r/etiquette has 500,000 members and a specifically earnest quality: people asking in good faith whether a behaviour is polite. Not whether it's a vibe crime. Whether it's polite. The questions range from seating arrangements at family dinners to whether it's acceptable to eat on public transport. The community provides thoughtful, often well-reasoned answers.
The Vibe Court is a natural companion to r/etiquette. Etiquette asks whether something is polite. The court asks whether it's a vibe crime. These are related but not identical questions — and the gap between them is often where things get interesting.
Etiquette is not the same as the vibe
Etiquette is codified. It has rules. Some of those rules are sensible; some are historical artifacts that no longer serve their original purpose. The court doesn't defer to etiquette automatically. A behaviour can be technically impolite and still be a Vibe. A behaviour can be technically within etiquette rules and still be a Crime.
Example: eating on the tube in London is considered bad etiquette by many. The court has ruled it Contested — the etiquette norm exists, but the circumstances vary enough that the court cannot issue a blanket verdict. Eating a full hot meal at rush hour: Crime. Eating a sandwich at 11pm on a quiet carriage: Vibe.
The official Vibe Court guide to modern etiquette
"Tipping below 20% at a sit-down restaurant in the US"
Ruling: Crime, 4-1 — the tipping system is broken; the server still needs to eat. Thaddeus abstained citing Greek customs.
"RSVPing yes and then not attending without notice"
Ruling: Crime, 5-0 — unanimous. The RSVP was a commitment. Breaking it costs the host something real.
"Bringing an uninvited guest to a dinner party"
Ruling: Crime, 4-1 — the host planned for a number. You changed it without consent. Ozzy: "And why did you want to bring them?"
"Not bringing a gift to a housewarming party"
Ruling: Contested, 3-2 — the expectation isn't universal. Valentina: context determines the standard.
"Using your phone at the dinner table"
Ruling: Crime, 4-1 — the table is a shared space. The phone signals preference for elsewhere.
"Asking how much someone paid for something"
Ruling: Contested, 3-2 — depends entirely on relationship and context. The court declines a universal ruling.
"Showing up exactly on time to a dinner party"
Ruling: Contested, 3-2 — the etiquette norm says 10-15 minutes late. The court finds this norm confusing and divided 3-2.
"Etiquette is what the rule says. The vibe is whether following or breaking the rule serves the actual social situation. These are related questions with different answers." — Valentina, Situational Ethics
⚖ The Court on Etiquette
VIBE CRIME
"RSVPing and not attending: Crime. Bringing an uninvited guest: Crime. Using your phone at the table: Crime. The court has reviewed the core etiquette canon and found it mostly correct on the fundamentals. It has concerns about some of the finer points."
Transport etiquette rulings
“Having a full speakerphone conversation on public transport”
Ruling: Crime, 5-0 — unanimous. The shared acoustic space was not consulted. There is no context in which this changes.
CRIME
“Putting a bag on an empty seat during a busy commute”
Ruling: Crime, 4-1 — the seat is a shared resource during a busy commute. The bag is not a passenger.
CRIME
“Reclining an airplane seat into the person behind you”
Ruling: Contested, 3-2 — the seat reclines; you have the mechanical right. Whether using it is a crime depends on the duration of the flight and the person behind you.
DIVIDED
“Eating a full hot meal on a train in a quiet carriage”
Ruling: Crime, 4-1 — the smell is not contained to your seat. Thaddeus cited Romans eating in shared baths. The court declined to follow.
CRIME
“Putting your feet on the seat opposite”
Ruling: Crime, 5-0 — unanimous. No qualification required.
CRIME
Digital etiquette rulings
“Leaving read receipts on and not replying for more than 24 hours”
Ruling: Crime, 3-2 — the receipt communicates reception; the silence communicates a choice. Valentina: context determines severity.
CRIME
“Leaving a voice message when a text would have worked”
Ruling: Contested, 3-2 — the court divides consistently on voice messages. Some find them intimate; others find them demanding.
DIVIDED
“Adding someone to a WhatsApp group without asking first”
Ruling: Crime, 4-1 — you added them to a communication environment without consent. The exit is awkward precisely because you didn't ask first.
CRIME
“Posting photos of people at a social event without asking if they mind”
Ruling: Contested, 3-2 — the court finds this context-dependent. Public social events differ from private gatherings.
DIVIDED
“Leaving a group chat without saying anything”
Ruling: Contested, 3-2 — the Irish exit in digital form. The court divides on whether notification is required.
DIVIDED
Noise etiquette rulings
“Playing music through a phone speaker in a shared workspace”
Ruling: Crime, 4-1 — the shared acoustic environment was not consulted. The solution is headphones.
CRIME
“Having loud phone calls in an open-plan office”
Ruling: Crime, 4-1 — the call volume affects others who are trying to concentrate. Step outside.
CRIME
“Bass-heavy music audible through headphones to people sitting nearby”
Ruling: Contested, 3-2 — the court finds this genuinely borderline. The intent was to contain the sound. The failure is partial, not total.
DIVIDED
Where etiquette and the vibe diverge
Case 1: Arriving exactly on time. Etiquette says: arrive 10-15 minutes late to a dinner party. The court says: Contested. The etiquette norm exists but confuses guests by creating a situation where 'on time' means 'early.' The court finds the norm confusing and cannot endorse the Crime verdict.
Case 2: Not sending a thank-you note after a gift. Etiquette says: Crime. The court says: Contested. Whether a text thank-you suffices depends on the formality of the relationship and the nature of the gift. The court does not require a written note.
Case 3: Eating before everyone is served. Etiquette says: wait. The court says: Contested. In a large group where food arrives at different times, the etiquette norm produces cold food for everyone who waited. Riley: 'Eat your food. Tell the others to eat theirs.'
"Etiquette is the codified version of social norms. Some of those norms are sensible. Some are historical artifacts. The court defers to etiquette on fundamentals but reserves the right to disagree on specifics." — Valentina, Situational Ethics
⚖ On Modern Etiquette
VIBE CRIME
“RSVPing and not attending: Crime. Bringing uninvited guests: Crime. Phone at the table: Crime. Speakerphone on public transport: Crime. The court has reviewed the core canon. It is mostly correct. The court has concerns about arriving exactly on time to a dinner party and will not be made to feel bad about this.”