UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Offensive Language

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Offensive Language/Interaction (was Offensive People)

This is a relatively serious suggestion. People who continuously start trouble in the community pages ( Moderation and the Policy page, things like that) need to be banned for drawing the rest of us into their crud. This is a serious problem and needs to stop. Those pages should be for Civil discussion only, and not contain 200 lines + of insults flying back and forth. If people want to flame each other, they should keep it in thier user pages.

Basically, I propose a change to the policy that says something along the lines that anyone caught trolling in a given area will be warned once, twice, then banned for a given period. This is to prevent any potential damage and to keep the wiki civil for the people who just came here to share information. Whether or not a specific case is trolling can be decided by the mods or by the community, and can be brought up similiar to bringing up vandals.

And before anyone asks, this is not a shot against Amazing. I've seen plenty of other people do the same thing. --Mia Kristos 01:31, 9 April 2006 (BST)

This idea is so awsome we used a time machine to steal it from you and discuss it in the first policy discussion. ;)

Locational Language/Interaction Prohibit argumentative behaviours or flame-wars on pages other than User and User Talk pages. What this consists of should, by all rights, be blatantly obvious - but, because people will contest what a "flame war" is, let me go ahead and define it:

  • Personal attacks.
  • Belittlement of a person's opinions as being reflective of some negative personality trait.
  • Baiting attacks from others.

When someone violates these restrictions on a public part of the wiki, whether in the talk section or on an actual page, their offending addition to that section will be removed. If they wish to contest it, they can contact a moderator to conduct the arbitration - but reverting a removal will result in a warning. Having something pulled due to flaming, however, will not; this is the Internet, people do lose their tempers, and arguments can break out. The warning will only come if someone is persistantly trying to cause problems by reverting materials deemed to be inflammatory. If the moderators feel that something which was removed as inflammatory was done so in error, it will be restored; if they feel that something was removed as inflammatory out of malicious intent, the remover will be warned and the material restored. This intentionally makes it more likely for someone to get a warning for removing something than they would get for leaving it inplace - otherwise it would be too easy to quash opposing opinions just by calling them all flames.

User and Usertalk pages will remain "private" spaces, and can be conducted by their owners as they wish, but I would hope that a system like this would result in the more publically-oriented spaces remaining neutral in POV and free from any attempts to intentionally provoke or insult people.

Pros: Cuts down on inflammatory nature of talk spaces in "public" wiki areas, while retaining ability for all users to have an area in which to speak their minds. Permits private disagreement and chastising, if it is deemed necessary, while areas of use to common population of the wiki are given some protection to prevent potential flame wars.

Cons: Potentially creates a steep "learning curve" for new wiki users through deletion of offending posts, may overload moderator-base.

I've advocated it for a while. --Zaruthustra-Mod 02:48, 9 April 2006 (BST)


This has my support, for what it's worth. I support the Moderation team doing something about trouble-makers. I wouldn't be the Frankenstein's Monster of the Wiki if the Mod team hadn't stood idly by while I was sewn together. I hope something is made of this discussion as opposed to the ones I started above. -- Amazing 03:56, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Question: if a person reports a quote in game, say "Rulzer said; 'Mister Shameful is a douche, and should be shot for his douche-ness'.", and then reports it on the wiki, is this an example of Offensive behavior, or does the fact that it is reporting of actions in-game make it protected? --Karlsbad 06:29, 9 April 2006 (BST)

I'm afraid so. In game is beyond our purview, and almost impossible to conclusively prove anyways. And amazing, fire up a vote if you want to keep these things alive. Policy discussion is not moderator driven to the best of my knowledge (although in this case I would wait a few days for discussion). --Zaruthustra-Mod 07:18, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Well, I wanted to see what people thought before I pushed through my own view into a vote. -- Amazing 18:30, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Voting on that Locational Language bit would be excellent. I would vote yes for that one. -Banana Bear4 19:07, 10 April 2006 (BST)

What about a "trial period" (say a month or some period decided upon by the mods)? While the definitions SHOULD be clear, it is still going to be "open to interpretation."--Pesatyel 23:47, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Very well. Let's vote:

Votes for Implementation of Locational Language/Interaction

Please make your vote at the bottom of the list so as not to throw off the tallies. Thank you.

