UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Free Speech

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Free Speech

We recognise the right of each and every individual user here to speak freely, without censure, so long as such talk is legal.

Things that arent allowed

  1. Slander/Libel - If you wish to make an accusation against another user, provide some form of proof to back up your claims. Or keep your peace. Both of these apply both on site, and to any off site linking on the subject. Such cases go to Arbitration.
    • Slander is defined as a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report. This would cover the use of audio and video files.
    • Libel is defined as anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.. This would refer to posting.
  2. Threats regarding real life - If you threaten a user of this community with action outside the scope of this community, you will be vulnerable to the Vandal Banning section of the wiki. Furthermore, it will be treated as three warnings, so if you have a clean slate, it will be a 24 hour ban. If you have one of those already, you will go to a month. If you threaten to kill a character in game, that is fine, and part of the spirit of the game.
  3. Posting personal details - You are not permitted to post the personal details of any other user, or his or her family on this wiki. Doing so is considered vandalism, and the relevant revisions are to be deleted.
  4. Spam - Senseless spam is not part of free speech. It stifles it. Spam is defined as the repeat posting of contentless posts that are either the same or similar. Repeat being up to the sysops who are on at the time.
  5. Vandalism - This goes without saying. What would be counted as vandalism does not become protected under Free Speech.

Slander/Libel

The Slander/Libel clause does not prohibit making accusations against another user regarding their conduct or personality. It does, however, require that you qualify your statement with evidence, either through demonstrated logically sound deductive reasoning, or quotes/screenshots (Some must be provided).

Thus, if Person X makes an accusation against Person Y, and provides evidence for it, he is in the clear. If he does not, however, he can be in trouble provided he fails to either retract the statement or provide evidence when challenged. If such action hasnt been done within 24 hours of the challenge being issued, and the user has not posted since before the challenge the comment can be struck out and ignored until such time as the user comes back and answers (This can be done by any user), removing the strikeout as he/she does so. If the user remains active and fails to provide a response within 24 hours, the case can be referred to the Arbitration.

Also, if a user makes an accusation, and tries to support it with evidence that has already been debunked, and does not retract it when challenged regarding it along the same lines as above, he or she will also be subject to vandal banning.

This does not, however, cover general abusiveness, only accusations regarding ones in game conduct.

Things that are allowed

  1. You are permitted to express yourself and your feelings.
  2. You are permitted to use whatever language you like to express those feelings, though it is preferred that users show others the same respect they would wish to be shown in return.
  3. You are permitted to express your feelings towards another user.

Harassment

In the event of perceived harassment, there is a process for dealing with the problem

Talk Pages

The first port of call should be the offending users talk page. If you feel intimidated by the user, and do not wish to post on his or her talk page, you may contact a third party to go in your stead. There are no limits on who this third party may be.

Arbitration

If going to talk pages fails to result in an accord being reached, or an understanding being made, or the problem persists in spite of such an accord, the next step is the Arbitration page. Here you can have your problem handled, and an Arbitration ruling reached which should resolve the issue, if not the conflict itself.

Official Sanction

If both previous sections fail to resolve the issue, and the other party is still causing problems in violation of the arbitration ruling, you can then file for official sanctions on the Vandal Banning page, provided you cite evidence of the breach, as well as a link to the arbitration ruling in question (These will usually be found in the Arbitration Archives), and a paragraph or so detailing how the offending comment breached the arbitration ruling. If it is judged to be a violation by a sysop, the offender may receive a warning or banning, depending on the terms of the ruling, and on how many warnings/bannings the user has received previously.

