Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Code of Conduct
Some things to note. I do not want this article to read like a policy. So if some of you are thinking that this lacks sternness, you are correct. I feel that policies that govern how they should behave is a bad idea. With policies and rules like that, the admins do not get to flex their discretion muscles. The article is lengthy, but that is because it is comprised of 4 previous proposed policies and 1 section that I added myself. The proper editing form section was mainly added so that I could make mention of the 1-revert guideline. I'm open to suggestions if you feel that this section does not flow nicely. Some more links may be required to tie it into other practices, but that can always be added. Venom20 
16:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't like the first impression "ignore the rules" gives. I think the phrasing from GWW of "Be Bold" is better and a little less... maverick. --JonTheMon 16:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ignore the rules is from wikipedia and is better defined than "be bold". Ariyen 17:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- John McCain prefers to ignore the rules, because he's a maverick. 63.232.208.113 18:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please keep politics off the wiki. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 18:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ignore the rules sends a different message than ignore all rules. Ignore the rules seems to encourage actively not following them. Ignore all rules is part of AGF... Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 18:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea. I hanged ignore all rules to ignore the rules. Someone who does not read the whole article may not get the full meaning with ignore all rules. @jon, what specifically do you dislike with the wording? You have to forgive me, I've never seen Top Gun (if that's what you are referring to). Venom20 18:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oddly enough the IP was closer to what I was thinking (I'd say that the Mel Gibson movie popped into my head when I wrote it). I was thinking that there should be a compromise between "wiki above rules" and "don't be a dick". As the latter is already spelled out, I can see "ignore the rules" as appropriate, but as a separate policy/guideline/code, it conjures an image in my mind of lots of people who do what they want no matter what others say. It just seems that the idea needs too much clarification. (Don't be a dick; clear. No personal attacks; clear. Ignore the rules; huh?) --JonTheMon 18:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand how Ignore the Rule's message isn't clear. "Despite its name, "Ignore the rules" does not sabotage any actual rules. Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what the community is doing here: documenting Guild Wars 2. Rules have no importance compared to that goal. If a rule conflicts with that goal, the goal takes precedence.". I thought that summed up things. I can understand it perhaps if this was a policy and it was the title. Then someone who only reads titles could think they could get away from anything. But in context the section should clearly describe what the goal is and what is mean by ignoring rules. Venom20 19:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, I was taking the idea in isolation, imagining someone only saw the title but didn't take too much time to glance at the contents. I just don't like the fact that you need to clarify something "despite its name". And as I said above, in context its intent is much clearer. --JonTheMon 20:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- IMO, waaaay too verbose. I think that transmiting the spirit of the message is more important than trying to describe every possible situation, especially in something like this, which is not aiming to feel like a policy. I believe this article could be cut to have one quarter of its current content without any loss in quality. Erasculio 20:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, I was taking the idea in isolation, imagining someone only saw the title but didn't take too much time to glance at the contents. I just don't like the fact that you need to clarify something "despite its name". And as I said above, in context its intent is much clearer. --JonTheMon 20:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand how Ignore the Rule's message isn't clear. "Despite its name, "Ignore the rules" does not sabotage any actual rules. Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what the community is doing here: documenting Guild Wars 2. Rules have no importance compared to that goal. If a rule conflicts with that goal, the goal takes precedence.". I thought that summed up things. I can understand it perhaps if this was a policy and it was the title. Then someone who only reads titles could think they could get away from anything. But in context the section should clearly describe what the goal is and what is mean by ignoring rules. Venom20
- Oddly enough the IP was closer to what I was thinking (I'd say that the Mel Gibson movie popped into my head when I wrote it). I was thinking that there should be a compromise between "wiki above rules" and "don't be a dick". As the latter is already spelled out, I can see "ignore the rules" as appropriate, but as a separate policy/guideline/code, it conjures an image in my mind of lots of people who do what they want no matter what others say. It just seems that the idea needs too much clarification. (Don't be a dick; clear. No personal attacks; clear. Ignore the rules; huh?) --JonTheMon 18:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea. I hanged ignore all rules to ignore the rules. Someone who does not read the whole article may not get the full meaning with ignore all rules. @jon, what specifically do you dislike with the wording? You have to forgive me, I've never seen Top Gun (if that's what you are referring to). Venom20
- Ignore the rules sends a different message than ignore all rules. Ignore the rules seems to encourage actively not following them. Ignore all rules is part of AGF... Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 18:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please keep politics off the wiki. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 18:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- John McCain prefers to ignore the rules, because he's a maverick. 63.232.208.113 18:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ignore the rules is from wikipedia and is better defined than "be bold". Ariyen 17:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
(Reset indent) Spirit of the message should be seen through the policy, not by trying to describe the spirit and loose what a policy should be - which imo should be positive things and what we'd like to see, etc. right? I prefer some details compared to having someone assume with little to no examples, etc. After all you would have more wiki-laywering going I can get by with X, because it's not in this such and such policy. and having a sysop saying no you cant and trying to compare it to another part in the policy which is like say y... see what I'm saying? You'll have problems, the less you try to have in a policy. You could try it, but I'm not going to say "I told you so". It's just I think that the littlest policies we have, the more problems there'd be in the future. It's not a possible situation... It's a would be situation... There's been troubles on gww with trolls, etc. Assuming there won't be here - should be a slap in the face in all honesty... Seriously, we should have things that'd fit many different possibilities that'd most likely be a would be problem... And things that would help solve problems... (I can go in to examples, details, etc. and of different views of people, etc..., but that's just me as I try to be optimistic - best way to solve many situations and problems.) Ariyen 21:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
