Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:No personal attacks 2008-03-26
From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Expanding the scope to cover both personal attacks and trolling[edit]
Maybe we could expand this policy to also cover undirecting trolling and rename it to something like Guild Wars Wiki:Personal attacks and trolling or Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks or trolling. -- 
Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- What about just Guild Wars Wiki:No trolling? I think trolling covers both personal and indirect attacks.-- Shew 03:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
What's the point? Are personal attacks currently a problem? Could the community not discuss to sort these problems out, with admins intervening if necessary? Is common sense not common enough, so much so that a policy is required to explain it? Is such a policy needed to sort out ongoing problems on this wiki, or is it a documentation concerning problems experienced in the past? (Isn't this the Guild Wars 2 Wiki?) There is no use for policy at this current time. -- pling 
19:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- No opinion on timeframe, but I very much disagree with any call to expand those guidelines which worked fine on the first Wiki. And I think everyone needs to be wary any "policy-creep" intentions regardless of what they appear to be: "Making inappropriate comments that are intentionally meant to harm another user (such as cursing at a user for making a change and/or contribution). -when taken with:- Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." ...is entirely subjective, more so than previous guidelines. IMHO, the strength of an independent Wiki regardless of it's direct affiliation (and funding) by Anet, is its ability to support the voicing of a variety of opinions and facts. If an editor's history and actions show a pattern of bias, then it should remain permissible to question those actions on the talk pages without the need for sysop intervention. ilr // --67.161.133.94 23:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think the goal of GW2W's behavioural policies has been to make them as subjective as possible so that admins can deal with behaviour on a far more discretionary basis, instead of according to rigid rules, which was the problem we had on GWW. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Attempting to "ban trolling," so to speak, would alienate an enormous portion of the Guild Wars community. I'm of the opinion that trolling in and of itself is harmless, and occasionally funny, but if the trollee takes the bait then head-cooling may be necessary.
05:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - Why couldn't admins not deal with such behaviour without policy? You add restrictions on actions when you add restrictions on actions - there aren't any restrictions on admins dealing with 'bad behaviour' in the absence of policy, so there's no need to create a policy to lessen restrictions... Admins "can deal with behaviour on a discretionary basis" right now. Without policy. -- pling
17:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Attempting to "ban trolling," so to speak, would alienate an enormous portion of the Guild Wars community. I'm of the opinion that trolling in and of itself is harmless, and occasionally funny, but if the trollee takes the bait then head-cooling may be necessary.
- I think the goal of GW2W's behavioural policies has been to make them as subjective as possible so that admins can deal with behaviour on a far more discretionary basis, instead of according to rigid rules, which was the problem we had on GWW. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- ilr, in my opinion, just adopting policies from another wiki (especially one that has it's own issues) is not the way to go, nevermind expanding them. I do think that the GWW:DICK policy proposal needs to be deep-sixed. We should work out basic policies and talk about them before it becomes an issue, not just for the users but also so that the admins know what the limits of their side of things are as well. So we don't have users and admins abusing things. That way, if a user steps out of bounds, can say "this is what was done", and the same for the admins. The admins should have a certain level of freedom, but what are we supposed to do if a sysop or a bcrat type gets out of bounds? It shouldn't be taken to an extreme that we are trying to regulate every little thing that could happen, but there needs to be a starting point. 42 - talk 05:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- If a sysop gets out of bounds, then that's for the bcrats to deal with, something which they are perfectly capable of handling with their own discretion, or we wouldn't have elected them. We don't need policies restricting their behaviour, it didn't really work on GWW and it won't work here. --Santax (talk · contribs) 09:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- ilr, in my opinion, just adopting policies from another wiki (especially one that has it's own issues) is not the way to go, nevermind expanding them. I do think that the GWW:DICK policy proposal needs to be deep-sixed. We should work out basic policies and talk about them before it becomes an issue, not just for the users but also so that the admins know what the limits of their side of things are as well. So we don't have users and admins abusing things. That way, if a user steps out of bounds, can say "this is what was done", and the same for the admins. The admins should have a certain level of freedom, but what are we supposed to do if a sysop or a bcrat type gets out of bounds? It shouldn't be taken to an extreme that we are trying to regulate every little thing that could happen, but there needs to be a starting point. 42 - talk 05:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
