make sure someone knows that and accepts that if you can convince them to stop before passing out bad fu. And make sure that you're clear on whether or not it is derailing the thread.
Some threads are more open to moving from the original post than others, so one needs to know these things. A general "Talk about multiclassing" and a specific "How to make multiclassing worth doing" thread are approaching things very differently.
As stated, I think the first six are good reasons to award fu. Behavior that increases the knowledge and understanding of gameology of those who come here (either as members or just observers).
So naturally, behavior that interfers with that is presumably a reason to award negative fu?
For instance, posting a stupid rule and insisting it is a brilliant rule and trying to get other people to use it is negative fu worthy.
Or a low score, or whatever.
But coming up with a bad idea in and of itself is not...after all, not all ideas here are perfect from first post.
AC: The only problem with that is that its very hard to tell when something "made someone stay" in terms of an individual post. Its usually "the kind of posts we see here make me want to stay/leave".