Voting Section

For

  1. This policy is not attempting to be a Civility Policy, it is establishing the reverse bookend of such a policy and I support it. 'arm. 10:08, 26 September 2007 (BST)
  2. Yup. (damn Edit conflicts!)Not perfect, of course, but worthwhile and helpfull noetheless.--Seventythree 10:08, 26 September 2007 (BST)
  3. Because... --The Grimch U! E! 10:25, 26 September 2007 (BST)
  4. A step in the right direction --Pavluk A! E! 10:59, 26 September 2007 (BST)
  5. This is where it should be at. The complaints that I see are the "Thing that are Allowed" section is somehow too broad and far-reaching. But how can this be so? In Western Democratic societies today, you already have the right to express yourself. The only limitations there are, are imposed by the culture and society of where one lives. In other words, it is up to the community to police itself - not a couple of peace officers (moderators). If one can speak freely on the street, why can't one speak freely on this online community? Surely "Hate Speech" is something that many of us find unacceptable - but it is up to us to act on such things and ensure that the transgressor knows that the majority find it inappropriate - and if need be to follow-up with sanctions (arbitration, vandal banning) as determined by the community, not some overzealous moderator. For all the things that people say they would like to see changed, more and more I realize that this wiki wants to stay the same. Civilty starts with accepting everyone's right to Free Speech. --Ryiis 14:11, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    • An overzealous moderator is indeed a problem, but no moderator at all is likewise a problem. Any public forum, business meeting, or similar has an established structure for dialogue and consequences when people ignore that. --Pgunn 15:37, 26 September 2007 (BST)
      • That is why we have Arbitrators - so that when a case is brought up where conventional norms are not adhered to, consequences can be made to suit the case. In fact the entire UD Wiki community is, as you say, a moderator in and of itself. I mean, we are already self-governing when it comes to vandals, and we give powers to System Operators (Sysops) to make the changes that need to be made. However, it isn't the sysops job to determine what is right and what is wrong - that's our job as community members. I think that we need to embrace that without generating needless policies on what is deemed civil per se. We are the policy generators everytime we confront someone on their behavior, on their talk page, on the Arbitration page, and as a last resort, the Vandal Banning page. What we need to guarantee is the right to Freedom of Speech, so that communication and debate is not stifled , but welcomed - and we as a community should be the moderators that ensure that that freedom, isn't taken too far. --Ryiis 16:06, 26 September 2007 (BST)
        • There are other types of problem behaviour than vandalism. Free speech doesn't have to be either absolute nor an anarchy. Policies that rule out censure/consequences for people being incredibly incivil without being a vandal hurt the community, partly by legitimising said behaviour and partly by adding momentum to the idea that the harm caused by such problems will never be remedied/prevented. --Pgunn 21:23, 26 September 2007 (BST)
          • I think you need to re-read the Policy in general, and my comments. This policy does not protect people from being uncivil, as there are ways to seek remedy if you feel harrassed or take offense to a comment. What it does is add a certain amount of maturity, by making each individual responsible for confronting people who are being uncivil. If you can't confront someone, or take a harsh rebuke, then you probably shouldn't be on the internet. --Ryiis 15:31, 27 September 2007 (BST)
            • I've been on the internet for a very long time, and can deal with incivility. That doesn't mean that I enjoy it or need to see it as anything but harmful - because I can doesn't mean that I (or anyone else) should have to. There's a difference between being uncivil and rebuking or confronting them - in real life, the latter are generally necessities for dealing with people (unless one is seriously passive-aggressive). One can rebuke and confront in a way that's not incivil though, and demanding civility (or at least having it as an ideal that we're supposed to live up to and one for which we might face consequences if we go too far from it) isn't unreasonable. Reading the policy, the "Things that are allowed" section has, implicit in it, a green light for incivility. It might be possible to understand this in light of "none of these are absolutes" but for that it was introduced by Grim_s, whose stance on civility is well known. The community should not be quick to punish/ban people for incivility, but there should be a clear understanding that it is not acceptable and an expectation that if, after enough warnings, people don't change then they'll eventually be shown the door, even if they arn't rude to the same person enough times for it to be harassment. This is not to say that people can't do or say things that are unpopular, but that they should find a way to be "polite but firm", or at least "civil but firm" while doing them. --Pgunn 16:34, 27 September 2007 (BST)
  6. For pretty much the reason why people are voting against it. This puts an end to civility policies which would only serve to ban users for saying things other users don't like.--Karekmaps?! 21:28, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    There's a big difference between what one says and how one says it. --Pgunn 21:46, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    Not when it comes to a civility policy and even then I still wish to be able to say what I mean how I mean it, if you're hurt by mean words stay off the internet.--Karekmaps?! 22:28, 26 September 2007 (BST)
  7. Very well written and clear, and specifically tries not to squash self-expression. While this may have an initial clog in arbitration, I think that'll decline as policy gets set and reinforced and we get a better feel for what this means. --MorthBabid 10:27, 27 September 2007 (BST)
  8. The community CANNOT restrict it's own rights for Free Speech. Those who abuse this right should be punished, but we should NOT restrict what one can and cannot say with civility policies. This policy helps assure that our right for Free Speech will be always there for us. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:50, 27 September 2007 (BST)
  9. this is a very good policy, I agree The man 15:25, 29 September 2007 (BST)
  10. Freedom of speech is the shiznit. Isn't it our right as Americans?User:ottotorrens 11:10, 9/29/2007 (BST)
    Erm, not everyone is American - did you know that? 'arm. 14:18, 30 September 2007 (BST)
  11. I like this, though I generally thought something to this effect was already in place.--Franz Molotov 19:18, 30 September 2007 (BST)
  12. I've had enough restrictions of rights, no one forces you to read someone else's opinion or statement it is something that grown adults have learned that is either ignored or adsorbed, taken into consideration and a personal judgment is made. If someone says something that you don't want to read, it is simply, don't. there is no need to shield you eyes from reality and no need to prohibit free speech. --Cliss 02:40 1 October 2007 (BST)
  13. It has to be some kind of sick joke that this is even an issue. Yeah, I hate the atmosphere on the wiki, but attempting to regulate speech is onerous on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. "Civility" is too amorphous and subjective to actually enforce. For instance, I find any attempts to regulate free speech to be completely lacking in civility. It doesn't mean I think the people who don't want open expression to be banned. -- Murray Jay Suskind 01:33, 2 October 2007 (BST)
  14. The freedom of speech protections, while appearing to be somewhat confusing, are infinately better than enforced civility. Sir Fred of Etruria 04:03, 2 October 2007 (BST)
  15. For. The rules against vandalism, and encouraging self sensure as opposed to regulated civility makes for a more open and energetic atmosphere. Col. John Maddox 23:12, 2 October 2007 (BST)
    I don't beleive it is necessarily a bad idea. I still am a supporter of a "do unto others" policy, in fact. I would still support the IDEA behind the words. I Vote Loose Interpretation, and move that the discussion should develope further before a decision is made.--FieldDoc 22:10, 3 October 2007 (BST)
  16. Do it already! --Headless gunner W! 06:20, 6 October 2007 (BST)
  17. 'Aye!' Sounds like the best available solution to a difficult problem. --ZEDU medic 07:11, 8 October 2007 (BST)

