User talk:Prosperina

I'll save you some time, because telling amazing to shrug off flames is certainly a waste of it. Believe me, its been tried. He enjoys firing back at people, as evidenced by his contribs. --Zaruthustra-Mod 03:18, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Thank you for the advice, but I disagree. I suppose I just have faith in people.Call it naivety if you will, but that's how I like to do things.--Prosperina 03:27, 14 April 2006 (BST)

I was one of the ones that tried. Eventually I gave up. Now we have a healthy you-hate-me-quietly-and-I'll-hate-you-quietly relationship. I'm not proud of my failure, but stuff happens. It's best to move on. But heck, you might have more patience than me. I hope you succeed. --Mia K ^(sotss) 03:41, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Sorry to hear things ended badly and thanks for the well wishing and the vote of confidence. --Prosperina 23:49 19 April 2006

You're welcome. --Sirens^{T RR} 23:54, 19 April 2006 (BST)

Hey, you wouldn't happen to have an IM account, would you? --Sirens^{T RR} 02:44, 21 April 2006 (BST)

I've got AIM if that's what you mean. --Prosperina 02:48, 21 April 2006 (BST)

What is it, if you don't mind? --Sirens^{T RR} 02:52, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Arbiter

I'm wondering... You seem to be the most rational person on this wiki; why aren't you an arbitrator? --V2Blast 00:33, 8 May 2006 (BST)

I'm flattered by the compliment, but frankly I haven't volunteered to become an arbitrator because there didn't seem to be any particular need for me to become an arbitrator. That and because some positions of authority actually hinder your ability to get things done sometimes. Prosperina 08:07, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Offensive language policy discussion Cont.

• 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 - My apologies, I didn't realize you were joking. I used Justice Holmes's analogy to mostly make a point that censorship is not automatically wrong. Yes while it is true there isn't any immediate danger that doesn't preclude the implementations of civility standards on public pages. Though you might disagree with it, I find Potter Stewart most applicable here because he was an expert on obscenities in the area of freedom of speech. The fact is that there is nothing wrong preventing obscenities and provacative language from public areas of the wiki, even Justice Black who supported absolute freedom of speech agreed that manners of speech can be restricted in certain areas. The harm is not to individuals but to discussion on the wiki in general. You said yourself that you disliked discussing on the wiki due to the offensive nature of the arguements. It's harming the reputation of the wiki for this stuff to be sprawled out all over it. People feel frustrated because they see all this bs hanging around. I'd rather see certain designated areas where arguements can be made freely and other areas that are protected because I find its a minor restriction on people which would ultimately do more harm than good for the people who frequent the urban dead pages. On a side note, thank you for recognizing Stewart and Holmes. I wasn't sure anyone would catch that. --Prosperina 21:40, 17 April 2006 (BST)

• Re - I've got a serious historical jones, so it's no problem. Besides, knowing a bit of the law never hurt anyone, eh? Now, as for the argument...I can see your point about keeping the flaming off of the main pages, at least from an aesthetic perspective. Newcomers and the more puritanical might be turned off if they stumble across the really heated stuff without any forewarning. That's certainly a valid point. But moving the more flame-oriented debates to the User pages isn't the solution. The purely personal burny stuff has no place being anyplace outside them, but when it's intertwined with genuine policy discussion punting it to the User pages--even with the links--is effectively dropping it from public notice. How many people, for instance, do you think will even bother stopping by here to see this debate? If somebody wanted to create a new section of the Wiki--the HotZone, or some stupid garbage like that--then the idea might be feasible. If we can get a section for this kind of heated discussion that has the appeal of, say, the Suggestions page, you might be on to something. But to my eye, we already have that with the discussion page. Passing a "resolution" in condemnation of obscenity on this page is fine and well...but I don't see any way to implement this condemnation as law of the land without severely reducing the viability of the discussion page itself. Not all policy discussion can be as clean as Beaver Cleaver, and I think it would be a true shame if these discussions were forgotten and ignored for pure aesthetics. --Undeadinator 02:23, 18 April 2006 (BST)
• Re- It would be nice if it was just the talk pages but it ends up sprawling onto the main pages as well. For the most part, I thought the talk pages were always question and answers sessions about the groups. If we could manage to keep this sorta stuff in the discussion pages only it wouldn't be so bad, but it hasn't stayed there so I believe some sort of policy needs to be implemented to stop it. And then when people protest they are merely mocked and flamed for their efforts. And when people delete such things from their wiki page then they are reported to the mods. I don't think its possible for policy discussion to be completely clean but at least this will keep the worst of it out. I don't think that just doing nothing about it is a wise decision period. -Prosperina 01:40, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Something Everyone should know

http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20060405.html

Buh

My recent conduct? I haven't even been on today, and even now I've only checked my messages. Mind elaborating? -- Amazing 02:39, 21 April 2006 (BST)

