User talk:Prosperina/Proposal
Suggestions should be made anonymously and need not be signed.
Petition page conversation
Shortened for reading purposes
- I have a suggestion that might work for all concerned parties. I suggest that instead of outright banning that Amazing be put on indefinate probation. That means that he will be put on a strict no trolling regimen. That means he must refrain from all personal attacks, he must not bait, he will drop all complaints against all parties and he must not edit anyone else's posts, period. He will also be prevented from posting at all on user pages that currently have the no amazing template. However in return, this would mean that all templates that are directly insulting him be taken down and that all groups will cease formal targetting him and his associates. That means take down all mention of him from the talk pages of the group as well and send it to archives. He will not post on any of pages or group pages that he has taken to arbitration and nor will any of their group post on his. Any trolling will be immediately deleted and submitted to mods, if they both agree that it is flaming they will give him two warnings but the third instance will result in immediate ban. The moderators may keep this probation until they find it no longer necessary. If all involved parties find this acceptable, would you find this preferable to outright banning? If need be I will keep tabs and report him myself if he gets out of line. --Prosperina 00:33 21 April 2006 (BST)
...
- Well, I assume that unless it's a Mod action, it won't hold any weight - and the Arbitration page isn't going to work because some will simply dismiss all arbitrators. Plus from my initial (mis)understanding, I thought it was focusing on me as opposed to equality for everyone involved. -- Amazing 06:12, 23 April 2006 (BST)
- That's why you get at least two mods to sign on. If we cannot find two unbiased mods, we can have each side select a mod. Since this misunderstanding has been cleared up, are you interested? To clarify, you will be in no way obligated to the proposal until we have the mods approval and the approval of all other concerned parties that they will agree to ruling. --Prosperina 06:22 23 April 2006
- I'm for, as long as the 'other side' is restricted from contacting me or speaking of me in a way that is clearly meant for nothing but offense and inflamation. I don't care what restriction are put on ME as long as it's on them in the same EXACT capacity, and meets my standards of "leave me the F alone." Before anything actually proceeded, though, I think we'd need to go over everything so it's ironed out in a clear way, in a non-chaotic area. That way it's all fixed and ready to go. -- Amazing 06:29, 23 April 2006 (BST)
- That's why you get at least two mods to sign on. If we cannot find two unbiased mods, we can have each side select a mod. Since this misunderstanding has been cleared up, are you interested? To clarify, you will be in no way obligated to the proposal until we have the mods approval and the approval of all other concerned parties that they will agree to ruling. --Prosperina 06:22 23 April 2006
- Well, I assume that unless it's a Mod action, it won't hold any weight - and the Arbitration page isn't going to work because some will simply dismiss all arbitrators. Plus from my initial (mis)understanding, I thought it was focusing on me as opposed to equality for everyone involved. -- Amazing 06:12, 23 April 2006 (BST)
- Too hard to sort out and report in-game actions that should be reported on the wiki. Most people will be satisfied when Amazing steals them to go play his other game and leaves UD forever. Scinfaxi 10:21, 24 April 2006 (BST)
EDIT: Moved to talk page conversation
Suggested Moderators
I hereby suggest myself as one of the moderators.--The General W! Mod 09:01, 23 April 2006 (BST)
EDIT: Moved to discussion section below--Prosperina 3:55 24 April 2006
Moderator Discussion
- I have a small question about The General being allied in a capacity with the very people I am reporting, specifically against me and my group in-game. General, can you speak to this, and give me something that would make you trust someone who was aligned against you in the same way? I'm not saying no, I'm saying I do need to understand this first. -- Amazing 19:30, 23 April 2006 (BST)
- What would make me trust them is if they had a history of being resonably impartial and if they had sided with me, or at least been fair, in previous disagreements.--The General W! Mod 19:39, 23 April 2006 (BST)
- Alright, then I have no qualms. I do fear the connection between my 'enemies' and you specifically against my group and my self (just to be on the record) but I am trusting that won't enter into this. -- Amazing 19:45, 23 April 2006 (BST)
- What would make me trust them is if they had a history of being resonably impartial and if they had sided with me, or at least been fair, in previous disagreements.--The General W! Mod 19:39, 23 April 2006 (BST)
Suggestions for Terms of the Agreement
'Unsigned suggestions in this area only please. Commentary on suggestions should go below
- 1. Duration should be indefinate until moderators and all involved parties agree to dispose of the agreement.
