v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.
Difference between revisions of "Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Block policy"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (my 2) |
Mason11987 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Yay administrators! We get to come up with a block policy! How doth we handle this? | Yay administrators! We get to come up with a block policy! How doth we handle this? | ||
:With extreme prejudice. <br />No, actually, I like the current policy - ''unwritten''. People know when they're being obnoxious - Freakzoid knew it, and he went there anyway, including posting anonymously when he had been banned, and then posting to flip you grief after reducing his ban. If anything, you were too tolerant, allowing a weak-ass excuse to cut his ban in half - but I digress. <br />An unwritten policy says "'''There is an invisible, undefined line - so don't even come CLOSE to where you think it starts!'''" - and reasonable people won't. Any ''written'' policy invites quibblers and people who put one toe over the line and then two, and then three but only on occasion and they apologize right away and then argue about where the line actually was - phhhht. The tighter you try to define "a law", the more people rely on that definition rather than common sense and courtesy. You know what's acceptable, I know, and so does everyone else. And if/when they cross that line, it will be equally clear to all, and they'll know what a ban is like.<br />We can list "no religion, no RL politics, no this, no that" - but then we're back to defining those terms, and then the definitions, ''ad infinitum''. If we want to write up some formalized complaint process, including 3rd party complaints (when the "victim" isn't bothered or doesn't want to make a fuss, but others think they should), that works for me - if two Beavis's are arguing, they might only be insulting each other, but it offends the entire site, and similarly if someone is attacked but doesn't feel like defending themselves, or someone crosses a line without a clear target. <br />My 2 dwarfbucks.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 11:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | :With extreme prejudice. <br />No, actually, I like the current policy - ''unwritten''. People know when they're being obnoxious - Freakzoid knew it, and he went there anyway, including posting anonymously when he had been banned, and then posting to flip you grief after reducing his ban. If anything, you were too tolerant, allowing a weak-ass excuse to cut his ban in half - but I digress. <br />An unwritten policy says "'''There is an invisible, undefined line - so don't even come CLOSE to where you think it starts!'''" - and reasonable people won't. Any ''written'' policy invites quibblers and people who put one toe over the line and then two, and then three but only on occasion and they apologize right away and then argue about where the line actually was - phhhht. The tighter you try to define "a law", the more people rely on that definition rather than common sense and courtesy. You know what's acceptable, I know, and so does everyone else. And if/when they cross that line, it will be equally clear to all, and they'll know what a ban is like.<br />We can list "no religion, no RL politics, no this, no that" - but then we're back to defining those terms, and then the definitions, ''ad infinitum''. If we want to write up some formalized complaint process, including 3rd party complaints (when the "victim" isn't bothered or doesn't want to make a fuss, but others think they should), that works for me - if two Beavis's are arguing, they might only be insulting each other, but it offends the entire site, and similarly if someone is attacked but doesn't feel like defending themselves, or someone crosses a line without a clear target. <br />My 2 dwarfbucks.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 11:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :First, a minor quibble. I think the policy should come from everyone, admin or not, but if you think that shouldn't be the case then feel free to strike this statement. | ||
| + | :I think that if people are being disruptive and personally insulting others, they should have a minimal (days) editing ban. If they come here deliberately to put vandalism on the wiki (replacing an article with 'fuck' for example), they should be gone for weeks from editing. I think that's enough for this wiki. I don't see any good reason to ever ban an IP/username from viewing the wiki (as I've seen mentioned before), who cares if someone is read only? Block, like everything else here should be used or done only to improve or protect the wiki from falling apart, doing something else (if possible) is unnecessary always. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 12:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:05, 1 March 2010
Yay administrators! We get to come up with a block policy! How doth we handle this?
- With extreme prejudice.
No, actually, I like the current policy - unwritten. People know when they're being obnoxious - Freakzoid knew it, and he went there anyway, including posting anonymously when he had been banned, and then posting to flip you grief after reducing his ban. If anything, you were too tolerant, allowing a weak-ass excuse to cut his ban in half - but I digress.
An unwritten policy says "There is an invisible, undefined line - so don't even come CLOSE to where you think it starts!" - and reasonable people won't. Any written policy invites quibblers and people who put one toe over the line and then two, and then three but only on occasion and they apologize right away and then argue about where the line actually was - phhhht. The tighter you try to define "a law", the more people rely on that definition rather than common sense and courtesy. You know what's acceptable, I know, and so does everyone else. And if/when they cross that line, it will be equally clear to all, and they'll know what a ban is like.
We can list "no religion, no RL politics, no this, no that" - but then we're back to defining those terms, and then the definitions, ad infinitum. If we want to write up some formalized complaint process, including 3rd party complaints (when the "victim" isn't bothered or doesn't want to make a fuss, but others think they should), that works for me - if two Beavis's are arguing, they might only be insulting each other, but it offends the entire site, and similarly if someone is attacked but doesn't feel like defending themselves, or someone crosses a line without a clear target.
My 2 dwarfbucks.--Albedo 11:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- First, a minor quibble. I think the policy should come from everyone, admin or not, but if you think that shouldn't be the case then feel free to strike this statement.
- I think that if people are being disruptive and personally insulting others, they should have a minimal (days) editing ban. If they come here deliberately to put vandalism on the wiki (replacing an article with 'fuck' for example), they should be gone for weeks from editing. I think that's enough for this wiki. I don't see any good reason to ever ban an IP/username from viewing the wiki (as I've seen mentioned before), who cares if someone is read only? Block, like everything else here should be used or done only to improve or protect the wiki from falling apart, doing something else (if possible) is unnecessary always. Mason (T-C) 12:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)