User talk:Auron/1

o lawd, *****s done invaded our wiki. Armond 18:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

mmhmm? Anyway, what the heck? Ohaider Auron. --Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) 19:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Auron --Cursed Angel 22:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised actually. — Skakid HoHoHo 15:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good. -Auron 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Backsword/Culture Poll

Auron wins PvE, again. I could have guessed your responses word for word. :) It's always nice to know a blunt guy who also has common sense. Entropy on GuildWiki, 24.6.147.36 18:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Inorite? -Auron 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sysop discretion

I'd like to hear more on that from you, especially how you define sysop discretion. Regarding the Marijuana image, you argued "I would say it's best left to "sysop discretion."". If you read that page, you'll notice that at least 1 sysop (Tanaric) wants that image deleted, while at least 1 sysop (Anja) does not agree. So how does sysop discretion work in this case? Does Tanaric superseed Anja because he acted first? Or does Anja (potentially restoring the picture) superseed Tanaric because she acted last?

I don't see any way to solve that except comming to an agreement (e.g. policy) through discussion, yet you seem to feel otherwise. So please tell me how the system you have in mind would deal with the issue at hand. --Xeeron 14:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Tanaric deleted it first, problem solved. If Anja disagrees, she can bring it up on his talk page and they can reach consensus via discussion. Sysops don't have to agree 100% of the time, and you'd be daft to think they do. They can still co-exist perfectly well.

Remember that we don't have to base GW2W on the same failures we based GWW on; the lack of trust, the lack of communication, and the lack of logic. Simple votes and word-for-word clauses in policies don't cure life's problems nearly as well as discretion does.

Take this case, for example - any image policy you write up would be moot, seeing as Eloc could just do one of these and it would technically not be an uploaded image anymore. Either you leave it to discussion and consensus on a case-by-case basis, or you try to apply a blanket policy beforehand and hope its consensus applies to every case. Your call. -Auron 15:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So your answer is: If sysops disagree, it is discussed on their talk pages and meanwhile the initial action stands and is enforced?

I'd also like to remind you that one person's biased view of history is not the definite truth. Even if that person has a god complex ;-) --Xeeron 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"If Anja disagrees, she can bring it up on his talk page and they can reach consensus via discussion. Sysops don't have to agree 100% of the time, and you'd be daft to think they do. They can still co-exist perfectly well. " Lord Belar 00:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

? --Xeeron 12:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He answered your question, because I had already done it. -Auron 13:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

To tack on a bit; sysops aren't here to find truth nor history. They're here to make the wiki not suck, and they can do it better than any policy - simply because they can use their brains. The best part? They don't get the inconvenience of trolls "interpreting" their meaning.

Anything policy can do can be done faster and more universally by a human. This is a small wiki. A group of sysops (no more than a handful) can deal with all the problems that will arise. It isn't hard to get a handful of people who aren't dumb as rocks.

If you dislike the concept of trust, you're trying to fuck up the wrong kind of website; go start your own. One where anonymous users can't edit pages. One where admins can't ban trolls.

Maybe you've forgotten, but wikis really under perform when you leave out the founding elements of the whole "anyone can edit" thing. Wikis are not the place to suffer from paranoia. This time, the paranoid jab isn't directed at you, but at the userbase in general. If you aren't able to place enough trust in someone to do their job, you really need to find a new format for documenting game data; as you obviously don't understand how wikis work. -Auron 13:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know: I am usually a very nice person to discuss with, but I hate people who try to belittle me by using "clever" formulations or "superior" irony. I can do that as well, trust me.

Since you insist on being too clever for your own good, I'll dumb down my message so I am understood.

