UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Stop Making Stupid Policies

Punishments TBD

I haven't decided if making a stupid policy should immediately result in banning or considered vandalism.--Jorm 16:51, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Wtf? I thought you were joking. --  AHLGTG THE END IS ACTUALLY NIGH! 16:51, 19 May 2008 (BST)

I never joke when it comes to the stupidity of my fellow man.--Jorm 16:59, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Please tell me this is serious. Otherwise I'll probably cry.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 18:11, 19 May 2008 (BST)

I'm a bit worried. If this policy passes against stupid policies, then it is implemented, if this in itself counts as a stupid policy and is removed as such then it will not exist as it is removed, then there will be no grounds to ban it on, but as a stupid policy it will be removed..... And the wiki will dissapear.....--Seventythree^Talk 23:10, 19 May 2008 (BST)

GMTA--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:11, 19 May 2008 (BST)

You have uncovered my master plan.--Jorm 01:18, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Your sir, are more devious than I. I'd like to harvest your brain for research, if you please. --  AHLGTG THE END IS ACTUALLY NIGH! 01:20, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Ahah!!! No, it won't, due to the wikipedia clause "ignore the rules". If the rule involves making UDWiki explode, the fabric of the universe itself will ignore it, rendering it NULL and VOID. --BoboTalkClown 21:47, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I vote vandalism. Making a stupid policy shouldn't deserve much more than a slap on the wrist and a reminder to stop being a moron, with perhaps escalating penalties for people who repeatedly make stupid policies. --Colbear 00:00, 20 May 2008 (BST)

24 hour ban. You need a "time out" to think about all of the evil you have created by your stupidity and to ask for forgiveness. Besides, if the punishment is more than a slap on the wrist maybe people will put more effort into their stupid policies rather than things like "Girls can't use the internets LOLZ"--– Nubis 22:28, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Define

I like the policy, but could you define "stupid". Perhaps we could have a council of four or so trusted users that decide of policies are "stupid" or not.--Thekooks 18:43, 19 May 2008 (BST)

I say we just have Jorm decide. He has a good track record with these things.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 18:45, 19 May 2008 (BST)

No, no. Clearly, we need to agree on an outside source to provide our measure for stupidity. However, we need to remain acutely aware of the wide cultural variances regarding how "stupidity" is perceived... --Morgan Blair 19:05, 19 May 2008 (BST)

No, no, no!! Leave it to AnimeSucks' 8ball... !8ball !8ball ... DECIDE! --WanYao 20:09, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Lets find out

Plutonian 8ball

<AnimeIsGay> !8ball is Jorm's policy stupid? * AnimeSucks communes with Pluto, shakes his 8 ball, and says..."Not even on a GOOD day."

Woohoo! Vagueness!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:06, 19 May 2008 (BST)

It will be a difficult challenge, but I think I'm up for calling people stupid from time to time.--Jorm 21:29, 19 May 2008 (BST)

I might be going out on a limb here, but does this policy have something to do with the proposed tolerance policy? ;) --ZsL 21:36, 19 May 2008 (BST)

LOLWUT!?

I lol'ed... and agreed....--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 18:55, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Lolwut? indeed. This policy cancels itself out. It has mah vote! --  AHLGTG THE END IS ACTUALLY NIGH! 21:24, 19 May 2008 (BST)

But once this goes to voting, won't it affect the space time continuum should it pass? The whole world, reality as we know it may cease to exist! This will be paradox of epic proportion! Quick, someone build a time machine to go back in time, and stop Jorm from making this policy!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:09, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Paradox Policy

Correct me if I am wrong (and forgive me if this sounds confusing), but if this policy is indeed designed to prevent stupid polices and includes itself on the list of stupid policies, there would be no way this policy could actually pass because it would be automatically canceled by preventing itself from passing due to it being classified as being a stupid policy. Also, if you made banning as a punishment, wouldn't you be banned because you made this policy and were including this policy in the list of stupid policies to be prevented? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:33, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Wrong. Unless you included a grandfather clause, the policy would come into effect after it was passed. And would affect only policies coming after it passed, not before. There is no "simultaneity", ergo no paradox. And you wanna be a lawyer, sheeeeeesh man... ;P WanYao 23:42, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Except for the fact that it expressly forbids a user to write itself, which when it came into effect, it would be in essence, forbidden, thus a moot policy. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:50, 19 May 2008 (BST)

