UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Text Rape
Cut the weird and not entirely accurate clause about UK law and this is s a good policy.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think in terms of flow it's probably best just not to mention UK law because it isn't relevant. :P --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Noted Gordon 00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
This would still go to A/VB and the punishment is just insta-perma ban if the case is ruled vandalism. Correct? 03:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
hmm
trying to mind my business so no one will snipe at me ...but this is sort of a big deal that every wiki user / UD player should be involved ... if someone is "text raping" in-character against another in-character wiki user/account, a text-rape policy shouldn't be implemented. if someone is "text raping" out of character, threatening to rape the person behind a character, then that is unacceptable. if someone wants to be a Malton (text) rapist & pretend to (text) rape Malton citizens, that should be allowed/accepted. if that rapist talks about (text) raping your character (not you irl) on this wiki, it's inappropriate but shouldn't be against any rule/policy. maybe someone should create a text-rape hotline (group forum) for text-rape victims... →Son of Sin← 00:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- People can do whatever they want in game, it is the wiki that is being mentioned I beleive aka recent Arb case. Also your support of rape in general is noted.--Rapture 00:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- i support people text-raping on this wiki while they are in-character. Rotting Joe Cochrane seemed to be in-character ...he/she didn't fabricate any personal threats against Carrie Cutter or Sister Rita ...but Joe did vandalize both of their pages. vandalism should be the only issue in this case ...not the text-rape. →Son of Sin← 01:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Srsly? Not 'I believe it's their freedom' or 'I tolerate', but you actually support text-rape? --Kirsty Cotton Org XIII 01:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- yes, i support inappropriate "texting" ..."text-rape" is entertaining & significant for role-playing ...imagine how boring games would be if people didn't say rude, vulgar, disrespectful, derogatory, etc things to other people ...maybe Joe wants a reputation for text-raping "female" characters in-game, on the wiki, on UD-related forums ...Joe shouldn't have been banned for role-playing ...fantasy is part of the game ...Joe raped & killed a couple women in Malton & wanted to showcase outside of the game itself ...i never knew so many men were feminists... →Son of Sin← 03:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Srsly? Not 'I believe it's their freedom' or 'I tolerate', but you actually support text-rape? --Kirsty Cotton Org XIII 01:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- i support people text-raping on this wiki while they are in-character. Rotting Joe Cochrane seemed to be in-character ...he/she didn't fabricate any personal threats against Carrie Cutter or Sister Rita ...but Joe did vandalize both of their pages. vandalism should be the only issue in this case ...not the text-rape. →Son of Sin← 01:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- People can do whatever they want in game, it is the wiki that is being mentioned I beleive aka recent Arb case. Also your support of rape in general is noted.--Rapture 00:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
What is the definition of wiki-rape
Would there be one , or is it left to the discretion of the active sysops at the time on a case per case basis.--Rapture 00:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see your point. Initially I had thought it would be obvious when something was grossly offensive. Would you have a suggested definition? Gordon 00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I don't really - My question is the same as TZH's was when RFKZombieKiller was Ignore Listed on the RG for singing a rap verse that indicated "Inappropriate touching" to some degree (Yes it happened in game and the wiki always seems more sanitized than the actual game itself) but I think there should be a clear definition of what the community\ops expects the "Crime" to be as opposed to the whim of the wikisysops at the time. While the wiki is completely different to the ingame text and its very easy to contact an "Involved party" (via the wiki account that made the comment) I guess I don't want to see UserX being banned as he isn't "liked" by sysops opposed to UserB getting a slap on the wrist simply as he has wikisysops favour despite them saying the same thing, simply due to issues that the Rogues Gallery Ignore list always faced. I hope that makes sense.--Rapture 01:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