Against

  1. Civility??? Free speech is all well and good but unless a note on civility is added I will have to vote against! I am not suggesting an outright ban but at the very least a note explaining that the community wants a certain level of civility maintained and having some way to censure those who repeatedly disregard that desire is needed! (things allowed 2. is way too vague to count)--Honestmistake 10:31, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    Well, as its for free speech, I cannot add a section enforcing civility, and i wouldnt even if i could, civility enforced at the point of a sword goes against pretty much everything this wiki is based on. All i can do is encourage people to be civil. And that is done. If you want people to act civil, create something like, maybe, Project Civil, and encourage civility passively rather than trying to enforce it. --The Grimch U! E! 11:21, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    I would second that comment. Enforcing civility is taking it a little too far. At the moment a few of us are trying to work on a guide for new wiki editors UDWiki:A_Guide_for_Newbie_UDWiki_Users I beleive that hagnat started it. Anyway, we are trying to work some comments about civility into it if you want to add your input.--Seventythree 11:31, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    I don't want it enforced and am sometimes guilty myself ;) What i am getting at is the small number of immature morons who make the very worse and utterly offensive comments! Grim can be pretty rude but at least he is usually provoked 1st and thats (mostly) fine. Others however are offensive just for the sake of it and repeated abuse whether directed at the same person or not should not be tolerated! --Honestmistake 12:01, 26 September 2007 (BST)
  2. --  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  11:29, 26 September 2007 (BST)
  3. Re-read this: "1. You are permitted to express yourself and your feelings. 2. You are permitted to use whatever language you like to express those feelings, though it is preferred that users show others the same respect they would wish to be shown in return. 3. You are permitted to express your feelings towards another user".... Feelings, nothing more than feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.... Uhmmm, yeah... the quoted section alone demonstrates how sloppy this "policy" is. Actually, it's a big improvement from the original draft... But, really, this doesn't actually protect freedom of speech in any way even approaching the letter or the spirit of, say, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the First Amendment. Rather, it's a sloppy, touchy feely thing that allows you to "express you feelings"... which means the wiki is to be either a big happy group therapy session -- or, more likely, this is a cleverly shielded rationalisation for bullying and general asshattery... Thus... naaah tanx... --WanYao 11:57, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    Oh grow up. The term feeling was used because the term "opinions" carries a neutralish bland unemotional term. If people want to express themselves, they should be able to, hence the use of the word feeling. If you had a better word, it was up for discussion for two weeks, you could have suggested an alternative there. If people want to be offensive, that is their choice, only they shouldnt expect to be treated kindly in return. And i dont live in the US, so ive never read those two documents you so thoughtfully mentioned. Besides, there is the process mentioned before to curb the excesses. Of course, if you want to pick a policy to pieces just by focusing on one aspect of it, without taking into account how it fits into the policy as a whole, i cannot prevent you from making yourself look like a fool out of your own ignorance. --The Grimch U! E! 13:52, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    Blah blah blah... I grew effen tired of the drama and the pointlessness of all this. And I discussed the whole free speech / civility issue to DEATH in the various proposal stages -- I have little further to add. Those who followed everything leading up to this (including, I thought, you, yourself) ought to be well aware of my position. If one is not so aware, that's not my problem.... Also, I don't live in the US, but I thought every educated person in the English speaking world (and non-English, too) was familiar with the US First Amendment, hmph, curious... And the Charter is Canadian ftr, but I don't expect you know that, though, if it was important enough for you to cite your ignorance of, there is the wikipedia... However, this is just one example of you being... well... you... just because I think your policy and the motivations behind it suck ass, and you don't like that idea. Poor you. --WanYao 00:34, 3 October 2007 (BST)
  4. It's the "Things Allowed" section that killed this for me. I thought that was a decent portion of the problem, not just something to be preferred. --Kikashie ELT 11:58, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    There are methods provided in the policy to deal with the excesses. As WanYao, you failed to take that section as part of the policy as a whole, focusing on one of teh more minor aspects at the expense of the major ones. --The Grimch U! E! 13:58, 27 September 2007 (BST)
