UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Locational Language & Interaction

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

As of 22 April 2006 the Wiki community seems evenly split between a need for some Guideline for behavior and acceptable practices, and a desire to be an authority free, unrestricted posting policy.

Obviously there is an impasse.

Without getting into pseudo legalism and debates over what is and is not free speech, let us try (as a community) to come to a consensus that is less offensive to some, yet allows for the free exchange of Ideas, Commentary, and Criticism.

This Page IS NOT for grand standing, it’s not for blatant off topic B.S. This is an honest attempt to find some common ground and an equitable solution that the majority of the Wiki Community can accept.

Bellow Please Post your name, your basic belief, a suggestion on how to resolve the situation, and what you would be willing to accept as a solution (No matter how unpalatable that may be).

Valid example#1: Wussie95 I think their should be no swearing, and any flamer should be banned 
for life. Mods should read every post and compare it to a specific guide of conduct. I would be 
willing to accept swearing as long as the general tone was polite. "[User:Wussie95 Wussie95] 
Valid example#2 Flamebaiter I should be able to say what I want, to who I want, When I want,
However I want to say it, even if it pisses some people off. I'd accept clearly marked areas of 
Pages where my type of speach can happen, as long as it’s public.

NOTE: I am not a Moderator for this Wiki, but I will be Moderating this page. PLEASE be Civil. The following are not acceptable for the purpose of this page.

Invalid example#1 Wussie95 anyone who posts vulgarity and impolite criticism are stupid and are 
wasting my air. Grow Up and join the adult population.
Invalid example#2 Flamebaiter GROW THE FUCK UP! If you CANT Take the HEAT get off the goddamn 

The First example refuses to accept a definition of allowable speech that doesn’t meet their own. The second example fails to offer a constructive solution that would allow a more conservative person to remain a part of This Wiki community. BOTH examples belittle the opposing view point, which leads us straight back to the beginning of raised tempers and no solution.

  • Wyndallin: I believe that general offensiveness (including non-constructive criticism on the suggestions page, but minus swearing, unless specifically directed at another user) should be completely off-limits on any page that isn't a user page. Even on a user page, offensiveness towards members of the community should not be allowed. For example, posting 'Mia is a <insert c-bomb here>' would be just as wiki-illegal on a user page as it would be on any public page. Disparaging remarks about George W. Bush or Jacques Chirac would be acceptable on a user page, however. The only way to maintain a wiki this small without having constant mod Big Brother going on is to impose something like this. We've tried self-policing, and look where it got us.
    I would accept anything all the way down to personal attacks on other users permitted only on group pages / user pages. But regardless, under no circumstances are any racial or sexual slurs to be used anywhere on the wiki. This is the only way to clean up our wiki, in my opinion -Wyndallin 20:14, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  • Xoid: I'd like to see less pointless swearing. I'm really sure how to define it… I just know when swearing serves a purpose and when it does not. The problem is, some people cannot stand or put up with any swearing, regardless of it's purpose, even comedic. I know plenty of people would find this extremely offensive. I find it hilarious. I know plenty of people who would find this extremely offensive. I consider it a valuable diatribe, laced with the seething hatred and bitterness that the author felt. It gives you an insight into his or her mind, and their emotional state.
    This is why I voted against the measure, because it is something that is subjective, where few people ever share opinions that are similar, let alone exactly the same. I don't think consensus is possible in this regard.
    That being said… I don't think that either of those two extremes has a place here. –Xoid STFU!
  • I think what we're looking for here is a balance between Freedom and Civility (a term I read here)
    The point of this wiki is to be informative, including allowing people to express their opinions or ideas. Naturally, some people will find certain phrases or terms offensive and highly contested issues can easily cause great frustration and degenerate into flaming. But there really isn't any way to police this without abridging rights granted by Freedom of Speech.
    HOWEVER, baseless accusations and blatant lies should not be tolerated. They do not serve any purpose but to drive discussion further and further away from the issues. If we can at least "prune" this from our wiki, we can achieve a level of civility without chopping off the whole tree.
    An interesting article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
    --Dcvortex 10:07, 24 April 2006 (BST)
  • First of all i have to state that this Wiki _is_ informative and beneficial to users. This may be due to good moderation, dedicated users or both. Furthermore i would like to comment on the "impasse": There was no closing date announced. I did not know when the votes were due. I might be wrong on that, but i got the impression the "impasse" of exactly 79 to 79 votes is not quite coincidental. Now about Moderation: Which exact combination of shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits would be considered too far? We can not expect to find an objective way to measure when and exactly when something crosses "the line" we are so eager to draw. In the end it would be up to moderators to decide what they feel to be inappropriate. Since moderators are fallible, too, i do not wish to lift this burden upon their shoulders. --Sensodyne 19:07, 24 April 2006 (CET)
Personal tools