- 2. All involved parties shall not flame, harrass, or bait the opposing parties.
- 3. All involved parties shall agree not to post on opposing sides talk page unless otherwise invited.
- 4. Commentary about involved parties by involved parties should conform to civil standards.
Discussion of suggested terms
I would recommend that parties in arbitration strive to not even mention the opposing parties, but this is merely a recommendation and I do not feel it should be a term for the agreement.-- Prosperina 08:25 23 April 2006
Suggestion 1
Suggestion 2
Suggestion 3
- I dislike this suggestion. Generally speaking, I am opposed to absolutes in principle, and usually oppose them in practice. (There are extremely rare instances where an absolute is acceptible to me; rape is wrong. Always. But I digress.) Worded as is, it is open to abuse. If either party seriously tried to drop their grievances, and try to move on by merely adding "I'm sorry"… Alternatively, take another hypothetical situation; one party's talk page uses a template, that is broken by a necessary modification to said template. Party A modifies Party B's talk page to correct the broken template. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. Prosperina, please amend this condition to allow reasonable interactions. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:51, 1 May 2006 (BST)
- There are many people on the wiki capable of correcting something, including the folks who operate whatever page is hypothetically being spoken of. No need for someone who has agreed to this to edit the hypothetical user's space. Someone else can/would or the user him/herself can. -- Amazing 06:06, 1 May 2006 (BST)
Suggestion 4
- I don't think this otherwise covered creating a "Amazing is a Homeless Squidfucker" page. The 'flame, harrass, or bait' part could possibly seen as being "To their face" only. -- Amazing 19:47, 23 April 2006 (BST)
- On the contrary, I think it does cover obvious cases of trolling, like such a page would be. Such a page would be the creator's commentary on you, and the creator could be dealt with accordingly. Unless the creator was not party to the agreement. I think an exception should be made — the hypothetical "Amazing is a Homeless Squidfucker" page would be such an obvious attempt at flamebaiting that the creator should be immediately given an official warning accompanied by a 24 hour ban, without their prior agreement to this proposal. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:51, 1 May 2006 (BST)
- WHAT DID YOU JUST CALL ME??!?!?!?!?!?!??!!!?? ... Oh, right. -- Amazing 06:12, 1 May 2006 (BST)
- On the contrary, I think it does cover obvious cases of trolling, like such a page would be. Such a page would be the creator's commentary on you, and the creator could be dealt with accordingly. Unless the creator was not party to the agreement. I think an exception should be made — the hypothetical "Amazing is a Homeless Squidfucker" page would be such an obvious attempt at flamebaiting that the creator should be immediately given an official warning accompanied by a 24 hour ban, without their prior agreement to this proposal. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:51, 1 May 2006 (BST)
Suggested Punishment for breaking Terms of agreement
'Unsigned suggestions in this area only please. Commentary on suggestions should go below
Potential infractions of the terms of agreement shall be submited to the moderators and the phrases in question struck through with a line to signify as such. The moderators shall then collectively decide whether it is an incident of flaming, harrasment, trolling or baiting. Two warning will be submitted upon moderator agreement, but the third incident will result in banning without debate.
