Forum:Flamewar Bans Policy 2.0

Forums: Index > Policy > Flamewar Bans Policy 2.0

This page is for discussing a policy related to the Mass Effect Wiki that may or may not be passed by the community. The Form below serves to describe the Policy and what it is about, or what it will modify.

Policy: Flamewar Bans Policy 2.0

Description of Policy: If implemented, this policy will give administrators the rights to ban users over flamewars.

The following criteria must all be met for something to be considered a flamewar and for a warning to be issued.

• The debate must include at least one argumentative party, only one example needs to be met for a party to be considered argumentative. The below examples qualify as argumentative.

-The party(ies) is insulting another user in such a way it can be taken no other way but as an insult; Example "Why are being so stupid?" .

-The party(ies) is refusing to drop the debate even after the writer of the blog or creator of the forum have clearly expressed the desire to; Example "Guys, stop replying and end this flamewar now.".

-The party(ies) is consistently (more than two times) bringing up politics and religion in the debate that has nothing to do with them, and after another user had requested them to stop.

• There must be at least twenty posts related to the flamewar on the same thread, they don't necessarily have to be part of the same comment string. Users are still aloud to comment on the topic of the blog, they are just not aloud to post comments trying to continue the flamewar.

If the all of the above criteria are met, warnings will be issued to all parties involved and on the discussion thread as well. Anyone who acts argumentative (as defined above) in response to the debate after the warning has been issued will be banned, however normal and civil comments related to the debate will still be aloud. Notes:
Supporting links or images: Forum:Flamewar Bans Policy Voting.

Voting

Support

1. As Proposer.--Legionwrex (talk) 16:08, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
2. I still support this policy. No one can deny that we've had a problem with this stuff of the past few months, and this is a fairly reasonable way to deal with it. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 16:41, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
3. Support. Seems fair. SolitaryReaper (talk) 22:40, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
4. Support. My reservations are of minor issues. --Ygrain (talk) 05:27, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Against

1. Lancer1289 (talk) 05:18, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
2. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 05:28, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
3. The Illusive Man (talk) 05:56, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
4. >:( T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 05:58, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
5.  teugeneTalkContr 17:18, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
6. After perusing the comments here and in the prior vote, the "against" crowd (particularly Xaero, Trandra and Lancer) have convinced me. Current policies deal with the issue sufficiently. SpartHawg948 (talk) 22:07, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Looking back, I realize the original version of this was unreasonable and just all around badly worded, but I feel like this revised version is very reasonable and will help stop flamewars, please read through it completely as they're thing I have changed since the original.--Legionwrex (talk) 16:11, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Generally, I support your idea, but I think it still needs some refinement. If you recall, the recent flamwarring was mostly incited by a user who kept throwing about condescending comments, even though asked repeatedly by various users to stop. The negative attitudes these comments created were then transferred from blog to blog, and, though clearly flamewar, the inciter would be unpunishable due to your twenty posts criterion. --Ygrain (talk) 18:25, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

True, but it is a small price to pay to make sure users get a chance to end the flamewar on their own, or else we end up with users getting banned left and right and people being God-fearing, and in the event that the user did what you said, eventually someone would probably talk to said user and tell him/her to stop.--Legionwrex (talk) 18:30, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, if I'm thinking of the same user you are, there definitely times where the comment strings exceeded twenty posts.--Legionwrex (talk) 18:33, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess you remember whom I explicitely asked to stop, so, most probably, you are, and yeah, definitely over twenty. However, I'd like to see these things stopped before they reach this count.

Also, I don't think flamewar must include explicite use of offensive words, one does not have to be a Desperate Housewife to insult people in a most horrible way while seemingly remaining perfectly civil. --Ygrain (talk) 19:02, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Um, what, I couldn't understand that first sentence.

The problem is, I feel like if I lowered it from twenty, people would be banned left and right, and it might also cut down on some actual debates that are ruined by one argumentative person.

The idea is that after this policy is passed, people would be less likely to want to start a flamewar, and would be more careful in what they say, thereby stopping most before they reach the twenty mark.--Legionwrex (talk) 19:23, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Also, explicate use of offensive words is really the only 100% way we can know something was meant as an insult, that's why it is included.--Legionwrex (talk) 19:26, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Not really. If I said, "I can't be bothered to maintain the basic rules of civility towards people who apparently lack the capacity to grasp the concept", I technically wouldn't say anything offensive, because there are no offensive words - but the sentence would still be highly offensive, because it is just a long-winded way to call someone a mannerless idiot.