  5. Same reasons as above, the "Things Allowed" section is just too broad and would formally permit all kinds of nastiness like racist speech or sexual harassment. People will say "just use arbitration to fix those things" but there's problems with that. Arbitration causes a lot of unnecessary trouble, and it's often seen as being an attack on another user or an escalation of conflict. Arbitration is also a poor solution for users who don't follow wiki dramas closely enough to know who is a good choice to pick as arbiter, and if you pick a bad/biased arbiter, you won't get a fair hearing. This means newbies in particular don't receive adequate protection through arbitration. --Toejam 13:00, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    It would have been ever so nice if you had mentioned hate speech on the talk page during the two weeks it was up for discussion. Perhaps you could propose something to fix those problems you see in arbitration? --The Grimch U! E! 13:58, 27 September 2007 (BST)
  6. "Things Allowed" section too overbroad --~~~~ [talk] 13:09, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    Read it in the context of the whole policy, please, instead of nitpicking. --The Grimch U! E! 13:58, 27 September 2007 (BST)
  7. Having a "things allowed" section implies that it is the group conscience of this wiki that grants these things, rather than simply recognizing them as inherent rights of wiki users. Does a wiki vote have the power to revoke the right to express feelings, etc.? This policy implies that, yes indeed, it does. --Nosimplehiway 13:40, 26 September 2007 (BST)
  8. Nay. Undermines the ability of the community to demand civility. --Pgunn 14:13, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    Civility should be encouraged, not enforced at the point of a sword. To put it most bluntly, to demand one thing, and expect everyone to hold to that standard, even though things have worked just fine without that standard being enforced for more than two years is like blanket enforcing a single ideology upon a population of many views, and demanding they take that they support that ideology, or suffer. It is tyranny. Pure and simple. Also, this policy, as written, doesnt prohibit any future civility policies, i havent the foggiest what you meant by "undermines the ability to demand". --The Grimch U! E! 23:17, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    • If it is tyranny, it is tyranny that most places and circumstances in the adult world have. The recent push for civility is based on recognising that there's a problem, a problem that you and some other users are part of. If we must have anarchy and suffer people whose words drip with contempt and bile in order to preserve free speech as an absolute, even when there are plenty of other ways to phrase those same ideas without looking like a jerk, or allow the community some slice of what you'd call tyranny in order to keep things from getting out of hand, I'll take the latter any day. I hope that I am not alone in this - if every forum, every discussion, every workplace in the world embraced "I can be a dick because of Free Speech", we'd be living in a much sadder world. --Pgunn 05:23, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    • But people *are* allowed to be uncivil in all those places - they can be routinely sarcastic, dismissive, disparaging, short, haughty.. the list goes on. I talk to and work with people who are distastefully rude occasionally - it's the tone, not the words which make them uncivil. Why do people often act civil in society? Because the community of people in they are interacting with would impose social punishments on those people. This policy is not attempting to be a Civility Policy, it is establishing the reverse bookend of such a policy. 'arm. 14:11, 27 September 2007 (BST)
      • Tone can lead to incivility, but it's not the only factor - if someone makes sure to use the word "fool" or "idiot" in every sentence they say to someone over email, they're still generally being incivil even absent possibility of having a tone of voice. I'm not sure where you work, but in the places I've worked that kind of behaviour would lead to people being shunned from the start and eventually they'd be shown the door. Being forced to cut it out or leave is a social punishment too, or if you want to define things another way, there are more than just social consequences for being incivil in most places. --Pgunn 14:37, 27 September 2007 (BST)
  9. The Slander/Libel section needs a rewording from scratch. It still mentions both A/A and A/VB as the reporting place, contradicting itself. Also, I still think that it's designed to protect certains wiki editing style over some others, read "Grim usual style when dealing with people" over "people he deals with". This is by no means something bad, but leaves a good space for manipulation of the rules, making the differences between those that know their ways around the wiki and those who don't even greater. Then, what everyone said above. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 14:19, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    Dont have time for much, but ill answer you this: It says arbitration for dealing with most of it. The only part it says vandal banning is when someone uses evidence that has already been debunked, and the reason i gave when i told you this on the talk page was that doing ao is merely an attempt to start drama, rather than prove a case. I believe your comment quite nicely fits the definition of CNR --The Grimch U! E! 23:10, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    If your going to answer then answer to all the concerns, don't just selectively aim at the most convenient for you. Your policy quite nicely fits the definition of rejected as well. Touché =). --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 00:05, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    I can't believe you try and pass yourself off as civil, Matt. Veiled insults are insults nonetheless. Those smilies you put at the end of your comebacks are simply icing on the cake. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 05:39, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    I have this antagonistic relation with Grim and I consider it fun to taunt him the same he taunts me: he can't feel more insulted by my comments that how I did when he said I was CNR. I don't think any of us is childish enough to take these things personal, not when there are no real insults to account for. Also, I have proven that I can work with him towards some goal on this page talk page, so I don't know what else are you asking me to do. About my smileys, I'm just fond of including them on my comments: you can see them on completely friendly comments directed towards boxy as well as this ones... there's no "secret purpose of demeaning" behind them =P. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:49, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    Suuure. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 05:53, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    What happened to your "I changed yet again, promote me" attitude? Gone by the wind? You're so transparent, it's almost unfair. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 15:35, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    I didn't say I would be unfailingly polite (something you don't achieve either), only that I would keep it in check. By not flying off the handle here and frothing obscenities, I believe I'm achieving that goal. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:03, 28 September 2007 (BST)
    I notice that you were so caught up in your antagonism that you forgot to provide a rebuttal. Care to do so? --The Grimch U! E! 13:40, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    You still didn't rebut all my arguments above, so tell me why I'm forced to do so and you're not? The whole slander/libel section is a real mess, using a really convoluted system for taking care of an almost unexistant problem (in game conduct accusations are rare and far between). I'm very concerned on how would a policy like this be abused on suburb reports, on group pages... I can't say that it's a real problem what it addresses, but there are quite a lot of problems that it will cause. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 15:25, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    How would this policy be abused? By pure definition, Slander and Libel only relate to when you are making reference to another person. If I were to say that you are a liar, than that would be slander unless I could prove otherwise. This has nothing to do with the suburb pages or the group pages - it has to do with the right to not be defamed unless someone has evidence to the contrary --Ryiis 15:41, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    Addendum: Matt, please read this defintion: Slander - 1. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation ; 2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone . --Ryiis 15:44, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    Also, it applies only to in game activities (It is clearly said in the policy in question). This cannot be abused. If it can, please provide an example case. Be as whacked out as you need to be to do so. --The Grimch U! E! 15:49, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    Edit conflict. The problem resides on these very definitions: suburb news reports are constantly used in bordering POV ways, and group pages have "enemy" lists with reports of guys PKing or doing something that may or may not be considered false and defamatory by the target user. As far as I know, saying on a report or group page that "X zombie group have been seen using death cultists", if the group in reality doesn't support it, could end up in some kind of "argument/counterargument" war, until we reach the "you have to post evidence" stage that this policy requests. Then, we have to define what is evidence enough, what is debunked evidence... the policy doesn't even request a third unbiased party if the conditions are right. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 15:56, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    Also, this is my last edit here: your policy is so full of holes as you can see by looking at everyone's different concerns, that aiming at covering some just doesn't cut it. Also, you, as always, choose to attack someone's arguments in the most cheap ways ever, like you are doing now when ignoring all concern but those that you know can rebut somehow, and then asking me to back up my words again and again when you barely even try to do the same and insult me between lines. Discussing with you is as productive as talking to walls, but less amusing. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 16:05, 27 September 2007 (BST)
  10. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 14:20, 26 September 2007 (BST)