  • Against -- I think this policy isn't really clear enough to enforce yet. Basically, most of this stuff isn't allowed to begin with. Enforcing current wiki policies is where you need to start in order to end people flaming each other. Also, it's still going to be possible to openly flame someone, people are just going to change their words around. Example, CDF and GANKBUS. Both pages have information that will always be subjective AND information that could be construed as baiting. So where do we draw the line? I think the BEST policy is to simply enforce wiki rules as they exist now. Scinfaxi 23:07, 12 April 2006 (BST)
    • As a quick note, actually, we've never had a policy regarding conduct towards other users. There have been general conventions that users have followed, but nothing actually written down. That's why massive flame wars have never been our problem, and why we've stated that multiple times - we've never been able to ban people for flaming at each other, or insulting another, or being a general jackass. That's why Moderation/Arbitration exists in the first place - to be a place where people could resolve their issues if they found that they couldn't resolve them themselves. -- Odd Starter talkModW! 13:54, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • For -- Odd Starter talkModW! 04:49, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against IRONY! Smirnoff conviniced me otherwise. --Mia K (sotss) 04:52, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - Grim s will finally have to curb his trollish impulses. --Cyberbob240 04:54, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For --Zaruthustra-Mod 04:56, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • 4 --hagnat tw 04:57, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For MAKE IT CLEAR. I'd love to see this implimented, but don't want to see someone find and exploit a loophole or I get banned for saying "I think you're wrong". Update: It's not what's classically thought of as "censorship" to set standards on a website you maintain - in any way, shape, or form. I -- Amazing 05:01, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Query Could we have in very clear language what is Public and what is Private? I assume User Pages are private, and Moderator stuff is Public, but What about Groups, Skills, Suburbs, etc? --Karlsbad 05:17, 12 April 2006 (BST)
    • I would assume that User pages are Private, and anything else is public. -- Odd Starter talkModW! 05:25, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For< - Is there any way we could link to policy voting from, say, the frontpage, to encourage a better survey of the hoards desires? I don't know anymore -Banana Bear4 08:04, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For --Brizth W! 08:20, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For --Vista W! 08:37, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against Only because the definitions of what is Private and what is Public have not been made clear, nor has there been a suggested way for users to denote/advertise this fact to users who may be new to the Wiki. Assumptions aren't Definite facts. --MorthBabid 09:07, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - As I understand it from what people have said MorthBabid, the user pages are private, and everything else is public. - Jedaz 09:09, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against I can't stand for something that lets people just delete an argument when it's not going their way. Like it or not, that's what will happen. Seems to me like it will cause more trouble than it solves. -Nubis A.R.S.E. 09:16, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For- Deletion because you don't like someone's ideas is clearly distinguishable from deletions due to pure hostility. You can disagree with someone without resorting to personal attacks and name calling. Frankly, I'd rather see more debate than flame fests. -Prosperina 10:07 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For Against - Changed vote. Also, in the case that this does pass, I'd like to urge that Group pages are exempted from this as are User pages, on the common principle that these are pages created by/for specific users as opposed to ones intended for the userbase as a whole (which should thus, obviously, be as free from bias and irrelevant drama as possible). --McSnatherson 10:14, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - As long as it is made clear to everyone what will be the result of their actions once it is implemented... i can imagine many conflicts arising from people plain not noticing the new rules... --RAF Private Spudd Talk RAF 10:47, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - It fits in well with project welcome's ideals. -- Andrew McM W! 11:53, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - It's a go'damn wiki. If you don't like what's being said, don't read it. Don D Crummitt 12:10, 12 April 2006 (BST)
RE - And how would one know not to read it until they'd, well, read it? --Gene W! - Talk 01:28, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • For I think Thanks for the notice on the main wiki page of this discussion. I feel a little uncomfortable with the restriction on freedom of speech but seen as how some people are disrespecting others, and the issue seems quite defined (I think I agree group pages should be exempt) and people will be warned, then I support this --Becky 12:19, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For But here's whats going to happen. GANKBUS is going to put something about how we like to kill Amazing. He's going to claim its a violation of this rule and delete it, or try to get me banned. At the same time, he'll refuse to change anything on his page if someone makes a claim and probably be offensive and belittling about it. Regardless of how you interact with him, this is how he acts. Rasher 12:59, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For I myself was quilty on some occasions, as are many of us. Whether we got pulled in the drama or really had a solid opinion we wanted to adress isn't the issue. Obviously community pages should be void of trivial yes/no games or insulting lines in general. If you want to tell somebody he's a douche, go to that users talk page and don't use the word douche, nor subtle insults just state your probs in a mature way.. Well,.. yes.. We all know how it should be done.. But it's so damn difficult. :S--Vykos 13:26, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 13:28, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - While i generally support this motion, i have to say against because this opens the door to even more wiki drama than we already have. --Grim s 13:51, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For I strongly support this, if this wasn't on going, I would suggest this myself. --Changchad 14:26, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - It has not been established that your opinions aren't reflective of your personality traits. Inappropriate use of this possible correlation is covered by the bit about personal attacks. For me to call you out on your baggage when I think it's poisoning the discussion is not always going to be inappropriate. The policy is almost a good idea but I think it's way too broad. --einexile 14:54, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - I would like a definition of what pages are going to be moderated for offensive people. I also believe that Group Pages should either be kept as private, or have private space provided that is self-moderated. --ahote 14:55, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - I'm against censorship in general. Besides, if someone does violate this policy I want to be able to flame them back without getting in trouble myself.