Laws of Webboard Mechanics have a unique property: They don't have the same uniform effect everywhere. For example, OctoberFost's First Law, xtal's Second Law, and Captain Scurvy's Law might only seem evident on more "civilized" webboards. However, their effects do not cease to exist in more "barbaric" places; these forums merely do not consider the more vehement and vile topics to be as "controversial" as the more "civilized" forums do, and hence the more vehement and vile topics don't trend towards an "Impact Maximum" as fast.
All Laws of Webboard Mechanics are like that, actually, under one circumstance or another.

Because of the probability nature of these laws, I have had to change wording slightly for many of them - they were stating that something will happen, but really, although it can be an astronomical possibility that something may mappen, a large number isn't definite. There is always a possibility that a law, even given a perfect environment, may not be expressed. So I have changed them to use, instead of definite terms such as "will", such terms dealing more in possibility as "may" and "might".
Mind, this is not to say anything about the probability of these laws being expressed other than that there is a possibility that these laws won't be expressed.

Required reading for anyone proposing a law.

Topic Insulation Equation

This is one of the oldest laws. It was proposed eight days after Sierra's Law, seven days after xtal's Zeroth Law.
It has had to be amended twice for relevancy, and once for logical accuracy.
Historical Reference

Any change in the webboard's environment or settings may create a negative spam or flame reaction, directly proportional to the percieved controversiality of the change in the minds of the populace.

This and the xtal-Guapovian Law have replaced Sierra's Law in nature.

A stupid topic may only increase in stupidity until it reaches a point of absolute stupidity, at which point anything can happen.
Likewise, an intelligent topic may only increase in intelligence until it reaches a point of absolute anti-stupidity, at which point anything can happen.

Guapo's Quantification:
When a topic reaches anti-stupidity, it can be recognized as having done so by making perfect sense.

Historical Reference

The posting of any new topic on the subject of Webboard Theory will incite a flood of posters proposing laws of their own, often limited in scope and pandering to said poster's desire for recognition.

xtal's Supplement:
In light of this law, I do not accept any laws that are either so well founded that they are axiomatic, not well founded at all, or are so vague that their integrity can be questioned. Only the ones which in fact take effort to observe, and indeed are observable outside of a highly biased and limited sample of instances are accepted.

Topic Metamorphosis Equation

Historical Reference
This law has had to undergo a revision for logical accuracy.

Topics may, if given the length and time, always metamorphose into different topics.

Anon's Corollary:
The length of time and space before a topic digresses into a new topic is directly proportional to it's controversiality.

Historical Reference

Pheonixrising's Corollary:
A metamorphosed topic may occasionally be interrupted by someone who read only the starting post or topic name who answers the original question.

Historical Reference

This law was prompted after a controversial topic made about 5 members leave, then return weeks later.
This law has had to undergo a revision for logical accuracy.

If a webboard member cares enough about the webboard to make a "leaving" post, he may not be able to leave but will instead return. This does not apply to moderators, who have a duty to inform members of their absence.

This law fell into the mists of time, but was rediscovered in a search pertaining to the history of Sierra's Law. Unbeknownst to OctoberFost, it was actually the second legitimate law proposed, the day after Sierra's Law. Its first mention can be found on this page under the name "Andrew M".
This law has had to undergo a revision for logical accuracy.

The most benign comment may have the capability to spontaneously invert an intelligent topic into an asinine one, or vice versa.

xtal's Corollary
This law also applies to Begemotic Change under Begemotike's First Law.

xtal's Second Corollary
Such benign comments may also merely reverse - not necessarily invert - a topic's trend toward an absolute point. For example, an asinine topic may spontaneously grow more intelligent, instead of spontaneously becoming intelligent.

Topic Insulation Equation

This law is a response to Sierra's Law. I first formulated it in 2001 under the name Jormungand, amidst observations of such topics as The Resistance series which follow these patterns.

Certain topics are created with such a level of redundancy that they are exactly median; they cannot become more stupid or grow in intelligence unless they are forced in either direction in the most dramatic way possible.
Consequently, topics that follow this law very rarely die, per se, until public interest is lost. They are not something that will get locked or deleted outside of asinine reasons such as being too long.

The variety of topics which undergo this phenomenon typically fall under the category of Games. This phenomenon can also be observed in Chats and Discussions.

To my knowledge, there has been one topic in history which has clearly attained this level of redundancy while inherently an asinine topic. However, this phenomenon has not occurred to my knowledge with an inherently intelligent topic; Sierran declines of an intelligent topic, so far as I know, have only made a stupid topic.

This law stems from xtal's First Law.

A sufficiently popular topic of any sort may ultimately be reincarnated as a continuation or a topic of an altered nature should the original topic have ceased to exist or have been forgotten for any period of time.
The popularity of a forgotten topic should be at least proportional to the age of the original topic for a reincarnation to occur without blood.

This law was first inspired here by Guapo in a post unrelated to Webboard Mechanics. Then its nature was worked out between us in an IRC discussion.
We could not decide who deserved credit for the law more, so it is named for both.
This and OctoberFost's Second Law have replaced Sierra's Law in nature.

A topic which starts intelligent and honest is likely to attract more intelligent and honest posts. Likewise, a topic that starts asinine is likely to attract more asinine posts.
Some of these posts may be conducive towards an xtallian or Begemotic Change.

Impact Equation

This law was borne out of an IRC discussion.

The actions of the masses may overule less respected members, but the actions of the more popular members can often outweigh even the masses opinion.

Guapo's Corollary:
Unless it's an administrator - in which case popularity is of no consequence.

xtal's Corollary:
Moderators apply to the general populace, whether popular or of the masses; moderators do not have absolute power like administrators, and only can have influence and perhaps respect. Popularity can be a matter of concern with moderators.