This is in spite of the sentence which reads, "Including this one". Because, in spite of implied intent to the contrary, the policy would be passed before this sentence comes into effect. Therefore what would likely happen is that space-time, or at least the wiki, would implode upon itself... Or, perhaps, create a momentary wormhole which would suck it inside... Same thing, ultimately. And, in either case, probably a good thing. WanYao 23:47, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Needs Something

I really like this policy, but exactly how does one quantify "stupid"? It needs a section on what determines if a policy is stupid, like if the policy proposer is the one single person defending it on the talk page, or if it's proposed by Hagnat. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 01:01, 20 May 2008 (BST)

I know, greatest policy evar. A good question on how to define a stupid policy. We can start with this one, so that's one down... --  AHLGTG THE END IS ACTUALLY NIGH! 01:14, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Made Some Edits

I did some looking and found that there is no rule expressly forbidding a policy from enforcing any kind of contingency-upon-failure effects, and thus I have added one.--Jorm 01:23, 20 May 2008 (BST)

It's a policy discussion not an escape plan. What if everyone votes Abstain? --– Nubis 09:44, 20 May 2008 (BST)

then it wouldn't pass... --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 10:32, 20 May 2008 (BST)

But logic dictates that if it doesn't pass, that it is null and void, and has no effect upon the policies of this here fine Urban Dead Wiki. Seriously now -Dawgas 17:27, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Why not change it to something like this?

Any user that willfully creates a policy, suggestion, or submits a page for deletion that would be detrimental to the operation of the wiki and by extension the game Urban Dead shall be banned for 24 hours and their actions immediately reversed or struck. This may include but is not limited to:

• Submitting Administration pages for deletion.
• Submitting suggestions that remove either zombies, humans, landmarks, or suburbs from the game.
• Creating policy which restricts another user's rights to use the wiki. This does not negate the established guide lines for voting (i.e. Sock Puppets) however.

The determination of "detriment" will be if no logical argument can be presented that the policy or action is "good faith" or will result in actions that will benefit the operation of the wiki or the game Urban Dead. This stops policies like Funt's and any other forced civility. This gives you grounds to argue against any unfair meat puppet policy. This will actually make this policy "helpful". And I'll be blunt here. Making a change like this will show if you are really trying to help the wiki like I want to believe or if you are being a jerk and should be banned. --– Nubis 22:14, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Well, see, now you're trying to put bones into my my meta complaint. If I had my druthers, my policy would boil down to "use some fucking common sense and allow other people to use common sense, too". But it is apparently difficult to codify that.--Jorm 01:11, 21 May 2008 (BST)

I know there has been a lot of policies that haven't been favorable for people that have come up recently, but isn't that what a vote is for? to shoot down stupid policies? You may think the policy is stupid, but the person who wrote it obviously doesn't. If you can't monitor tolerance, you can't moderate stupidity. --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:21, 21 May 2008 (BST)

I should also point out that I'm up on vandal charges for effectively saying, "some of you are being stupid. Stop it." I'm perfectly willing to drink the hemlock here if my point gets made.--Jorm 01:17, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Whilst the exact wording of the initial policy of mine that you refer to was forced civility, I attempted to open the discussion up to just a suggestion of civility, using something similar to the Wikipedia guidelines. However, everyone chose to ignore that (completely - go and look) and continue to lambast me. I presume that was simply more fun than considering any sort of civility, even the mere suggestion of it. That any civility on this wiki is considered stupid, is, I think, a shame. One person's common sense is another's idiocy. At the end of the day, any heartfelt policy should be considered - and I'm glad I proposed one regarding civility (or at least, some tempering of open hostility), if only to learn of the bitter reactions against it, and the unwillingness to even explore anything workable along similar lines. But then what do I know, because I'm just stupid. Put me in the box, label it and put it neatly on the shelf. Each and every one of us is such a simple being that we can be easily classified in such a fashion, which makes dealing with each other so much simpler. --Funt Stupid ^QT 20:29, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Get off the fucking cross, we need the wood.--– Nubis 01:39, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Oh! Ha! Oh - that's amazing! That's SO clever, Nubis! I've never heard that before, either (well, apart from the first million times). Yeah, it's original, it's so funny, and, y'know, it's kind of fitting, as well. Yeah, man - you're SO deep. Wow. Can I worship you? --Funt Solo ^QT 09:10, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Jorm, I really hope you get let off the hook in that vandalism case: because I have some fucking stupid policies which I intend to create, ad nauseum, as soon as you're officially in the clear and such a wonderful precedent is set. Of course, despite their gross stupidity, they are completely serious policies that I want to pass - just like you've said yours is. I'm so glad that the sysop team have chilled out since their "deleting deletions isn't funny" days. But then, I dunno, maybe if you'd led that charge it would've been okay, Jorm. What say you turn your attention, full time, to being fucking stupid on this wiki? We really could do with your help, and I think I can speak for stupid people everywhere when I say that we really need an intelligent leader, like you: someone who knows daft from stupid, ridiculous from contemptuous, and left from up. I need to go now: the bell is ringing for our morning pills. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:35, 22 May 2008 (BST)