Discussion of suggested punishments
General Discussion
- The only way GANKBUS consents to an Amazing non-ban is for large quantities of AU to be placed in a small woven container. Thank you. Rasher 05:53, 24 April 2006 (BST)
- Ironic, he is willing to submit to strict restriction and risk banning so far as conditions are placed equally. If you truely wish him to stop with his trolling, this would be your best option. Due to the fact that he would agree to conditions set by you, and visa versa and the fact that a mod would enforce said agreement, if you believe he is unable to stop his trollish behavior then his banning is almost guaranteed. By your logic, it would only require you stepping back and letting him ban himself. I am curious as to why you would not support such an agreement. As it is right now, the two-thirds vote on the petition is questionable at best and Mia has agreed to recind her petition should a second moderator agree to this proposal. Please tell me, why exactly do you think that Amazing needs to be banned?--Prosperina 6:04 24 April 2006
- It's just extortion. They've gone out of their way to prove it as best they can. :\ -- Amazing 06:10, 24 April 2006 (BST)
- Ironic, he is willing to submit to strict restriction and risk banning so far as conditions are placed equally. If you truely wish him to stop with his trolling, this would be your best option. Due to the fact that he would agree to conditions set by you, and visa versa and the fact that a mod would enforce said agreement, if you believe he is unable to stop his trollish behavior then his banning is almost guaranteed. By your logic, it would only require you stepping back and letting him ban himself. I am curious as to why you would not support such an agreement. As it is right now, the two-thirds vote on the petition is questionable at best and Mia has agreed to recind her petition should a second moderator agree to this proposal. Please tell me, why exactly do you think that Amazing needs to be banned?--Prosperina 6:04 24 April 2006
A quick look at the arbitration shows that moderators will do little to nothing to enforce this. Amazing will turn this into another way for him to vandalize our page and then complain about it when we revert it. Under no conditions, except {{GoldInBasket-Template struck, will GANKBUS accept. Rasher 07:43, 24 April 2006 (BST)
Predictable. -- Amazing 07:55, 24 April 2006 (BST)
There will be no baiting here. Period. The moderators will enforce because as per the agreement they will have to and the other side cannot protest because they have agreed to it. General has already volunteered which shows that we will have one moderator who will enforce. You will not be reverting it. I am volunteering to find, strike out and report all such incidents that violate said agreement, on the pain of banning should you or anyone else find that I am being unfair.I will be striking it out and then reporting it to the mods responsible, therefore if he will report anyone for vandalism, it will be me. That mean permanent ban upon my person which I will respect. I would not expect you to agree to anything if you did not believe the other side would be enforced. -Prosperina 8:02 24 April 2006
Given that it is our group's current mission to attack Amazing and the CDF, as we outline on our page, it is unlikely that we would agree, given that the requirements of the proposal would almost certainly restrict us overly . --Tehasskickars 07:58, 24 April 2006 (BST)
- The Wiki does not affect your abilities in-game. -- Amazing 07:59, 24 April 2006 (BST)
Template struck --Tehasskickars 08:03, 24 April 2006 (BST)
Want me to cook up a template that says "Tehasskickars will not be PKed by the CDF when he is able to fist himself"? Well, I won't because I'm not on your low, low, low, low, low level. (Prosperina, you might want to hop on all this before they start filling the page in another effort to destroy all meaning.) -- Amazing 08:07, 24 April 2006 (BST)
I repeat. There will be no baiting on this page. Furthermore, you will be free to attack Amazing in game, however should it be agreed that neither he will attack you in the wiki nor will you attack him in the wiki then ban will be equally applied unless you are suggesting that you have predominately attacked him in the wiki without him attacking you.--Prosperina 8:02 24 April 2006
- What I mean is that Amazing would likely regard even the current state of our page as being "attacking." We're not willing to keep our page so inoffensive to anyone that it completely defeats the purpose or fun of maintaining it. --Tehasskickars 08:21, 24 April 2006 (BST)
- As per your page - I think anyone would agree that you've created a Kill List and Enemies List full of false statements about peoples' character and personal insults. (Man, the posts you miss when you're busy.) -- Amazing 06:19, 1 May 2006 (BST)