I'm talking about cumulatively. From that post on the vandal banning page, to the way you've been going about this arbitration thing. And I don't know what you were thinking with that template of yours on your user page. Instead of concentrating your efforts and striking the people you have the strongest case against, you're trying to pin everyone and stretching yourself out too thin. You're flailing around like a bull in a china shop and you're gonna end up losing. Right now they're putting up a vote to ban you and its probably gonna go through, due to the many enemies you got on the wiki. I've put up a suggestion that might circumvent the banning but its not going to be nice for either side. However if you really want to get them to shut up, that's gonna be the way to do it. Otherwise, you might as well take a hiatus from the wiki and let things cool down.--Prosperina 02:48, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Have you been around long enough to have seen the initial reports? Just curious. Don't know how long you've been on/watching. -- Amazing 05:01, 21 April 2006 (BST)

No I've only been here for the past month or so. Hence what I mean by most recent, because there is nothing I can say about previously and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. However, I have been in many situations like this before and I've seen enough to get a good idea what does and doesn't work in a negotiation. --Prosperina 05:21 12 April 206

Just a heads up, Kevan never interferes in the wiki, ever. The only time he's ever did so was when the person one step below him (and above me) was getting out of hand. So he'll probly just politely discard any messages you send him. --Zaruthustra-Mod 07:15, 23 April 2006 (BST)

My apologizes, should I delete it? --Prosperina 07:16 23 April 2006 (BST)

Re: your message

First, use the page setup i have graciously provided. Its really quite neat, all i need to do is check the history to find out who sent me something, then i just zip down to that persons entry and i can read and respond with ease. As for what you actually said: Unfortunately, as i have sworn to stay out of any and all arbitration issues in my capabilities as a moderator, i cannot and will not be a part of this, unless it is enforced through a policy vote. That said, if amazing leaves me and mine alone, ill leave him alone. If amazing keeps acting in a manner i find to be detrimental to this wiki as a whole, then it is my responsibility as a user of the wiki to stand up against him. --Grim s-^Mod 07:43, 23 April 2006 (BST)

My apolgizes for the inconvenience. I will set up a page reguarding the proposal, where everyone can discuss this. I was not certain whether this would be an arbitration issue or not since I am not an arbiter, but I felt all moderators and all people concerned should be made aware.--Prosperina 07:51 23 April 2006

What i meant by arbitration issues was that i wouldnt get involved in user vs user conflicts from a moderators perspective. pardon me for being unclear. --Grim s-^Mod 08:04, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Ah, I understand. Thank you for clarifying. --Prosperina 08:10 23 April 2006

Harassment Policy

Hey Prosperina. Check out the finished draft of a Harassment policy Wyndallin and I have put together here. Leave your feedback on either his talk page or mine. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 13:37, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Have you seen it yet? --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 06:15, 24 April 2006 (BST)

I have, sorry, I'll probably post input on Tuesday. I want to get a chance to really think over it but I'm in the middle of writing my final now and I've been procrastinating enough as it is. --Prosperina 6:12 24 April 2006

Cool, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that people are reading it. Leave feedback whenever is most convenient. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 06:32, 24 April 2006 (BST)

...is it convenient for you now? --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 08:00, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Yeah, I know how it looks. I swear I will post by tuesday. If the stuff I was posting didn't require immediate posting to prevent flame wars and to control the proposal page, I wouldn't be here at all.--Prosperina 8:12 24 April 2006

Vandalism

May I ask why you completely removed the report against Mpaturet? --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 07:50, 24 April 2006 (BST)

I would like to ask the same thing, adding my comment in response to Amazing's reply of PWNED--Mpaturet 07:51, 24 April 2006 (BST) on his talk page.

Sorry, I was trying to fix something I wrote. Didn't realize that I did that. I'll put it back. --Prosperina 7:52 24 April 2006

No need, I already did--Mpaturet 07:55, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Ah, Thank you. I appreciate it, sorry for the inconvenience.--Prosperina 7:56 24 April 2006

No worries. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 07:59, 24 April 2006 (BST)

PQN

It was just luck that I was passing through. Thanks for doing your bit in the mean time. --Spiro 07:25, 28 April 2006 (BST)

No problem. my pleasure. I'm just glad you came through to ban him. That would have gotten tedious after a while. --Prosperina 7:27 28 April 2006

Mod Bid

I'm sending this message out to everyone who had spoken on my modship bid. Recently it was suggested that I wipe the slate clean and start over with a new bid. I decided against this for two main reasons: First, I don't want to risk causing any drama, and Second, I don't want to risk people on either side not being heard the second time around.

I am, however, asking anyone who has spoken to take a moment of thier time to review the case and deatermine if they need to change thier vote or, more than likely, keep it as is. Thank you. --Sirens^{T RR} 14:54, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Pked in Molebank

I believe there's someone pretending to be you in game in or around Molebank. I sent you a personal message on the MCV forum (you're a moderator there, correct?). Actually I sent you two messages, one accusing you of PKing me and the next apologising along with a screenshot of the whole event. Anyway, just thought you should know. You're a friend of Celt so I figured you were good people. --Jonny America 06:55, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Actually I'm not really a moderator there, but I was helping out for quite a while before things got hairy in Molebank. I sent you a message back. Hope it'll help. Prosperina 07:43, 14 May 2006 (BST)