You seriously, absolutely, completely are missing the point. By a factor of a bazillion miles. I'll point out some possible futures for you and paint it all up in big shiny print, and you see if you can then grasp my point.

It is possible that I get a warning (or even a ban). In which case, your "precedent" about "deleting deletions" holds, and my worst fears are proven right: there is no common sense being applied, whatsoever.

It is possible I am let off the hook entirely (and not because I'm jorm). In which case then we might have a glimmering of the beginnings of a conversation about what it means to not be stupid and to not be led around the nose by hide-bound, overcomplicated red-tape and that we do not have to have arguments about precedents and wiki-lawyering for every. goddamned. thing and thus we might be able to have forward progress.

On the one hand I'm saying that the sysop team should be more responsible. I don't mean in the "do more work" thing, but in the "stop letting the users tell you how to do your job" way.

On the other, I'm saying that the users need to fatten right the fuck up and remember that this is a group of people and not just them and it's not you versus the sysop team and that life is totally not fucking fair and sometimes we make sacrifices with our personal goals because they conflict with the goals of the group and welcome to the fucking concept of "society".

As for everyone who is utterly confused by my entire process, I can only provide the response that I majored in Ancient-Track Greek Philosophy, and the Socratic method is near and dear to my heart.--Jorm 19:34, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Your policy was a textbook example of bombing for peace. It was reactionary flamebait designed to provoke thought and discussion about a serious issue. I voted it not vandalism, but to be honest with you, I wish our wiki moderation system and users were sophisticated enough to understand giving you a 24 hour ban that didn't go on your record or set a precedent. You see, you deserve punishment for the malicious intent toward the wiki - trying to create policy that would adversely affect all users, warp the accepted limitations of policies (contingency clause), and be completely "unenforcible" yet easily used as a weapon against users. Yet, your actions, willingness to take punishment, clearly discussing and defending the core idea, and your intended outcome (maybe I am using a crystal ball on this part) show good faith.

The conflict is that you should be punished, but not Punished. We need a time out chair.

Please note when I say Wiki I am not referring to the idea of the Community, but rather the actual nuts and bolts of the site. As far as the "community" goes I think "don't make stupid policies" is brilliant. The actual text of the policy is "bad" for the wiki. --– Nubis 21:04, 22 May 2008 (BST)

I should point out that unenforcible, completely subjective policies (that can and will be used as weapons versus other users) and intense discussions about them are apparently de rigeur these days - which is ultimately my point. Everyone says "this is bad" but at the same time feed the beast. People are constantly making stupid policies that are virtually identical to mine in word and deed. The only difference is that I am calling a horse a horse here and saying, from the beginning, "This is stupid. Look in the mirror."

I take issue with your use of the word "malicious." I think that with my track record it can easily be seen that I am not a malicious person and have never shown the slightest intent to do harm to the community or the workings here. I have been pretty solidly consistent in my message about this, too. I'm not trying to adversely affect the userbase; quite the opposite. I've definitely been a "gadfly", and I make no apologies for that: you (the community) as a whole sure as hell need one.

My intended, hopeful outcome is one where we, as a community, take about fifty steps back and look at what's going on here and perhaps reverse some trends (and even policies). This is a very unfriendly place - not just because of some of the personalities but because to actually do anything - to "be bold" - is nigh impossible because of miles of red tape and useless argument sessions.