  11. It looks better than the drafts, but it's just prettied up. Harassment I'm assuming is covered in a different policy since there's no definition and alludes to a matter of fact process for handling it. Slander/libel has little to do with civility. You're using legal language to really just establish rules of order. Of course someone who actually backs up a position with evidence is going to come across better than someone casting baseless charges, but to make a policy about this is promoting reason not civility. There are plenty of well spoken, or eloquent morons out there. The matter re: personal details is a privacy matter, and should be an independent policy. Spam, again, should be a policy in itself. Threats regarding real life, the example I saw "Let's go bash his keyboard" was ludicrous. Someone saying in a heated exchange "damnit, I'd slap you upside the head" is not a credible threat, so as written this policy treats namby-pamby freakouts the same as actual threats of harm to someone, and that's just silly nanny-ism. In short, you have a bloated wannabe omnibus speech code that just won't cut the mustard with the bulk of users.--The Envoy 14:54, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    Harrassment is not defined for a very good reason. The fact is that harrassment is entirely subjective, and thus any attempt to objectively define the limits of harrassment is doomed to fail from the very start. It instead refers to perceived harrassment, rather than concrete harrassment to allow for the subjective nature of harrassment. If people feel thay are being harrassed, it tells them how to deal with their problem (The three step process, talk page, arbitration, and possibly vandal banning if arb sanctions are leveled). As for the rest, the spam thing is not really in the guidelines, rather it is spread through precident instead, and it is very hard for a newer user to find and know all these old rpecidents. Putting it in a policy just makes sense, for getting the information out there for all users. And the threats regarding real life is not inspired regarding anything here, it is instead basically saying that you cant threaten another person with action outside the community here. Sysops can easily seperate true jest from genuine threats anyway, but truth be told, such threats should not be made at all, jest or no. --The Grimch U! E! 13:46, 27 September 2007 (BST)
  12. there are those who would use this policy to do and say the various things that are NOT protected by the 1st... just no. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 16:06, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    And they would be dealt with through arbitration. Your point? --The Grimch U! E! 14:57, 27 September 2007 (BST)
  13. Everyone else said what I would have, except for six words - Go fuck yourself and die.--Wooty 16:12, 26 September 2007 (BST)
    • Ahhh, Freedom of Speech in action, good to see --Ryiis 16:58, 26 September 2007 (BST)
      • Hang on thats only 5! May dung beetles eat your eyes you innumerate son of a camel!!!!--Honestmistake 23:20, 26 September 2007 (BST)
  14. Its a shame that we have to resort to things like this.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:33, 26 September 2007 (BST)
  15. As Conndraka, just opens up a "well this policy said I could" mess--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 18:35, 26 September 2007 (BST)
  16. --User:Axe27/Sig 02:21, 27 September 2007 (BST)
  17. The libel/slander clause would just clog up arbitration and add more drama. Most of the other stuff in this draft is covered by other rules and rulings in VB. --Zod Rhombus 06:00, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    CNR. From the section explaining Slander/Libel: "This does not, however, cover general abusiveness, only accusations regarding ones in game conduct." (Section bolded). Accusations of zerging are few and far between, and quite quickly wrapped up in the most recent case with Extinction confessing to it on their forums. And whats wrong with having the stuff that is only covered by rulings covered in a policy as well? At least with a policy, people dont need to crawl through huge and incomplete libraries of cases just to find out if there ahs beena ruling on something before. --The Grimch U! E! 11:21, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    I know exactly what I read. How much drama is added on the wiki directly from in-game actions? Alot. I know this from our CDF/LCD confrontations in the past. "In-game conduct" is waaay broad. Many times I would post screenshots of Jjamesfaxi stuff, only to have everyone accuse them of being photoshopped, et al. I still think this is a drama-magnet, hence my vote. I understand your view and do think there is a need for some policy so no one has to dig through old cases, but this just isn't it IMHO. --Zod Rhombus 00:37, 28 September 2007 (BST)
  18. Extraneous rules lawyering, wiki flamewars are inevitable. Johnny Lunchpail 18:27, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    What? Did/do you realize the argument that you are making? Obviously CNR amirite? --Ryiis 18:32, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    Yes I read it but I have a realistic grasp of the futility of this policy Johnny Lunchpail 01:52, 28 September 2007 (BST)
  19. I disagree with limitations of slander. Slander should be allowed as long as it is not presented as fact in a wiki article. In talk and user pages it should be ok. --Roger Thirnell 19:24, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    The rules on slander/libel only affect in game play. If you can provide evidence to support a claim (Screenshot for example), then you can prove the claim and it isnt slander/libel. If its presented as an opinion, it is clearly not either, because it isnt being provided as a fact. --The Grimch U! E! 21:19, 27 September 2007 (BST)
  20. While I like the policy, I think I would rather that the current policy in the wiki (aka, NONE) suffices. There is no need for regulations. And I will be voting Kill on all Civility policies as well.--ShadowScope 23:11, 27 September 2007 (BST)
  21. Senseless spam is not part of free speech indeed! This is spam! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:08, 28 September 2007 (BST)
  22. Reactionary codification of existing non written wiki rules.--Vow 01:15, 28 September 2007 (BST)