Also, shouldn't your policy include a warning prior the person is banned? Or does an explicit request from a user to stop count as a warning? --Ygrain (talk) 04:59, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

True, but that is a small price to pay in order to assure administrators don't ban users over something that might not be an insult. This policy exists to stop flamewars, not to give admins another reason to ban people.

As to your second point, the policy does say to warn the user(s) on their talk page and on the blog--Legionwrex (talk) 05:05, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Then, I'm afraid, your policy might turn out toothless.

/facepalm/ sorry. --Ygrain (talk) 05:32, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Again, I would just like to ask people that even if you saw the original policy, read through this one completely and carefully as there are many major differences that deal with most if not all the problems people had with the first one.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:30, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

After considering this all day and reading over it, I'm still set against this policy. To be honest, there really isn't anything here that isn't covered under current policies and banning practices. A "flamewar" can easily be called harassment, especially after they have been told to drop it or to calm down. I honestly can't support this, and I probably never will. Lancer1289 (talk) 05:18, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Only if they where and continues targeting one person would it be harassment, they could easily jump from user to user, and you failed to address the "bringing up politics and religion" point. However thank you for reading the proposal, I get the feeling some people who voted either read the old one and thought that this was exactly the same, or they didn't read anything and are just going to vote with the popular opinion.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:20, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

still won't support because it's 1) still redundant, 2) it's still needlessly restrictive, and 3) it's not a flamewar if people decline to comment.

1. if you haven't noticed you can always point to the admins that user/s so-and-so is/are stepping out of line with being persistently insulting or just being persistent (reference their posts) even without this proposal. the former can be put under "insulting other users" in http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Mass_Effect_Wiki:Community_Guidelines#Banning and the latter under a loose definition of"spamming" which is pretty much bannable in any situation. and in all cases the admins are required to give explicit warnings which the concerned parties may or may not heed.
2. it goes both ways. if the flamers' posts are outright retarded it's obvious what the action must be. but if the flamer actually has a point and is simply as passionate about his/her arguments as the rest of you then who are you to cut off his/her right to say what s/he wants? s/he can act condescending/insulting for all i care as long as i see there's some worth to what s/he's saying and s/he keeps civil as much as the rules permit. this proposal just gives overly sensitive users an excuse to back out of long discussions where arguments with merit can be interpreted as "hostile" by those unwilling/unable to understand (not necessarily accept) it. and are losing.
3. nobody is forcing you to respond to provocative posts. you yourselves aggravate the situation merely by posting to say you've had enough of user so-and-so's opinions. the mature way to handle this is simply to ignore it and let the poster's thread die. and if s/he still persists you can still get the user banned for spamming and/or harassment. simple as that.
4. i think you're just using this as a personal vendetta against certain argumentative users. almost akin to backstabbing which i find rude and insulting even if that's not me; how much more if that was actually me. go pester them in their talkpages instead of bringing up the policy pages for this. (this is just my personal objection which has little bearing on my other points)

the rest of you think this through -very- carefully if you don't want the blogs section of this wiki to become a cesspool of mutual hugboxing further devoid of intelligent thought. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 05:58, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

I must say I'm a little offended, but I will respond none the less.

1. The only one you can point out that actually causes the admins to do something is insulting another user and breaking the language policy, other than that an admin will simply leave a message asking people to stop, which as we can clearly see in not effective.

2.I'm could honestly care less if they are "passionate"(which I think is a cheap excuse anyways) they still need to follow the rules and not cause major arguments, because any "enlightening" data that comes from a flamewar can easily be achieved by being civil. As to your second point, those users have the right to back out if they are being flamed at.

3 (Why does it seem like you are talking to me?) Again, that is a cheap excuse. Users have the right to call someone out on their blatantly wrong facts, those people, however, don't have the right to act "passionate" and start a flamewar.

4.I can honestly say I was not expecting this hostility from you. If there are any users you think I have a "personal vendetta" against and that I'm "using this blog to backstab" them, please, don't beat around the bush and tell me what users you think I would do this to. I am shocked at the rudeness of this comment.

Last but not least, the blogs and forums will become much better and more intelligent now that users are acting civil (people are much more likely to listen to people who are being civil).--Legionwrex (talk) 17:13, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

The policy has been rejected 4-0-6. Lancer1289 (talk) 01:23, August 27, 2012 (UTC)