Revised Language Enforcement
2,830pages on
this wiki
this wiki
Forum page
| This page is documenting a discussion about a policy or project proposal that was REJECTED by the community by a vote of 0-0-3. Any additional information may or may not be listed at the bottom of this page. THIS DISCUSSION IS NOW CLOSED, so please do not edit here. Thanks. |
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: Revised Language Enforcement
Edit
Description of Policy: Language has become a problem for a lot of users and it is only getting worse due to the issue of angry users and overly-strict language enforcement. I propose that little words such as jerk, geek, and moron should be allowed when used in the right context. Users shouldn't be able to go to another user's page and call him/her a nerd over and over again. However, when chatting on blog pages it should be acceptable for users to say these words in a joking manner. For more offensive words such as "Fuck" and "Shit" which the admins find very offensive, I propose that when users are creating a blog page they should be able to decide whether or not words such as that are acceptable on their page. Users who choose to create blog pages that allow cursing will have only themselves to blame if they start finding things offensive.
Notes: I believe this at least deserves a test drive; I think that we should at least try it for a month to see how it goes
Supporting links or images: http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:JakePT/The_New_Normandy http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Humans_Vanish/Personal_thoughts_regarding_Language_Policy
Other Notes Edit
Voting Edit
Support Edit
Neutral Edit
Oppose Edit
- This user (RiftJargon) has already proposed a change to the language policy (Forum:Changing the Language Policy), and that discussion is still ongoing. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:47, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
- For reasons which will soon be enumerated below. SpartHawg948 01:51, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what this was going to be, but from what I'm seeing, I oppose this. Lancer1289 02:24, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
Discussion Edit
This isn't a petition to change the language policy, it's a survey to help decide how we should enforce the rules of language. Users have made it clear that the language policy isn't the issue, it's the way that it is enforced
- (edit conflict)Ok, here's the thing: This proposal would really be better off as two separate proposals, as the items being proposed are interrelated, to be sure, but are not one and the same. But, as they are being proposed jointly, I'll address them as such.
- First: User of words such as "jerk", "geek", "moron", etc, in a joking manner. This bit seems odd to me, as this is already permitted under current site policy. What is not permitted is using these words in reference to another editor, i.e. using them as insults. This falls under the banning policy, not the language policy, so no loosening of the language policy would impact them. But, in the interests of discussion, here's my beef with this: Anyone can claim joking intent, even if none was present. And insults are in the eye of the beholder. No redress is provided for people who are called jerks or morons in a "joking" manner but who feel genuinely insulted. As such, I cannot in good conscience vote for this.
- Second: Use of offensive words in blogs if the author deems it acceptable. This one, as Commdor astutely pointed out, may very well become moot in two days, as it is in direct contradiction to the current language policy, which as of today enjoys overwhelming support in the policy forum discussing its fate. Again though, for the sake of discussion, I'd have to vote no. Site policies are best enforced 100% or not at all, IMO. As I've stated before, I'm more than willing to talk about application of the current policy, and easing the enforcement of said policy, but the creation of "policy-free zones" is not the answer.
- And that's the long and short of my position on the matter. If we were to do these two separately, I'd vote no on part one, and would try to come up with a compromise on part two, giving ground and trying to work out a solution that pleases everyone, more or less. But lumped together, I can't vote yes. Part one is just too much of a deal-breaker. SpartHawg948 02:02, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Addendum to the author - If it's in the policy forum, it's a proposal to change the current policy. If you want a survey, do it in a more appropriate venue. SpartHawg948 02:02, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
Survey was probably a bad way to phrase it. It is a petition, but not one to change the language policy, just how it's enforced.
- Yup. Hence the title and the subject matter... SpartHawg948 02:26, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
This policy proposal has been rejected 0-0-3. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:08, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