--Pinata 15:39, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - I have to agree with Grim on this. Because many people have differing notions of what constitutes a personal attack, the potential for "wiki drama" will increase with this --CPQD 15:45, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - Flame wars need not take place within the wiki or any place else on the site, as they may take away from the fun that is the game. Which should be a reminder to all this is a game. Have fun and don't take things overly seriously. --Alena Merill 15:51, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For With Novelty(sp?) Codification of the Wiki-Location Style guide it shouldnt be to difficult to Define what is Public Domain (For lack of a better term) and Private Wiki Pages. A Mandate for Clearly Labeled NPOV sections (Perhaps written by a MOD not associated with (or against) the Group) for all confirmed Groups should also be considered. btw I'm not in favor of censorship per say, but a number of public access and adult filters are preventing pages with obscenities from being displayed for tastlessness. Pages that may be essential to a groups operations should not be endanger of being blocked to the general public. General Alex Creedy 15:55, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - Leave those actiosn for the trolls, I am sick and tired of certain groups (you know who you are) who think that just because they have free will that they should decide to ruin everybodies day by doing w/e the hell they feel like. Lets end this crude and uncillized behavior, lets kill it like the enemy it is to our very being. If you speak out against this, then understand all you are doing is providing the means for others to inflame a problem that has already gone too far. --1 4 of CDF 16:09, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - With a few reservations; as long as it isn't abused it should be a plus - Mettaur 16:14, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - Strangely enough I'd prefer to see warnings have some actual power/banning to back it up rather than just a threat. The other funny thing is how many people will find themselves being warned for their blatant over-flaming, should keep things more civil when a few users get banned for a month here and there. Nothing teaches you humility like the occasional good swift kick in the ass. That's all I have to say. --MrAushvitz 10:54, 12 April 2006 (GMT)
  • Against -What is 'offensive' is a matter of a persons opinion for one thing, people will end up being reported right and left by people who had their feelings hurt if someone said that their Suggestion was idioitic or something. And bantering is part of Group, User, and Talk pages, and people want to cut that out. Everyone isn't all nice to each other in the Real world. I doubt Wiki should be an Ivory Tower. Plus don't forget possible Favoritism by Mods towards people they like better. I've seen it before, a Mod's pet gets away with whatever while everyone else who makes a statement against the Mod's Pet gets banned. No I don't see how this thing is immune to corruption. --Rogue 16:39, 12 April 2006 (BST)
By this logic shouldn't we just dismantle moderation altogether? And somehow I doubt it would be suffered if people started swearing each other out in a public building. We aren't talking about deleting arguments, just flames. There is a marked difference. Furthermore, we're only deleting them in public, which means you can keep your banter on your user and group pages as long as the rest of us don't have to sift through it to read the conversations we came for. --Zaruthustra-Mod 16:57, 12 April 2006 (BST)
Who decides what's a Flame? You? Person A may think it's a Flame but Person B and C don't, Person D may think its funny and E to Z don't care, should Person A have the right to delete it because of what they think?--Rogue 19:48, 12 April 2006 (BST)
I'm not sure the what jurisdiction this Wiki would fall under (I beleive the laws and regulations of the Nation in which it is hosted) However the United States Supreme Court has ruled that in the case of Harrassment, The Modern Penal Code section 250.4(MPC) defines harassment as a petty misdemeanor if with purpose is to harass another, he: 1) makes a phone call without a legitimate purpose; or 2) insults, taunts or challenges another in a manner likely to provoke violent or disorderly response; or 3) calls at inconvenient hours or in offensive language; or 4) subjects another to offensive touching; or 5) engages in any other course of alarming conduct serving no legitimate purpose of the actor.Conndraka 22:49, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - It is not that difficult to be polite. --Sindai 16:41, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - Too much a matter of personal opinion. Tyrmorr 16:45, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - I am encountering too much crap on the wiki when I come here to get and share USEFUL information. I really don't like wading through all of the random personal crap that for some reason has made its way onto this wiki. --Lordofnightmares 16:58, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For Those deemed Informational Articles (i.e. location and group pages)should be free of innapropriate language, offensive explicatives, and socially debase euphamisms. The use of said vocabulary onDiscussion Pages should remain in the hands of either: A. The Group Leader if it is a groups discussion page B. The User if it is a Users discussion Page or C. The designated editor of a Journal discussion page or D. the MODs if not one of those three types. Besides If you want to really insult someone you dont need to use the "F-Bomb" when so many more socially acceptable words are available. Conndraka 17:16, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - So ok, there might be a few abuses here and there with regards to 'interpretation' on what consitutes a flame or not, but I think we can trust the Moderators and the community to sort things out. Proof of that is how the ICB issue has been handled. --Samroberts 17:21, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For-- Tordeck 17:47, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Query - So does this new rule apply to non-members tampering with and changing group pages and information with no permission? -- walrus greg 17:52, 12 April 2006 (BST)
I think that's already forbidden, unless it's the NPOV part of the page. As for what i think about this: i'll have to think about it. Not against or for it at the moment.--Denzel Washington 17:54, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - Conditionally: The policy must be clearly described and available on a page linked from the main page. *** My $.02 - Private area should be defined as the User pages and, at most, the Discussion area of group pages. Users should not be warned unless they persist in trying to reassert a statement removed for breaking this policy, and banning requires repeated behavior after receiving warnings from moderators. When statements are removed should they be replaced with a link to the policy? *** Just be civil, regardless of how much you disagree. And thanks for linking to this from the main page! --Gilant 18:07, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - The wiki is meant to be useful and informational. Certain people have lost all sight of this. I am very new and have never been involved in any of the sort of wikidrama that this step is meant to redress, but if you just click the "recent changes" link on the main page it's absolutely LOADED with pointless conflict. Effing ridiculous. Let's clear out the wasters. NOTE: to some of the people who previously voted yes to this: I'm looking at you.--Colonel Taylor 18:30, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - About damn time.. --Technerd 18:40, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - I generally oppose any form of censorship, and dislike the imposition of decency standards. They will be subjective standards, and I do not think one person should be forced to abide by another's sense of decency. --Patrucio 18:51, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For ---Lokijester 19:02, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - No, a wiki takes care of itswlf and does not need such censoreship... 343 19:32, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - Say no to censorship. This also leaves the door open for wikidrama over whether or not something was an insult. --TheTeeHeeMonster 19:49, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - What Nubis said. --Stroth 19:59, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - Going with my gut on this. Valid points above. Velkrin 20:11, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - I agree with Nubis. Whitehouse 20:15, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For -- LankyMan 12 April 2006, 20:30 (BST)
