1,529
edits
SmashWiki talk:User pages: Difference between revisions
→Re-proposal
Shadowcrest (talk | contribs) |
Mako Shark (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
:::::# Something not happening with any regularity is indeed a reason not to write a policy. Policy is not meant to be all-encompassing. | :::::# Something not happening with any regularity is indeed a reason not to write a policy. Policy is not meant to be all-encompassing. | ||
:::::# Your proposal by definition limits freedom. If I can't write what I believe on my userpage, my freedom has been restricted. End of story. <!-- Though obviously some restriction is fair. --> <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 18:49, September 27, 2010 (UTC) | :::::# Your proposal by definition limits freedom. If I can't write what I believe on my userpage, my freedom has been restricted. End of story. <!-- Though obviously some restriction is fair. --> <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 18:49, September 27, 2010 (UTC) | ||
I don't much like pointing the obvious out OT, but if you insist. Note that I'm not for or against compulsory asking before removing comments. Also I apologise to everyone about the ridiculous length of the following. | |||
:''Posting on someone's talk page asking them to remove an unnecessary negative comment/opinion of them brings unnecessary attention to something that doesn't need it and can just end up causing large disputes that multiple users get involved in.'' | |||
Supposing the restriction were not enforced, I don't believe that asking for something to be removed brings any more unnecessary attention to it than flat out removing it. Last time I checked, people tend to be more tolerant of each other and less likely to stir up trouble when others ask before changing something that they made. I also don't believe there's a high chance of a large dispute occurring when everyone follows the proper guidelines. | |||
:''While it is true removing the comment from the userpage without "permission" can cause even more trouble, that will only happen if the user gets the idea that they could post the negative comment in the first place, since it is not restricted and just discouraged.'' | |||
I believe a user with any amount of common sense is very unlikely to post a negative comment if they read the proposed guideline, which strongly discourages them from doing so and warns them of the consequences. The guideline will be especially dissuasive when they discover that bad comments could lead to a request from an offended user, which stays on their talk page permanently (while this doesn't happen if the restriction is in place). The only scenario in which someone might realistically consider posting a bad comment is if they haven't read the proposed rule/guideline page, regardless of whether the restriction is enforced or not. So I believe the proposed guideline would be effective in stopping the vast majority of people with a mind to post a bad comment (of which there are just about none anyway) from posting bad comments, while the restriction wouldn't be effective in completely stopping it. | |||
As you stated yourself - "it is true removing the comment from the userpage without 'permission' can cause even more trouble". What if a user posts a comment that later gets removed without asking, but the the poster believes that the comment was not offensive, and that he has done nothing wrong and wishes to argue his case? What if arguing his case causes a "disruption" - a talk page dispute? If it does, that user is in technically in a position to "get banned for causing disruption over it." Furthermore, if people cause "disruption" after a comment removal incident (regardless of whether or not they were at fault) by questioning the restriction or arguing that they don't believe the restriction should be in place, they are technically also in a position to be banned for that. Since when has it been reasonable to ban, or threaten to ban people for arguing their case? Since when has it been reasonable to ban, or threaten to ban people for questioning the wiki's rules? We would not "just be restricting users from posting unnecessary negative comments/opinions of other users", we would be violating peoples' freedom and right to question and argue. | |||
:''The Wiki may not be full of such people, but that doesn't mean it can't be and a policy is needed in the cases it does come up due to potential shit it can cause.'' | |||
There is no need to find a solution to something that isn't actually a problem. If the wiki's not full of these people now, there's not currently a problem, just a "potential problem". True, it's a nice idea to come up with a solution to something that might possibly happen, but that's not a good enough reason to have the rule enforced now instead of later. The wiki's not full of these angry, immature people. True, that doesn't mean it can't be. But do you think it will ever be? I don't. If you do, come back and propose the rule when these people arrive and we actually need it. | |||
I believe that people will respect the fact that the wiki does not enforce a rule just because it "achieves the same goal as discouragement, but more simply and more efficient." Part of the concept of freedom is giving people the benefit of the doubt, and by enforcing the restriction now and not later, we are not giving them the benefit of the doubt. | |||
While some of the logic behind the proposed restriction is understandable, I don't think the rule is appropriate for now. Maybe it will be later, maybe it won't ever be. [[User:Mako Shark|<span style="color:#336891">Shark</span>]] <b>[[User talk:Mako Shark|<span style="color:#9bbed0">(talk)</span>]]</b> 19:13, September 27, 2010 (UTC) | |||