People are tattled out to vandal banning over disagreements. Why? Because the system allows for it and coddles it, and since "wikilawyering" is the modus operandi, nearly every edit can be construed as such. People get banned over making jokes here - we have a rule saying "no joking on the suggestions page" (and I gotta tell you, as a game developer myself, I'd prefer to see more jokes and fewer suggestions about adding nailguns). How stupid is that? Seriously? How does it look to new users when the people who are "trusted" and "respected" openly carry pitchforks towards new users? That the community seems to continually work towards making things more difficult. "Let's increase required edits for sysop consideration." "Let's invent a type of 'trusted' user." "Let's figure out a way to get rid of the sysops we don't like." "Let's try to codify rules about who can and can't edit certain pages."

It is said that I am "wasting the time of administrators." Perhaps that is true, but I cannot possibly be wasting more time than the average "arbitration" case to say nothing of the sheer idiocy that comprises the bulk of misconduct cases. But further, this is the fucking job. Everyone on the sysop list had the opportunity to say, "no thanks," and they can always step down.

No. I am not being malicious. Absolutely not. I enjoy this game, and I enjoy the communities that are built up around them. I have a proven track record in this, in the idea of nurturing gaming communities - more than pretty much everyone here combined, to be honest. So no. My motives lie elsewhere.--Jorm 22:51, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Malicious, malodorous, or melon flavoured - I just meant something less vague than "bad" but didn't want to use "detrimental" again since I already got the bonus points for my big word of the day. I think by your response that you do understand what I meant about punishing vs Punishing and my take on your policy. I hope you do. But yeah, things need to change. --– Nubis 08:04, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Now, that did all make sense. I'm not having a go at you, but that's the first time you've taken the time to actually explain where you're coming from. You may have known all along, but I'm not a mind reader, and what it looked like was just someone taking the piss, because of the context. I do think it was lazy of you to just dismiss things as "stupid", because you'd already thought your way through the issue. An explanation of how you've arrived at your conclusions, makes far more sense, and seems far less obtuse. Thanks. --Funt Solo ^QT 19:48, 22 May 2008 (BST)

You want to make it vandalism for people to suggest things that they honestly think will improve the wiki, because you disagree with them and label them stupid. This is even more humourous than the original policy (or it would be if it didn't stand a real chance of getting in by a landslide) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:25 22 May 2008 (BST)

NO

I propose a policy to stop this policy So there. --Rogue 14:07, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Oh, you're so witty. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:42, 22 May 2008 (BST)

This is a really long Talk page

That is all

tyfyc --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:37, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Lrn 2 sign n00b. -- Cheese 17:48, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Odd.

You people have a lot of free time on your hands. --Dathgale 17:45, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Pearls before swine

it seems the author of this webcomic reads udwiki too... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:53, 26 May 2008 (BST)

if that's directed at the good folk behind the Sandpit Revolution i'm none too happy. Or maybe i'm just here to plug the awesome new wiki-group! Join today!--xoxo 12:55, 26 May 2008 (BST)

Huh?

This article itself is the very definition of vandalism. It is pointless, not for the benefit of the wiki, and it makes the wiki look hypocritical and tyrannical. I am of course referring to the fact that this is on the new section of the main page. The man 22:28, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Yes, i agree with you. Sadly, others sysops dont. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 22:32, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Meh, probably shouldn't be on the main page.   AHLGTG THE END IS ACTUALLY NIGH! 22:39, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Why not move it to an open discussion? Isn't that what it is meant to do? Talk about the recent trend of stupid policies? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:52, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Boo-hoo-fucking-hoo. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:36, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Voting Time

Remember, a vote for the policy is a vote for kittens, sunshine, and happiness, while a vote against is to elect George W. Bush to another 4 years in office.--Jorm 22:23, 3 June 2008 (BST)

what am i to do? i support kittens, sunshine, happiness, the banning of fat men wearing speedos, and George W. Bush --Scotw 00:33, 4 June 2008 (BST)

I, for one, despise sunshine and happiness, I'll keep the kitten though.--Karek^maps?! 13:24, 4 June 2008 (BST)

doesn't anyone love puppies anymore? I mean, besides Gage... but thats wrong kind of love and he should really see a doctor--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 13:30, 4 June 2008 (BST)