  23. It ceases to be "free speech" and becomes "allowed speech." It either exists in its entirety, or not at all. --Goolina Gore Corps 07:48, 28 September 2007 (BST)
  24. ^ --Labine50 MEMS | MHG 07:46, 29 September 2007 (BST)
  25. Strongly Against -- "Spam - Senseless spam is not part of free speech. It stifles it. Spam is defined as the repeat posting of contentless posts that are either the same or similar. Repeat being up to the sysops who are on at the time." Fucking slay, cremate, and bury this policy in concrete-for most of the reasons above, and particularly what I quoted. What sysops are on at the time can vary wildly--this leaves a HUGE fucking hole. I do not trust grim's judgment, and I'm not sure on how other sysops would stand (auto-side with grim, quaver until he coerces them, judge independently?), and, as much as I loathe him for being a bellicose, opinionated, loudmouth prick, he seems to have a forceful, if not powerful, personality. As stated before, this policy, and particularly the spam clause, is far too open to interpretation by limited number sysops, one of which is grim himself, and generally unsatisfactory given past inconsistencies in judgement. It also fails to address what is considered "contentless." Nice loophole, does it fit camels? While I generally disfavor speech control policies, coming from grim, this seems like a transparent way for him, and other wiki-pyros, to shield aggressive and belligerent attacks via wikilawyering, as Vow said. The wiki is for info dissemination and improvements to UD--nothing on here is meant to be anyones' personal venting grounds or virtual shooting range (even user pages have their limits), nor should it be officiated as such. If you want completely free speech, join a no-rules forum, or /b/. We don't need any variety of flaming or flamebating, or rules that protect perpetrators; if you can't manage to communicate without constantly reverting to ad hominem attacks and quarrelsome, vitriolic, useless remarks, you have a problem that we shouldn't have to deal with and therefore don't belong here. --Slightly Lions 11:41, 29 September 2007 (BST)
  26. Awfully transparent attempt to regulate things a few oppose, while spitting in the faces of the people who are nauseated by the toxic atmosphere around here. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 23:03, 29 September 2007 (BST)
  27. Against. This wiki is gonna change for the better sooner or later no matter how much you guys don't want it to. If ya want to be douche bags to each other do it on your wiki forum not on a resource the UD community has to use learn about the game.--Kristi of the Dead 02:38, 1 October 2007 (BST)
  28. Against. A proposal to legalize flaming and idiocy in perpetuity? I'm strongly tempted to use just the kind of language that this is meant to allow, in showing how moronic it is, but I'm better than that. --MeatHead 21:11, 1 October 2007 (BST)
  29. Against.I generally believe in the community's ability to self-regulate. The proposal would weaken the community's ability by empowering any idiot claiming "free speech" to use levels of rudeness, vulgarity, and flaming that far exceed a level acceptable to the rest of the general community. I don't think anyone who merely has a minority opinion needs to fear having his voice silenced by the general population; in fact, I think there will always be people ready to defend someone's right to express almost any opposing viewpoint. The community is not well served by a rule that prohibits the community from setting standards and expectations. Basically, this proposal is asking for my permission for someone to abuse me. Well, no, I don't give that permission. --O'Hallorhan 21:51, 1 October 2007 (BST)
    Well, you certainly didnt read it before voting. What you wanted is exactly waht this policy does. This policy merely formalises the current state of affairs, places into policy a couple of existing precidents, and clearly demonstrates what people should do to deal with problems (Its the existing method too). Sheesh... --The Grimch U! E! 21:58, 1 October 2007 (BST)
    no what this policy does if justify abuse by claiming it as a right of free expression. half a line pointing out that "civility" is preferred does not reflect the majority of users preference at all, what we want is needless abuse toned down!--Honestmistake 09:26, 2 October 2007 (BST)
    Exactly. --O'Hallorhan 15:57, 2 October 2007 (BST)
    Yes, and you obviously ignored the second half of the policy that puts into place clear and easy to follow methods for people to deal with that abuse. But no, please go on living in your happy la-la land. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 16:06, 2 October 2007 (BST)
    Why don't you leave happy la-la land and start accepting reality yourself? So many people pointed so many errors and undesirable effects of this policy, and yet you try to argue with them and change their mind when the policy is obviously going to be rejected. CNR? Why, instead of rampaging through the Against votes just because they're against, don't you deal with the fake assumptions and mistakes the For votes have to offer? because I don't think half of these readed the policy beyond the misleading title you gave to it. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 16:34, 2 October 2007 (BST)
    Many of us hate the Civility Policies as well as this policy.--ShadowScope 19:14, 2 October 2007 (BST)
    Yup, but mostly cos they go waay too far! I think what we need is a strongly worded statement that reflects how strongly most of us object to pointless posturing and rudeness without actually banning it. Its already against the rules as it is not often possible to defend it as a good faith edit. A rigid civility rule would be as bad as the "Fuck-it; Troll as much as you want!" ruling that this would be. --Honestmistake 19:24, 2 October 2007 (BST)