  • For - Remove. Warn. Ban. Seems Fair! --Spraycan Willy MalTel 21:13, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For -- Kirsha 12 April 2006, 21:18 (BST)
  • For -- Penance 12 April 2006 20:42 (BST)
  • Against Unsigned Vote: Remove vote when signature is added(use four tildes) -Banana Bear4 21:54, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For -- --Medicy 21:53, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For -- -- Stephen Wolfe 22:00, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For -- --Mayor Fitting 22:40, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • For -- --zombiehunter4 23:00, 12 April (BST)
  • For ---- Unsigned Vote: Remove vote when signature is added(use four tildes) -Banana Bear4 23:31, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - too much work for the mods. --Deathnut RAF|W! 23:44, 12 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I, for one, would not mind doing the extra work and I don't think the other mods would mind either.--The General W! Mod 13:05, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  • For Rockphed 23:47, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - While I do feel that something like this does need to be put into effect, I believe the language should be more clear prior to it being done. I also feel, as mentioned above that Group Pages should be private also, aside from the NPOV section. If this were more clear then I would gladly vote For. --John Rove 01:23, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - I agree with John Rove. It would be nice to have this rule, but it needs to be defined better. I forsee too many problems arising from this if left in its current iteration. --Zod Rhombus 01:35, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - At the very least, it needs to be better defined, as Zod said. --Lucero Capell 01:39, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • For' - Good for me. -- Angela 01:40, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - Provisionally. Provisions:
    1. - Templates should be made to indicate "public" and "private"; To make things clear. (Thinking a "members only" sign vs a sign denoting a cloud to fists, stars, and other euphemisms for "free for all".)
    2. - Said templates should contain a link to the policy. --Gene W! - Talk 01:44, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - Far too subjective. I really see no problem with the system we have now. Not to mention, as Grim had, the drama that would inevitably ensue.--Wifey 02:07, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - While it sounds good in theory, it is unlikely to work in practice. Also, I forsee that this will become too much of a drain on the current moderator staff. --RedKnight 02:09, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - Doesnt solve a thing. .--Gangsta1
  • For - I'm sick of wasting time reading others flame wars.--Theblackgecko 03:24, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - This isn't policy already? --New Coldness 22:13, 12 April 2006 (GMT -6:00)
  • Against - I don't think it will solve anything.Unsigned vote. Remove strikeout and this message after signing. --Brizth W! 08:00, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - The Wiki is not a message board; flames do not belong here. --Skabooga 04:44, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - I don't see any benefits from this.--Cah51o 05:34, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - It's good to enforce the rules sometimes. --Poodge 05:36, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - Anything to make the Wiki a more readible and civil place is good in my books. --Ske-tch April 12th, 2006
  • For - It probably won't hurt to help keep the wiki a bit more civil. --Gimmic 05:50, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • For – I strongly dislike censorship, but I dislike libel even more. This proposed rule is clearly for the purpose of decreasing the prevalence of libel, not for the purpose of “just delete[ing] an argument when it's not going their way��? (Nubis). In fact, the rule anticipates potential misuse by people falsely claiming “offensive behaviour,��? and contains a penalty for this.
To those who vote against, saying, “I don’t think it will work��? (or some variation on that theme), I respond, “Maybe it will, maybe it won’t.��? The only way to know is to try it. Just because it isn’t a perfect solution (which doesn’t exist) and just because it maybe/will be difficult, is no reason to vote against. Pesatyel suggested a trail period; this not only makes sense, but it seems kind of inescapable to me. If this new system doesn’t work out (whether through moderator bias, overload of moderators, or “increased wikidrama��?) it will be revoked through this same process of discussion.
All in all, this a pretty mild rule, it doesn’t even say that libel is an absolute crime, it says that libel becomes a crime only if one persists and repeats the exact same “offensive behaviour��? (ie. restoring a deleted flame); so we all get one free flame here and there ;). Furthermore, the very first time one falsely accuses someoneelse of libel (ie. if one maliciously deletes their entry) one is punished. There is no harm in trying this, and a big upside if it works at all; I say vote for the rule. --TheBerts 06:54, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - Bullgod 12:51, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - People should just suck it up and deal. When it gets outa hand, fine, but don't start going all Nazi on us here. Grim 01:29, 13 April 2006 (GMT)
  • FOR - Denzel Washington has trolled/spammed/vandalized the BME wiki for over 2 months. People like him need to stop picking targets and messing with them. The Mods have warned him but he continbues to do it. It wastes everybody's time.Legend X
  • Against - I think moderation is working alright as is. I think that what constitutes 'offensive' is too subjective to be ruled on except on a case-by-case basis. --Bulgakov 15:29, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against. Would drastically increase the amount of work required by moderators and would be entirely subjective. We don't need more drama on this wiki at ALL. --LibrarianBrent 17:43, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against Not really needed. MaulMachine 17:49, 13 April 2006 (BST)
I'm not sure if I understand the claims of this making too much work for moderators. This policy makes a lot of sense to me. Practically all of the board drama originates or is at least inflamed by egos picking at egos on this board. If you have a problem with someone, this at least encourages people to bring up an actual workable criticism rather than so-and-so is a jerk or so-and-so is whiney idiot. There are also arguements that the ruling is too subjective and thus would become a headache for moderators. However it is everyone's responsibility to moderate the wiki to some extent. However the policy clearly defines what it means by offensive. Personal attacks, attacks of opinions based on purely character traits not dealing with the opinion itself and baiting are the only ways that something can be considered offensive. Baiting would clearly be invitations to violence or direct provocations such as inviting someone to kiss your ass. If the policy is too subjective, I would like to see actual arguements for that instead of merely dismissing it under the term.
The term Nazi indicates a strict opressive control over the freedom to speak. This policy would merely modify it. The essential opinions may still be expressed, but this would force people to at least give some criticism that would be useful instead of spamming the wiki with petty insults.