- My question is why is there a need for you to target him personally and please explain why you need to form your group around targetting him. Please understand, I know there are other groups that target other groups such as the Dunell Hills Liberation Front and the DHPD has in effect targetted Maxwell Hammer. Yet for all the insults it has not reached the vitrolic state that your page has. I can see how someone could be led to believe that your main focus is clearly harassment and providing it has reached a state that your entire gaming experience was effected by this wouldn't you understand why someone would be frustrated to the point of lashing out indefinately and indiscriminately. I am not asking that you condone such an act but do you at least understand what I am getting at here. I want to know if your enjoyment of the game can be achieved by merely targetting the group instead of the player themselves? And if not why do you think that this should be allowed on the wiki? --Prosperina
- I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're asking. Could you please be a bit clearer? Thanks. --Tehasskickars 08:42, 24 April 2006 (BST)
- My apolgizes, I do not understand the point of basing your group around attacking a single character, it could easily be argued that the odds seem unfair to the point of harrassment, which would give him legitmate grounds for complaint and frustration. If Amazing left the game or decided to create a new character and retire his old ones while not letting them be known, by your logic your group would die a slow inevitable death. The goals of your group seem to doom it to inevitable destruction, yet I would doubt that you would want it to suddenly dissapear if Amazing suddenly decided to leave the game tomorrow. So given this confusion, can you please explain why you would want to target Amazing or any single character?--Prosperina
- I think I understand your question now. Okay. Our group is actually not based around attacking Amazing, believe it or not. When a friend and I decided to form ASS, it was because we were tired of playing "nice guy" survivors, and we wanted something more exciting. We both agreed that there were many extremely annoying survivors in the game, and I suggested that we form a PKer group to take them down. We needed a first target however, and we both agreed on Amazing -- from our own experiences with him in-game. The rest is history. If Amazing were to suddenly leave the game, we would go on functioning just fine, doing exactly what we do now: attacking annoying survivors and flaunting it. Amazing is our current "ASSault," but not our reason for being. If he left, we would pick some other survivor or group. If we someday get bored of targeting him, we'll probably do that anyway. It might also interest you to know that I've only killed Amazing once personally in game. Not really something I would call "harassment." Does that answer your question? --Tehasskickars 16:43, 24 April 2006 (BST)
- My apolgizes, I do not understand the point of basing your group around attacking a single character, it could easily be argued that the odds seem unfair to the point of harrassment, which would give him legitmate grounds for complaint and frustration. If Amazing left the game or decided to create a new character and retire his old ones while not letting them be known, by your logic your group would die a slow inevitable death. The goals of your group seem to doom it to inevitable destruction, yet I would doubt that you would want it to suddenly dissapear if Amazing suddenly decided to leave the game tomorrow. So given this confusion, can you please explain why you would want to target Amazing or any single character?--Prosperina
- I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're asking. Could you please be a bit clearer? Thanks. --Tehasskickars 08:42, 24 April 2006 (BST)
::::You forgot "why should it be allowed on the wiki?". --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 08:53, 24 April 2006 (BST)
- Does that not count as "baiting"? --Tehasskickars 16:43, 24 April 2006 (BST)
- ReSince you did answer the question and the interests of fairness and the ease of discussion. I will strike it out, since it could be construed as baiting.--Prosperina 17:45 24 April 2006
- Your desire for varied gameplay makes sense, yet either through misunderstandings or otherwise it is clear that things have escalated to a point where no one is happy and, correct me if I'm wrong, but exasperation with the issue in general seems to be exhibited by everyone. As ASS is concerned, what do you think is the most important for quelling the present string of vandalism, trolling and other objectionable behavior concerning the issue at hand? --Prosperina 2:47 25 April 2006
- Harassment is not based on "odds". The reasons for singling out Amazing are completely unrelated to our templates or wiki drama; they are a result of his handling of our attacks. There is no truce possible with our current war, unless Amazing steps down from CDF and is publicly executed by Zod Rhombus. Until then, we will continue. Or AU is put into woven garments.
