SmashWiki talk:You are valuable

Sounds good to me. But maybe mention that admins do usually have the final say in things? BALτʀο [ talk ] 05:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

guideline

It is decidedly a behavioral guideline; how people should act, rather than it is necessary they act. If the peons (so to speak) want to behave as peons, that's their prerogative, and we shouldn't force them to behave otherwise, only note that they are allowed to behave otherwise. --Sky (t · c · w) 00:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Are guidelines enforcable? If not, this should stay a policy. --Shadowcrest 01:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What is there to enforce, except to check the god-king administrators? --Sky (t · c · w) 01:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is less of covering the "tin plated dictators with delusions of godhood" than it is empowering the normal users. I want to be able to call people out for a) putting sysops/etc on pedestals; b) overstepping their bounds as <x> by throwing their rank around improperly; and/or c) belittling themselves on basis or "rank".

Why the dictators comment is funny. (1) --Shadowcrest 01:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you on about? I run this wiki and you all know it. lolz. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 01:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're still looking to call them out, then you need to reread the second half of second sentence. I pretty much said that you are more than welcome to remind other users that they can be just as talkative as someone with the tools is; but with the weight of policy, that becomes force, rather than suggestion. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

Currently, this policy is apparently written for people who think they are less valuable than others. It also implies (or can be distorted to imply) that users are equally important regardless of their actions. This really should be changed. For example:

Whether you are a new user without an account or an admin with years of experience, you are just as valuable an editor as anyone else, and your input is welcomed. However, this does not mean that experience is irrelevant, nor does it mean you can fool around and expect to be treated like someone who makes productive edits.

Needs improvement and discussion. Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy 19:20, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Good, this is what I am talking about. We should not be expected to think that's everyone's opinion is equally valid because it isn't. Someone who has been here longer has an inherently better understanding of the working of this wiki and therefore can make more rational decisions about it. Likewise a professional smasher has more understating of the metagame and therefore is more likely to know what s/he is talking about in terms of character attributes. Potential value is not the same as everyone being equal. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:09, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

So, uh, is there gonna be more discussion of this or not? Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy 17:05, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. I also would be fine with the proposed change, so unless someone opposes it within the next day or so I'd say just add it in. Shadowcrest 17:16, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Expansion or merge

I don't think we should have a guideline that is only two sentences. If somebody can think of ways to add more to this, please do so. If not, then this should be merged with the SW:ADMIN. Mr. Anontalk 17:58, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

I see nothing wrong with a short policy, and I can't see how it could be easily merged into SW:ADMIN. That said however it could benefit from things like examples. Toomai Glittershine The Labbie 18:07, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

A short policy is one thing, but a two sentence guideline isn't very helpful. For examples, what do you have in mind? Mr. Anontalk 18:09, 22 October 2011 (EDT)