The moderators themselves can refer to these three extremely clear areas for defining offensiveness and it provides objective standards to decide by. Any references to personal character in a derogatory manner unrelated to the criticism of an opinion is a personal attack. The deleting user must simply indicate what exactly about the offending phrase was unnecessary and a reviewing mod can agree or disagree based on the rulings. Even if there were a chance in the future which would cause us to further refine this policy, it is important to take this first step so that there is actual useful information present as opposed to random mudslinging.--Prosperina 18:04, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against-- I have decided. I think this policy would really increase the drama on this Wiki, and to be honest, personally there are things that irk me a lot more than being called an idiot. Don't think that swearing is the OMG ultimate form of offending someone. If you get hurt that easily, you shouldn't be on the internet to begin with.--Denzel Washington 19:22, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against- To subjective, while I believe there defiantly are problems with this on the wiki, I don't think this will curb the drama. In fact, I think it will increase it, because since the definition of a flame is so subjective, whoever loses will always think they are right. Then they will appeal the diction, then get bitchy when they don't get their way--Bermudez 22:00, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - I like slagging people off. Democracy is fun :) - Shaft121 22:01, 13 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - While a good part of the cost of giving everyone a soapbox is they'll say what they think; I respect my fellow users enough to let them speak however they see fit.
  • For - Anything that Grim S is against, I must necessarily be for. --Calthaer 19:05, 13 April 2006 (EST)
    • Re - Is this because i Pked you on the 12th of December last year? My, what a big grudge you are carrying. --Grim s 06:26, 14 April 2006 (BST)
      • Re - Is this flamebait I see? This is great; the opposition is making a case for this right in this very thread! --Calthaer 11:50, 15 April 2006 (EST)
  • Against - I don't know, man, it seems like people fight because they're immature. If that's the case, then banning a user is just going to let him stew in his hatred until the ban is lifted. At that point, the user will come back, immature, frustrated, and indignant. That will just make things worse and I really don't see that there's too much hatred on the wiki to begin with. Then again, I don't speak Spanish. --Ron Burgundy 00:18, 14 April 2006 (BST)
Wait, wait, wait! I have an idea! How about when someone is really hateful, they get a tag next to their signature (like the "W!" or "Mod" things)? This way, people will know not to take a guy looking for a fight too seriously and won't engage him, ruining his fun. It'll make fighting a contest, of course, but I'd still get a kick out of it. --Ron Burgundy 00:29, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against How about a voting system for the people we really want to see banned? The LAST thing this board needs is even more arguments about who's civil and who isn't! --Slicer 00:47, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - While I dislike flame wars and the like in general, policies such as this tend not to help the matter much and create an unpleasant atmosphere in which people fear what they might say for fear that someone may not like it. I'm inherently opposed to censorship of this nature on principle. It ends up being arbitrary and subjective and often I have noticed similar things cause even more problems than prior. --Vanankyte 01:22, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • For--AZK CMS-MetaAoG 02:41, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • For --Kleptonis 03:08, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • For Agent Heroic 03:17, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - I like the idea, but I could only support banning someone if it were based on a vote by all of the users (like Keeping suggestions). I've noticed that certain mod-types can be... ummm... a little biased at times. I wouldn't want to give anyone free reign to censor anyone who disagrees with them. --Norcross 03:54, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • For --Torvus 04:43, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against -- Thom Solo 05:03, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against -- This proposal does nothing to address the real issues around here, but does introduce morality policing along with a convenient means for WikiLawyers to get people they don't like banned for no particularly good reason. In other words, fuck this suggestion. furtim 06:33, 14 April 2006 (BST)
Wait, how in the world does it introduce morality policing? It clearly says personal attacks, ergo attacks on the character of the poster irrelevant to the criticisms of their actions. This does not enforce one person's opinions over anothers. This isn't an issue of morality. It simply designates the public pages as a neutral area. The rules are clear in their simplicity. It's not like people get instabanned after one incident here. They don't even get a warning after one incident. The policy clearly states that there must be persistant flaming. In which case the moderators themselves will come up for review if they continue to flagrantly abuse such a thing. Furthermore, User pages are exempt from such moderation, if you really want to trash someone, all this says is go to your own user page to due it. --Prosperina 06:50, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against I think the majority of people on the 'net already know the rules of being civil and that a needless argument is best avoided as a waste of time. Adding more rules to the scenario just complicates matters even more. --Rubix41 10:50 14 April 2006 (GMT)
  • For This wiki used to have all sorts of good information: search odds, suburb info, barricade reports, etc. It might still be there, but I can't tell, because it is buried under truckloads of flamewars between egotistical primadonnas who absolutely have to have the last word and who OMGZ repost every time they think of a "witty" new flamebait. These hatefests have no useful content and they are an embarrassment to the wiki. --Tycho44 15:47, 14 April 2006 (BST)
Also, please read Zarathustra's description (of what we're voting on) carefully. This policy would allow flamewars to be removed from public areas. The removal would not be accompanied by any punishment unless the attacker re-instated their personal attack without discussion. The attacker is welcome to present alternative content that actually continues the discussion, instead of personal attacks. "Having something pulled due to flaming, however, will not [result in a warning to the user]." --Tycho44 16:17, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • For --Lord Evans W! 16:07, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • For --V2Blast 19:09, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - Once again, grim speaks the truth. - CthulhuFhtagn 20:22, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - It works in theory, but in practice it would be much harder to maintain. (PS: I want to move to Theory. EVERYTHING works in Theory!) --John Taggart 22:03, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - who watchs the watchers? often things called flame bait are indisputable truths that some biased moderators can't face. If you don't like the idea of a free speech Wiki, please feel free to set up your own site and impose your rules there. --Stoy
    • As in most good set-ups, the watched watch the watchers (as well as the other watchers, for that matter). Moderation/Misconduct is there for a reason. -- Odd Starter talkModW! 00:52, 15 April 2006 (BST)
    • To make one point that some may or may not like and fewer may have considered... Technically this isn't a free speech Wiki. Kevin can at any point shut this thing down. The Wiki exists because he wants it/ allows it to and should he drop the Hammer, it would be all of us going somewhere else not just a select few. Kevin (whom I have had disagreements with) is quite magnanimous in his gestures towards what can and cannot be posted. Remember for all intents and purposes we are operating under the appearance of a Democracy that is actually a benevolent dictatorship. Conndraka 01:03, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - PREPARE THYSELVES FOR A HOLOCAUST OF BLOOD UNPARALLELED IN HUMAN RECKONING! DO NOT WEEP FOR THE INNOCENT WHEN THE FIRE COMES FOR THEM, FOR BY NOW THEIR INNOCENCE IS FOREVER LOST! WAR! ENDLESS WAR AGAINST AN INSATIABLE ENEMY, UNTIL THE PURE AND FOUL ALIKE HAVE BEEN FELLED BY THE STEEL AND LIE BROKEN AND TWISTED UPON THE SCORCHED EARTH!