Template StruckGoldInBasket}}. amazing. Rasher 15:34, 24 April 2006 (BST)- He actually reiterted something I said, so unfortunately it isn't baiting. It was originally intended to ask what your personal views and justifications are. Templates have become highly contested though, so I ask for your cooperation in refraining from using them here. Templates supporting or attacking either side will be eliminated. But nonetheless you essentially have answered the heart of both question, you say that his handling of your attacks has caused the formation of Gankbus, can you elaborate on that? --Prosperina 17:45 24 April 2006
- Harassment is not based on "odds". The reasons for singling out Amazing are completely unrelated to our templates or wiki drama; they are a result of his handling of our attacks. There is no truce possible with our current war, unless Amazing steps down from CDF and is publicly executed by Zod Rhombus. Until then, we will continue. Or AU is put into woven garments.
Ban them or truce them, just stop the drama. If all the parties involved could get past their pride or immaturity (or a combination of both), then we could get a little closer to being a happy wiki again. I urge you to try and resolve this, or just stop it on the wiki. That is all. BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 14:31, 24 April 2006 (BST)
- I appreciate your support but please refrain from any character accusations here. This is not arbitration, we're not trying to figure out who was in the right or who was in the wrong, we are just trying to find where the common ground is.--Prosperina 17:45 24 April 2006
- I contest that their characters are the very reasons that we're even discussing this though. You cannot deny that rational, mature talk and compromise would have ended this a long time ago. BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 18:02, 24 April 2006 (BST)
- I will not deny that but neither can I confirm it, because it did not happen therefore I would merely be speculating to do otherwise. However, such behavior here would supremely help towards finding our potential agreement. I admit that the restrictions are harsh here, but due delicate nature of the current discussion I believe it is necessary--Prosperina 18:10 24 April 2006
- Understood. Continue on, you have my opinion on record. BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 19:35, 24 April 2006 (BST)
- I will not deny that but neither can I confirm it, because it did not happen therefore I would merely be speculating to do otherwise. However, such behavior here would supremely help towards finding our potential agreement. I admit that the restrictions are harsh here, but due delicate nature of the current discussion I believe it is necessary--Prosperina 18:10 24 April 2006
- I contest that their characters are the very reasons that we're even discussing this though. You cannot deny that rational, mature talk and compromise would have ended this a long time ago. BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 18:02, 24 April 2006 (BST)
- I appreciate your support but please refrain from any character accusations here. This is not arbitration, we're not trying to figure out who was in the right or who was in the wrong, we are just trying to find where the common ground is.--Prosperina 17:45 24 April 2006
End of discussion
Don't touch the GANKBUS page, anymore, Prosperina. We do not agree or take part in your proposal in any way shape or form. Any further modification will be seen as vandalism and reported as such. {GoldInBasket} Rasher 20:04, 24 April 2006 (BST)
My apologizes if my good faith edit was seen as vandalism. I was merely reverting an edit by Amazing and I was not aware that reverts would be considered vandalism. May I ask first why exactly you refuse the proposal and your arguements against? --Prosperina
- One thing you have to realize is they are not serious about anything they say.
They're merely double-talking and making false accusations to confuse and convolute the situation.-- Amazing 01:19, 25 April 2006 (BST)- Whether they are or not is immaterial, I will continue to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. If this proposal reaches an agreement, it will be you and the wiki who will outline the terms and choose the course of action. Not myself. That is why it is in their best interests to be here, because it is a chance for them to see something actually get done, that they will have a say in.--Prosperina 1:22 24 April 2006
- I do not agree with this proposal. Tying Amazing's hands by being on 'permanent probation' is not a fair answer to the problem being presented. There is more than one guilty party here. Your solution puts so much bias toward the anti-Amazing side, it can possibly make the matter worse in-game and on the wiki when others feel Amazing cannot protect himself. You need a proposal the addresses a more balanced solution and can be construed as fair to all parties involved. --Zod Rhombus 04:03, 25 April 2006 (BST)
- The proposal is tenative at best, basically the aim is to get clearly defined agreements from everyone as to what does or does not constitute as trolling or vandalism and then everyone will be subject to the same punishment. In particular which changes do you suggest be made? Feel free to post suggestions anonymously on both suggestion sections. Prosperina 4:20 25 April 2006
