Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-27097330-20170224221935/@comment-27097330-20170322010830

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Auraestus wrote: I edited the rules a bit, take a look. It's better, but for the biggest problem was always the message wall clause and that remains. A user can do as they wish on their message wall, and to say otherwise encourages harassment and authoritarianism. Then that's the issue, not the whole damn system. I don't care how you want to implement such a system, so long as it prevents abuse of it. I tried to do that, and you lot yelled at me that by preventing abuse I was taking away people's own "right" to do certain things. There are other problems of course. There's no game master freedom clause, it kind of rules out democratic rule making, and the way you got them passed was almost as bad as Dragon's whole conspiracy ban. And by the time they're reworked like this, they're no longer you're rules.

The way I see it there are three ways through this. The simple, effective rules, decided upon by the wiki, your rules, or a new set hammered out by Aurae. While the third option may seem the most appealing to people who don't want to take sides, it really only puts off the problem. I fail to see how any of it was at all a conspiracy or anything like. Sure, I'm annoyed that you lot went in and threw out some incredibly functional and well-defined rules for the piece of (you'll have to excuse me saying so) shit that you did replace it with, but I'm not some lunatic who goes on a personal vendetta the moment anyone dos anything against me.

The crap vomited out by Imrahil, Patrick, and co. (can't remember if you were part of it) showed a clear lack of understanding on all points. It's simple, sure, but simple also in the sense that it's stupid. It doesn't function as a set of rules, it functions as a blank cheque to the Staff to do whatsoever they wish. If you trust that, fine, but there have been multiple accounts already of major divides inside of the Staff, caused by disagreeements on punishment etc. We need a united front against this sort of thing, and while it may not be common, and someone like you may not appreciate the necessity, the magnitude of the things covered inside of such rules needs to be large, or decisiveness falls apart and so too, shortly after, will the whole Wiki, if the issue is large enough. I'm sure I'm not the only one here not wanting that. That's not the point. The point is that you originally got your rules through without even consulting the rest of the wiki. Then when people finally got a better set in, you just advantage and did it again! Let's be quite clear, Eureka did not have to revert the rules for us to consider them, we easily could have just gone to the last edit and looked at them. So reverting the rules was ridiculous and completely out of both of your jurisdiction.

The rules "vomited out" were simple and effective. This is not a country. This is a small wiki. We specify what needs to be specified and leave everything else alone. And you keep bringing up staff abuse of power, but I disagree, the rules don't encourage abuse of power they encourage admins to figure things out through communication and make compromises. And even if it was neccessary to specify exactly ban terms and lengths why should you be the one who decides? You're not an admin and you ou don't represent the whole wiki. Why should it be necessary to consult the wiki, Chaz, if what someone is doing is fairly simple, and a good thing to do? I quite clearly remember there being no intent on specifically ignoring the "will of the people", as I'm expecting you to put it at some point, as there was no voice for the people, there was no visible majority, and so on. I can't know what people think if they don't say it. Now, with that being said, I refer you to what I originally said in this reply. So what?

Simple, yes, but not effective. To be effective they need to do a fair few things; cause an immediate response, cause a united response, or cause a specific response, to name but a few. It does the last, at the cost of the first two. Mine, however, did all three. If a new problem arose, a new precedent would be set, but everything else stayed the same, and most issues were covered. The absolute rubbish you're trying to defend caused arguments, over both the magnitude of punishment, and the issues punished. They are, to put it as simply as possible, because I know you like it simple, ineffective. There was no voice of the people because the people didn't know the rules existed until they had been implemented! They didn't say it because you didn't give them an opportunity! It wasn't until we started to see the negative effects that people noticed and expressed their dislike!

The number one definition of effective is having the intended or expected effect. The rules law down the purpose and guidelines of the wiki without restricting freedom or encouraging harassment. Therefore they have their expected effect. Therefore they are effective.