Also, wtf Mia betrayed --Undeadinator 02:27, 15 April 2006 (BST)

  • Against - I don't like it. -Craw 03:00, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - From what this looks like it appears to eb open to everyone. My two cents though is this: It works in theory but is flawed IMHO. It will only cause more problems as people seek to find a way around the rules. I prefer the "Find them and put them in one place." Theory of doing things. If we isolate and then remove these people it would be so much more effective. I also changed the tally to show my against vote. ramby
  • For Go for it!Chris Hollis
  • Against - I've abstained from this so far, but since I can see how this is going to go, I might as well give my opinion. NEIN! Everyone complains about censorship in various forums and deleted posts. How is this any different? Just arbitraily deleting posts and banning people without any sort of interaction on the moderator's part is just lazy. You're moderators. Your job is to moderate if this is such a big problem, why not use your powers of mediation in order to solve problems rather than just "police first and ask questions later (when convenient)." T--W! - SGP 14:21, 15 April 2006 (BST)
    • Perhaps you should take a page from the (current) moderators at desensitized. They point out behavior that is abusive and antisocial, give someone some time to apologize and back down (usually people take this time to hang themselves), and then if needed they ban them, not the other way around.
      In the event that this wins, I would also want Group pages to be exluded from this proposed ruling, as they should be the respective group's responsibility. Vandalism is completely different than trash talking (See Offensive Language/Interaction) and shouldn't be included in this discussion. In the event of goup page vandalism, I heard that the solution was to contact a moderator. You know. For moderation.Token Black Man 14:21, 15 April 2006
    • Because, Kevan does not believe that that style of Moderation is appropriate for a wiki. In theory, a wiki is supposed to let the users police themselves - we are supposed to act primarily just as "trusted users" that perform the tasks that regular users are not capable of doing for technical reasons (like deletions and such). Since, in theory, everyone has the power to edit everyone else, people should be able to quickly do things like revert vandalism and such - it's a method of Devolving Power to everyone else, instead of having only a small elite running the site.
      Now, it's true that us as Moderators have been forced to be a tad more centralised due to the culture on this wiki. Though, just quietly, I'd be very glad to have more people step up and start working on maintaining the wiki, and taking positions of authority. But I sure as hell do not want to be a moderator in the forum sense - I certainly don't have that level of time and dedication. And I shouldn't have to - Since everyone else on this wiki has the ability to perform stuff like vandal reversion and conflict resolution, they should be shouldering some of the work! Which brings me to the point of changing my original vote to an Against. -- Odd Starter talkModW! 15:50, 15 April 2006 (BST)
      • If many moderators are against this measure, then I see no purpose in placing the extra workload on them. After all, as many have said, the wiki is not their job. Therefore, I will change my vote to against. --Skabooga 23:14, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against --Tabby 16:15, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  • For --Tico 20:31, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against --Petrosjko 21:46, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against --Jorm 21:57, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against --Skabooga 23:14, 15 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin --Job G 00:47, 16 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against --Eddo36 00:58, 16 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - The group I'm a member of has a problem with one particular player who has taken to PKing dozens of our players with apparently no provocation. If I were to pose the question "so, does this guy actually have a legitimate grievance or his he just an asshole?" on our Wiki page, would that be construed as offensive and subject to removal etc. etc? Sure I'm against full blown flame wars and pages full of continous insults but you've got to give people the opporunity to express their displeasure at someone and/or their actions and what's said could well be considered offensive to the subject of such comments, but does that mean that people should forver bite their tongue to avoid potentially treading on anyones toes? London Calling 02:24, 16 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - tl;dr --Anime Sucks 02:32, 16 April 2006 (BST)
In order to for something to be offensive, the policy states that it must be an inflamatory statement with malicious intent. Since your question invites discussion and though it may show your frustration, it doesn't inflame anyone's anger and allows for a workable response to a legitimate question. In my opinion that is how the policy would work. This policy is aimed primarily to prevent pages full of insults. You can criticise without insulting. At least, that its my understanding of it. Though Ben Franklin was eloquent, I doubt he would consider the encouragement of civil discussion to be giving up an essential liberty. I've yet to see anyone show a statement within the policy that would allow such a thing. We are watching the watchers so we can prevent it.Prosperina 03:20, 16 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - Due to the subjective nature of the concept of a personal attack, this just doesn't seem like a good idea. --Arainach 07:59, 16 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - I agree with Arainach --Abi79 AB 08:23, 16 April 2006 (BST)
  • Comment - Since perhaps apocalyptic invective didn't quite give this the nuanced response it deserved. I'm against this suggestion for one reason and one reason only: FACISM. No, seriously. I can appreciate the thought with which this idea was put forth. The Wiki has seen some pretty stupid, inane, petty shit in its time. The Suggestions page alone has become, of late, more of a factional struggle than an open forum for recommending, you know, suggestions. I see the need for more policing. But you know what? We already have it. I'm not talking about rules Nazis who insist that HOLY GODDAMNIT ONLY AUTHORS CAN RE. Those guys are tools. I'm talking about the people who willingly and without outside interference take their problems to their own talk pages. I'm talking about people who refrain from posting inflammatory shit when it is so, sooooooooooo tempting. I'm talking about people who actually use the arbitration page--and speaking of which, why the fuck do we have that thing, anyways? Any Wiki community is based around the basic premise of self-policing. The High Lord Kevan, in his infinite wisdom, decided to gift us with a Wiki rather than a forum for wigging out over UD. ("Did you know it has ZOMBIES?" "Holy fuck!") Make whatever arguments you want for organizational impetus. The simple fact remains that we are supposed to reasonably police ourselves--so instead of trying to bust out the 1984 bullshit, maybe we should all just try to be, and it pains me to say it, reasonable. --Undeadinator 08:24, 16 April 2006 (BST)
