The First Rule of Nitpicking (Our Prime Directive, if you will) is:
Let me explain, the creators of any work deserve to have some control over that work. If you are going to pick nits then it seems only fair that you play by the creators' rules. In the case of Star Trek, the creators have divided the camp into two seperate entities. On one side are all the episodes of the television programs (be it TOS, or NextGen, or DS9, or Voyager), and the movies and a specific set of reference books from Pocket Books (the Compendium, the Companion, the NextGen Tech Manual, the Encyclopedia, the Chronology [Thanks to Mike Ballway of Evanston, IL for reminding me of this one]). These works are considered authoritative (i.e. they actually happened and are true in the Star Trek Universe). On the other side is everything else: all the novels, the animated series, all the unauthorized books, etc. This stuff is all just Star Trek "fiction."
With this in mind, it is considered bad form at Nitpicker Central to use something that's non-canonical to nitpick something canonical or to prove that a nit is not a nit. For instance, I have received a lot of mail over the fact that I question Saavik's Vulcan-ness in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. She curses. She cries. She's emotional. All things which are opposed to the Vulcan ideal. Many people have sited the novelization of STII attempting to prove that Saavik is half-Romulan. However, the movie never states this. Yes, I know there was dialog that stated this but it was cut from the script. It never made it to the screen. Therefore, according to the creators, that piece of information is not authoritative since it only occurs in the novelization. Even the Encyclopedia agrees that though Saavik appeared to be other than pure Vulcan in STII, she took on a pure Vulcan personnae in subsequent movies. Correctly so, the Encyclopedia does not state emphatically that Saavik is half Vulcan/half Romulan because that information never appeared on the screen.
This whole nitpicking thing is about having some fun with our favorite television shows. This is not about stomping and yelling and insulting and flaming and the like. The quickest way to insure that your submission will never see the light of day in any of the media of Nitpicker Central is to send a flame. Those type of messages disappear from the face of the Earth once they reach me. Also, profanity and obscenity rarely add to the content of a message. Increase your vocabulary! Learn to express yourself without the crutch of expletives!
On the other hand, satire is very acceptable if it's done well. For instance, in one of the newsletters I misspelled "Datalore." I spelled it "Datelore." John DiGianno of E. Elmhurst, NY responded, "Wasn't that a new television show hosted by Chuck Woolery?" See. That's funny! I had made a mistake and my fellow nitpicker found a way to have a little fun with it.
"Light-heartedness and good cheer" should also be the way nitpickers approach other fans who are not into nitpicking. If a person just wants to watch their show without knowing what's wrong with it: LET THEM WATCH THEIR SHOW! A true nitpicker doesn't have to tell everyone everything he or she knows all the time. If you see a nit and you are in a room full of non-nitters just smile and drop me a note later.