• I read your sentences the first time, I simply wanted to make sure that I understood them correctly, so I would not, like others, sprout nonsense because I misunderstood your message. What I wanted was a simple "yes" or "no", not someone to parrot what I could prefectly read for myself a few lines up.
• "To tack on a bit; sysops aren't here to find truth nor history." Well whatever gave you the idea that sysops are here to find truth or history? Possibly the fact that you totally misread my post? But then, why ever ask for clarification, hah.
• Since subtle words are not understood: "one person's biased view of history is not the definite truth" is not related at all to sysops, but to your dissing of guildwarswiki.
• You are in no position to tell me or anyone else to go and "start your own" website. Neither can you bully this place into what YOU feel is the best wiki. In case you have forgotten, anyone can contribute here, not just people who adhere to your view of the world. If you can't handle the fact that people disagree with you, consider not posting on public websites. --Xeeron 01:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand that trust is a basic principle for a wiki of this size. If you can't trust, the wiki will go nowhere. It will get into the same problems GWW did. It won't get past them, because it will be incapable of doing so. I'm not trying to bully you to go to another website; I'd much prefer you realize that you don't place enough stock in trust and start doing it more now and then. You're a valued contributor from years past, but if you are going to cramp this wiki by pulling the same bullshit that hurt GWW, I am not going to stand up and welcome you.

You're hinting that because sysops can disagree, sysop discretion is a worse system than ironclad policies. That was the entire point of this section on my talk page. I read nothing wrong. My comment was a dismissal of yours, not a reply in kind.

My view of history might be biased, but it doesn't make it wrong. Guild Wars Wiki was, overall, a success. It had some failures; failures that are easily remedied, as long as we don't make the same mistakes. That's all I want to prevent here. Feel free to port over all the successes; the image policy, the later versions of the user policy, even the guild policy if those are in the game; but don't expect cooperation from me if you're trying to implement the same failure of a sysop system.

To answer your original question; sysop discretion is what each sysop feels is right, in any given case. They aren't all going to agree. They aren't all going to feel warm and fuzzy; indeed, in the best possible sysop team, you're going to have one or two dicks capable of dealing with the dicks that need banning.

Back on GuildWiki, I was added to the team quite late; but the stern sysop role had been handled by Rainith, Skuld, and to a lesser extent, Fyren. The team had carebears, but it wasn't all carebears (compare that to GWW's team; that's what you get when you reduce sysop election to a popularity contest). They even got along. They were all there for the betterment of the wiki; because of that, even when they disagreed, they could live with each other.

Gem and I interacted quite a bit as sysops over there; he was definitely the nicer one. He'd be the one to lay down kind reminders, friendly notes on talk pages, and even bans for blatant policy violations. If a user was trying to wikilawyer him (which was rare because none of the sysops on GWiki put up with that crap), I would step in and aid Gem. Gem could disagree with the ban length, and he was perfectly entitled to chatting with me about it (and if he made a solid case against my ban length, I would change it, or keep it in mind for later bans). Aside from that, we both had roles in the sysop team, and we both did them. Any further questions? -Auron 02:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No further questions. You make heroic assumptions about what I understand or do, and you are too full of yourself to consider that you might be wrong.

This sentence sums it up: "My comment was a dismissal of yours, not a reply in kind." There is no point in further discussing with you, since you are not interested in a fair discussion, but rather want to bash those who disagree with you. I will rather save my breath for something more worthwhile. --Xeeron 12:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you commented on Readem in your edit summary. Hindsight is 20/20, is it not? I don't believe he's been an admin for several months now - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. -Auron 13:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, shit, I can't say that last bit because that would be considering being wrong. -Auron 13:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I was a decent administrator tbh. I quit because random people would pm me in-game either wanting build advice, or vigorous buttsex :/. It still happens occasionally... --Readem 05:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, can I have the buttsex? Lord Belar 05:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't quit. You got demoted after blocking yourself infinitely - a stunt you'd come back from in the past. You were just being emo and would have unblocked yourself after a day or five. -Auron 12:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

you, sir

Were right. Sorry. Won't happen again. nuke7 14:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

hes always right --Cursed Angel 15:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

... --Shadowphoenix 15:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)