  • Re: - Please look up the meaning of a word before you use it. As I have said time and time again. Facism is system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. We have no dictators no suppression of the opposition. You can still call the DHPD a "buncha zerging faggots" if you want under this policy. Or heck maybe you know, you could just say I don't like X group, I think they are zergers. Since that statement is your personal opinon and not offensive or accusatory it would not be an attack. This doesn't prevent speech it only limits the place in which you can do it. Feel free to go hog wild on your own talk page, but keep your flames off the rest of the board. On a personal note, the rest of us who don't care for the constant drama and sniping shouldn't be forced to read such things when we are simply looking for information. As you said this is a wiki, not a forum, a wiki's purpose is for information, not as a place to vent. Prosperina 10:50, 16 April 2006 (BST)
  • Re: - So are you trying to say that Zarathustra isn't going to impose stringent socioeconomic controls on the Wiki? Also: preventing my ability to say things IS, in fact, preventing my ability to say them. It's only natural that you don't want to read every single damned flamewar on the Wiki, but you have the option of scrolling past them. Handling this shit in a public manner is healthy for the Wiki and the game, even if it isn't exactly pleasing to the eye. Why? Because serious issues are often at the crux at these flamewars, and when everybody can see the arguments for and against we tend to get things done. Purely personal feuds get taken to the User pages anyway; why limit our ability to have valid (if heated) policy discussion in a public space? Put it another way: if you don't want to read something, you can just scroll past it. If you hide it on a User page, most people won't even have the option. --Undeadinator 00:49, 17 April 2006 (BST)
  • Re:= Yes, I am saying it isn't possible for Zarathustra or any other mod to impose strigent socioeconomic controls on a Wiki. No matter what you are still guaranteed the ability to voice your opinion the only thing that is being modified is the manner of how you voice it which has always been a legitimate restriction of speech. Because of this you cannot have a facist anything do to the fact that you can criticise in the first place. The fact that you are allowed to say, "I don't like these people I believe they are doing xyz" prevents it from being such. Just as you would not be able to scream Fire! in a crowded theater you would also be prevented from baiting or attacking people in a manner that would consume that area with flame wars. In addition you would also be able to merely direct debate to a user page from a group talk page. In that instance, people would be able to freely debate. People aren't allowed to stand in malls or shopping centers screaming about however they like, so why should it be allowed here? Like a shopping mall this Wiki is a privately funded area in which speech is allowed by all comers. Why then is it so bad that rules of civility be implemented here as well?--Prosperina 01:16 17 April 2006
  • Re - I'll explain the joke later. I understand what the suggestion limits and permits, and I understand the arguments behind it. That said, not even Justice Holmes would limit your right to engage in heated debate in public...and I doubt that he would appreciate your theft of his "FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER" analogy. Having a flame war in public hurts nobody, first of all, because it is a moment's work to scroll past it to "the good stuff". Havinga flame war in public, indeed, might actually help: how many policy issues have been brought to debate, and how many times has voting on a suggestion or idea been swayed, by two schmucks having it at each other where everybody can see it? If you want to move it to a different page and link it, fine. That's your prerogative. But it's a lot more work than scrolling past it for very little pay-off...and quite frankly, I don't find it worth the trouble to put that much effort into saving yourself two seconds of scrolltime. One final note: who, exactly, gets to determine what stays on the public pages and what gets moved to the User talk? Because this Potter Stewart shit isn't going to fly if everybody on the Wiki can arbitrarily decide to boot stuff to the User pages. --Undeadinator 20:56, 17 April 2006 (BST)
  • Re - Oh gods, not him again. Prosperina, my advice is to ignore him. You'll save yourself a lot of trouble and everyone else will have less text to pass over. I should also point out that he's not actually voting, he just threw in a comment and said in his text that he's voting against, without actually voting. Oh and I changed the two numbered Res into bulleted points. I'm not even going to get into his mention of the suggestion page's Re. Velkrin 09:04, 17 April 2006 (BST)
  • Re - Well please, Velkrin, say what you really mean. --Undeadinator 20:56, 17 April 2006 (BST)
  • Re - He does have a point though. Would you like to continue this disscussion on my talk page so there's less text for people to read? Just click the name and head to the talk page. Prosperina 21:24 17 April 2006.
  • Against - If this is implemented, I can no longer say that the DHPD are buncha zerging faggots. I hate cheaters. --wcil 11:41, 16 April 2006 (BST)
  • RE - It would probibly be best if you looked at your own repressed homosexuality before throwing around the word "faggots". --Conndraka 22:12, 17 April 2006 (BST)
  • RE - As a non-repressed omni-sexual, I find it insulting that you vocally consider homosexuality as initially a repressed response; however, the word "faggot" is, while crude, not a personal threat- as it is in a private web-based media- and is not insulting. Therefore by the rules of this suggestion, I would be able to get comments such as Conndraka's deleted, as from my view I find his more insulting that wcils; therefore elaborating the faultiness of the Policy. --Karlsbad 22:34, 17 April 2006 (BST)
  • Re - Ha ha! You're an omnisexual! WEDGIIIIEEEEEEEE --Undeadinator
  • Re - And you dare vote FOR this, you hypocrite. Not only did you zerg, you lied, too. --wcil 17:54, 21 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - Dismantle the entire Wiki, and put a PHP forum in its place. Moderation of this sort will be much easier then. --Ericka The Red 13:18, 16 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - Too vague.--Mookiemookie 02:45, 17 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - I can't imagine fair trials on a wiki and i don't endorse arbitrary action --Sensodyne 04:52, 17 April 2006 (CET)
  • Against - Flaming rules.. --Kliqueman 06:32, 17 April 2006 (BST)
  • For --Sneaky McTavish 23:15, 16 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - Wiki is a community, and shouldn't have rules such as these that can be misinterpreted. More importantly, I can't imagine this accomplishing anything beneficial. --Pancakechan 02:31, 17 April 2006 (EST)