Yes, your rules caused an immediate, united, and specific response. Against them. Why do you still insist that everyone was happy under your rules? They weren't. And until you accept that I donut know how I can argue with you. And in regards to the many arguments you keep citing that the rules caused, I recognize possibly the argument over Tyb's ban. That's it. And that would have happened regardless of the rules. To some extent, that's fair enough. It is, indeed, partially my fault for not asking what people thought. Yet, all the same, if something was better should it be necessary to ask someone's opinion before doing it?

To place guidelines, is it? Well, not exactly. They outline the specifically denied actions to this wiki. See that word; "denied". That means that some freedoms are being restricted by certain actions being denied. Ultimate freedom would require the complete freedom for me to yell as many insults as I want to at people. And, for some, believe me when I say I would very much like to do that sometimes. But I can't, because my freedoms are being specifically limited. It can't be effective without doing so, and it's more effective the more it does its function. Its function is to limit freedom, and by limiting freedom it ensures peace. Therefore, so long as the limitations on freedom ensure peace, increasing it increases the amount of peacefulness.

I don't insist people were happy, I insist that my rules did not cause any actual avoidable pain on its own. The vast, vast, majority, was caused by people's (such as yours) negative reaction to them.

Tybereous' ban is, indeed, one such example. He was spamming the wiki, and indeed, there are no rules specific to Blogs. However, to be precise, the rules cover all aspects of the Wiki, though their most major use is listed above them. There is no one section specific to pages, or blogs, though they do all cover them. What he did was, certainly in part, both spam and questionable disrespect for the users here. Spam would've got him a warning, then a ban. Any arguments would most definitely not be over the punishment itself, which is neatly and clearly defined. Yes you should still ask people's opinion, at least in this scenario.

Okay, fair enough. I'll change my statement. The rules don't resrict freedom unnecessarily. And btw that's a logical fallacy. "Since some freedom restriction creates peace, won't more restriction create more peace?" That's not a valid argument.

And that is where we disagree. You blame people for people for reacting badly, while I believe it was the rules at fault.

Tyb's ban is the only such example. In the argument was not over the length of his ban so much as the ban itself. And thT is more of an argument over which rules to use than which punishment to give. So the rules aren't really at fault. Also I maintain he should be given access to his message wall. The requirement was that the decision was beneficial. By doing what you suggest, all that would happen is the delaying of something beneficial, which is in itself directly bad. You are literally advocating an action which helps no one, and by delaying does harm.

It's not a logical fallacy, as the logic is sound. I am not saying that as a question, it is a statement. The more you restrict the harm people can do (by restricting their freedom), the less harm they can do. It requires freedom to be limited to work. Of course, while freedom being limited does not just cover such an issue, limiting the harm people can do using the means the Rules did, works far better than the system attempted to replace it with.

Prove the rules were at fault, and I'll believe you. But if you're going to try and use hypotheses as evidence for removal, then that is entirely insufficient. If all you can do is believe it is at fault, then what (at all) am I supposed to say against something without evidence? This is along the lines of the millennia-old argument for and against God.

No, there are others. Sadly, given I am no longer Staff by (as far as I am concerned) no fault of my own, I cannot vouch for many such occurrences, yet all the same, earlier on there was an "official" warning given to me by Indom, which was followed up by Eureka (who, when questioned rather fell apart, but nonetheless…). What happened was one person took matters into their own hands. While Eureka refused to take up any sort of resistance to the matter, it was a clear display of how simple it is for the "bourgeoisie", if you will, of the wiki, to enact a decision that is largely unprecedented or unjustified. The problem is that you don't get to decide if something's beneficial. So actually I'm advocating for something that actually makes sure something is beneficial. If it has to put it off then so be it.

Peace is not the same thing as limiting harm. You said that's since I believe some freedom limits were neccessary for peace, more limits meant more peace. That's a logical fallacy. Not everything is on a consistent ratio, and more of something that worked isn't necessarily better. Also, you're rules didn't divert harm, so your whole argue,to kidn of falls apart there.

If you go back and check in almost every argument between you and Tyb, or you and Ed, or you and Minas, they asked us ou to get off their wall. The rules stopped them from banning you or closing the thread. So yes, I can say the rules caused problems.

I'm pretty sure that was before these rules were even fully in place.