UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Group Page Policy

This is the discussion page for the Group Page Policy I wish to have enacted. Any questions, place them here. --AegisTyra 00:01 26th November, 2009 (GMT)

lol --Haliman - Talk 00:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi.-- SA 00:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't be doing this TIC stuff around people who obviously have a problem reading tone from text, SA? They tend to take what you say on face value -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:03 26 November 2009 (BST)

I noticed that too mr. box. I forget that not everyone uses diff links to check comments. :/ -- SA 04:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that the "ban-worthy" behavior that you speak of--zerging, text abuse, etc.--cannot actually get you banned from playing the actual game. Because as Kevan covers in the FAQ:

Kevan said:

How do I report game abuse or zerging? You don't. A number of automated detection systems and countermeasures are already in place, and time is better spent on improving those systems, rather than carefully investigating reports and screenshots (and all reports would have to be investigated at length, given that any of them could be easily-faked attempts to get innocent characters banned).

Are they horrible things that people frown upon? You bet. But issues of truth and legitimacy are very large gray issues. I would advise you to simply ignore any such things directed at you because if it's on a group page, odds are that the only people who will see it is people in that group anyways. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah Cyberbob  Talk  00:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Let this policy die. Groups should have the right to say whatever the hell they want. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Holy fuckballs. TZH calls you some names and now you want to dictate what groups can put on their own pages? Get bent! --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 00:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree to an extent that there should be a certain level of censorship, and decentsy, but at that,... take a little trash talk like a man, or get the hell out of the way. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 00:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Butthurt user is butthurt--Orange Talk 00:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, if a group creates a page insulting you, the correct response is to make a page insulting them. --ZsL 04:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

While we're here

Given everyone will probably read this abortion of a policy it might as well be put to some use. Would anyone be against a policy removing the NPOV section from policy regarding group pages? It's only used now as a deliberate tool by opposing groups to cause drama, can you imagine the drama that would have kicked off if anyone had insisted on a NPOV section for The Dead? Thoughts? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually that's how they came to have a page in the first place. So that people could read about what this huge (and I mean HUGE) new zombie army was, that suddenly turned up out of no where. NPOV sections serve a purpose, other than drama creation. It's a small section where readers can be informed that their may be more to it than what is placed on the page by the group itself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:49 26 November 2009 (BST)

Part of that drama would be something else I'd move to remove, whilst groups are entitled to a page on this wiki, I'd have the updated policy codify that they are just as entitled to not have a page and have no-one steal their links as Conndraka was doing. Both the NPOV section and the "you must have a page" mentality cause more drama and disruption that is orders of magnitude greater than any apparent benefit. I mean, where can you draw the line in NPOV? Surely the Malton Marshalls should have a NPOV section that says "This group kills other living players, but claims to be punishing those that they perceive as committing crimes", you know, the exact same thing that could apply to the Philosophe Knights. The massive lot of vandalism and drama that such instances could create seems completely unnecessary. I'd move for a complete removal of such possibilities for abuse. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly be interested in a change to policy along those lines, but I would like to read it first. Write something up, and I'll be there. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 04:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)