  • For - This seems like a good idea, all things considered. --Joe McO'Robertson UD 07:47, 17 April 2006 (BST)
  • For -And thanks to Banana Bear for prompting me to figure out how to time stamp my vote so it actually gets counted this time. --Little Fawn 09:48, 17 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against--Kibbs 10:01, 17 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against --i c all sorts of commentary and exchanges that piss me off. lots of homophobic crap. that's why i don't take part in that many discussions anymore. nobody cared about that so i m not concerned about "offensive" language now. too late. advice i have heard - just play the game, shut up and leave if you don't like it. uglysmurfette. Note - Vote isn't properly signed: type in four tildes in the future. Hawt. --Undeadinator 20:34, 17 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - Anything that'll help cut down on pointless bickering, which just spoils the fun for everyone. If there are problems with the system, they can be worked out once its in place and we have some examples. --Ivy
  • Against -- While I agree with many of the sentiments that have spawned this, legislation is not the answer. Nervie 16:38, 17 April 2006 (BST)
  • For-John the baker 18:25, 17 April 2006 (BST)
    • I don't envy the poor bastard who attempts to tally all this. --Cyberbob240CDF 18:46, 17 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 69 Against, 63 For. --Grim s 19:33, 17 April 2006 (BST)
    • Grim s: altruist. --Ron Burgundy 00:20, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - No comment. --Squashua 03:30, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - I value freedom of speech too much. -- John Rhames 04:51, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re: I don't think Freedom of Speech means websites shouldn't have standards of conduct.. -- Amazing 05:01, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - There is no "Freedom of Speech" on the internet, whatever rights you have are granted to you by the owner of the website (in this case Kevan).--The General W! Mod 20:32, 18 April 2006 (BST)
      • Re - I don't believe he was referring to the First Amendment. There IS a difference between freedom of speech and Freedom of Speech, you know. --Undeadinator 21:17, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - The definition of flaming is far too open to interpretation. More moderation will result in more drama and more calls to the moderators, followed by more moderator intervention, which will result in more conflicts about moderators and moderator powers. It will make things worse, not better. If the conditions were more directly clear-cut, I might be for, but having open-ended rules provides more room for abuse, exploitation of people and loopholes, and more social/moderator/anti-moderator power-games that are the makings of high Internet drama. How about we just keep a wiki, with very simple clear-cut rules and stop obvious vandalism? -- Unlife 05:12, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - The definitions of flaming and what would be considered offensive are just too vague. If they were tightened up, I might change my mind, since reading through pages of pseudointellectual arguements gets rather irritating. XD --Char 07:36, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - --Dcvortex 09:54, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - --Tamashii 20:03, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  • For- --Madlatvian 15:09, 18 April 2006 (EST)
  • For - --The General W! Mod
  • For- --Ltpotter 20:32, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  • For- --kosmosxipo 16:01 18 April 2006 (CST)
  • For- --Reena Matza 22:28 18 April 2006 (EST)
    • Tally - 73 Against, 70 For --Undeadinator 04:56, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - This may sound passe, but the phrase "it's only a game" comes to mind. If you can get so bent out of shape about a free internet game that you need to scream at other people or be obscene in general, you can keep it to personal pages. This is a wiki, not a LiveJournal. - Copi 6:52 19 April 2006 (CST)
  • For - Enough of the use of the wiki as a repository of misinformation and personal attacks. - edmundexley 10:40 19 April 2006(EST)
  • For - Reason untyapable. Keyboard screwed. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Peterblue 02:06, 20 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against There are enough rules to remove/punish truly offensive behavior, this would just lead to mods overregulating pages, which would make the wiki Not Fun.--OedipaMaas 02:17, 20 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - The right to free speech has never been absolute. - Francis Snottly III 10:35 20 April 2006 (EST)
  • Against - Deletion of disputed content is too heavy handed. Especially combined with possible banning. Existing rules and policies ought to be sufficient for dealing with trouble-makers. Shades of Grey 22:14, 20 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - There already exists a framework and functioning brains to handle things on a case-by-case basis. --ism 04:59, 21 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - This is an idea that will never work in practice. –Xoid STFU!
  • For - If the loop holes are fixed and a criteria fro what is personal is set, then I think the idea could work splended Impix 15:19, 21 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against - I had to think about this overnight. The point of a wiki is to be self-policing. Anyone can flame-bait, and anyone can delete the flame. I've been a member of many moderated forums, and as someone pointed out, we've been given a wiki instead of a forum. The point of the moderators in this setting is to assist and clean up pages, and perhaps enter into a discussion or two to provide a neutral, third-party opinion. If this involves editing, deleting or cleaning up language, it should be the mod's (or any other registered user's) choice... It is a wiki, don't feed the trolls, don't make more work for the mods. --ERNesbitt 16:17, 21 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - I'm for this, because it's... well, basic common sense. Jered Cain 19:31, 21 April 2006 (BST)
  • Against --DJ Dave 21:25, 21 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - Completely for. Totally common sense, which some users fail to display. Even a self-policing wiki should have a policy for what is appropriate and what is not. People flame on group pages, and when the flamed take it down, it's considered 'vandalism'. Complete trash. -Wyndallin 08:08, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  • For - Tired to read little boys´ bitching --Ivantzar 16:29, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  • For ManoftheSea 17:53, 22 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 79 Against, 79 For Conndraka 18:57, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Since we seem pretty evenly split please look at UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Locational Language_&_Interaction Its an attempt to develope a solution to this impass. Conndraka 18:57, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Personal tools
advertisements