    Why do i argue? because in a great many cases the votes show an ignorance of what the policy actually does. In many of these cases it is clear the the people are voting not against the policy itself, but against the person proposing it. My hope is that if those positions are shown to be invalid, they may at the very least put a sensible justification behind it. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 19:40, 2 October 2007 (BST)
    Well, that may be your intent Grimch, but when I read a vote tally, and vote rationales are as overcommented as you've done, my instinct is "this policy really ought to have had more time in discussion before coming up to a vote" and I vote "against" the mess. If you're trying to argue for the "for" votes, you're actually doing the side a disservice. And there is no evidence that the voting here is "against the person". No one has voted based on personality here. Your arguments have been repetitive, and as pointed out, cherry picked. You are not a guardian of reasoned discourse here. There's no point in commenting on votes except as discussion bait. If you want to reason with people take it to their talk page. It would be a step in putting civil discussion into practice on this wiki.--The Envoy 22:55, 2 October 2007 (BST)
    2 weeks is the maximum discussion time allowed for a policy proposal. I left it on the page for that time. Conversation died off and i trued to restart it twice before this went to voting. I gave it every single chance at discussion. Also, If you look at the objections to this, there are so many that have obviously not read the policy that its laughable. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:48, 3 October 2007 (BST)
    Your comments just prove the Envoy's points. "Every single chance at discussion" goes far beyond what you did, and you still prove how closed you are to other people's arguments when you say that most did not read your policy and that you laugh at them. Why trying so hard if you don't believe in the community anyways? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:13, 3 October 2007 (BST)
    Look up laughable in the dictionary. It was used in exactly the same manner as the word "ludicrous", and with the same meaning (Seeing as how they are synonyms). --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:28, 3 October 2007 (BST)
    Grimch, you're taking this vote far too personally. Your discussion here aren't even on the policy anymore, but little pedantic denotation/connotation arguments with Matthew. What ever your Funkin' Wagnell's sez laughable means, we all know you were implying the voters, your peers mind you, are worthy of your derision, contemptuous laughter. <sacrasm> Of course it's not you, it's them. That attitude always gets policy passed here. </sarcasm> Save yourself from further embarassment. You're not going to win this vote, and by carrying on in the fashion you are, you're only hurting your peers' estimation of you. I've already written you off as a loon, I'm sure others have too. And that's all I have for this discussion disguised as an vote.--The Envoy 04:14, 3 October 2007 (BST)
    Free Speech is fun, isn't it?--ShadowScope 17:43, 3 October 2007 (BST)
    And i left comment on the talk page to avoid SPAMMING this one ;) --Honestmistake 21:37, 3 October 2007 (BST)
  30. Please beg, borrow, or steal a clue as to what the terms "slander" and "libel" actually mean, rather than making up your own (wrong) definitions. --Centerfire 10:27, 7 October 2007 (BST)
    Because the definitions i pulled off dictionary.com are my fiction. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 20:41, 7 October 2007 (BST)
  31. No offense Grim, but dictionary.com is a joke. Half the paper dictionaries sold are a joke, including some "reputable" labels. There are legal dictionaries, and even some good ones. Ask Akule, or message me on my home page and I'll dig the definitions out, I have a Black's Law Dictionary around here somewhere, and the Oxford English Dictionary rarely let's me down even on specialty or dialect issues. The notion of addressing harassment on the harasser's homepage (even assuming there is one) is grossly, even farcically, inadequate, and trouble waiting to happen. The only "virtue" is, it's a lot less work for administrator types (until it erupts into vandalism). Finally, any policy that fails to address profanity and insults is rightly doomed, and we probably need to make distinctions on where NPOV vs. POV vs. outright role-play fall vis a vis same. Depending on where I write as Dylan Mak Tyme on this wiki, it is assumed that I am writing as a reporter of fact, or as a position advocate, or as a character in a role-play game. Profanity may even be appropriate for a character in an adult RPG (which this is not), but not under normal circumstances for a reporter or an advocate. Contentless also needs definition. And a lot of speech that has content has inappropriate, off-topic, and/or offensive content. This wiki is a game wiki to support Urban Dead, and its policies should promote Urban Dead and protect Kevan Davis more than define an ideal classical liberal position. --Dylan Mak Tyme 00:39, 10 October 2007 (BST)
  32. NO: mostly because of what i just wasted my time reading...see all above----Sexualharrison ה •QSG•TStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 14:05, 11 October 2007 (BST)


Voting fails, 17-32. Archiving. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:08, 12 October 2007 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Free_Speech&oldid=969509"