All posts by Loney 97

<div class="quote"> <p>TheShadowAssassin wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Loney 97 wrote:
I'm with Keplers but voting BBB - the main reason for those requirements are just so a user who's running knows what's expected of them and has the knowledge of this community and the way these tools are used. It shouldn't matter when they did or if they currently still maintain the position.</div> <p>Generally, I'd consider a user's having of rights to mean that they are in good standing on the wiki, and if they don't have rights, maybe there's a reason? </p> </div> <p>I don't think it's a good gauge to depend on though - someone could not have rights simply because they were inactive, and someone could still have rights but be pretty crappy admin-wise. I don't consider this a loophole, and I think Alemas was a little biased in the wording here. </p>

<p>I'm with Keplers but voting BBB - the main reason for those requirements are just so a user who's running knows what's expected of them and has the knowledge of this community and the way these tools are used. It shouldn't matter when they did or if they currently still maintain the position. </p>

I vote to unblock as well.

<p>A, providing they are properly named and attached to articles or something. </p>

A.

<p>Toss it in the bin and start fresh, hopefully? :P </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: @Loney's insistence that the boundaries are easy to know: </p><p>Currently, no, they're not. Supposedly mentioning hateful regimes and their leaders in any context outside of serious, historical discussion is disallowed, unless it's Fort and Kira calling each other "Hitler" for twenty minutes before I finally complain about how skewed that is. The "boundaries" are in no way clear, and to be perfectly honest it appears very targeted against Ulrich, Sat, Brick, and myself (the four most outspoken libertarians on the chat -- who also know the most about WWII and talk about it often), with extra emphasis on "chat mods" who are most certainly Rom and Slice, our closest friends in the CM team. </p> </div> <p>Alright, so let's say we do implement this plan. It takes months and months of hard work, arguing about what the definition of offensive is and putting in rules about how many people have to agree that something is offensive before it is - and finally we have a full, huge list of everything you are not allowed to ever say on LMBW. What happens? There will always be something more to vote on, always a new loophole to close up. Maybe I'm not allowed to say I hate jews but does making a joke about showers in Auschwitz count as that? Does jokingly pretending my friend is gay count as offensive? lol i don't know. There is no such thing as a complete list of what is offensive, and to try and create something like that is inevitably ridiculous. It turns out to be a "I know it when I see it" kind of thing, it doesn't work. </p><p>Along with that, we'll be further teaching our CMs to moderate from a list. This is very counter-intuitive as it eliminates the need for a personal discretion. Personal discretion is important because every case is different, we aren't robots here. That's why something liking jokingly calling someone Hitler as Kira and Fort maybe were doing and as has always happened on this wiki (how many jokes have been made about Alemas being Hitler over the past 5 years) can be treated differently than saying Hitler was right or making fun of concentration camps or something like that. Of course I'd prefer it if that didn't happen here at all, I don't think it's right to joke or make fun of a personal tragedy that millions of people went through, but I understand that other people think otherwise. We're just trying to set a middle-ground here. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>BraveNewRoyalty wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Loney 97 wrote:
</div> <p>I don't know how much of this was in complete rational thought judging from the tone, but I cannot simply trust the admin/cm team. They are just too inconsistent, (which is what this is for, consistency) and I'm not the only one here who thinks that. I can speak confidently for other users like Keplers, Sat, Brick, Rome, and I can suspect anyone who voted A without just saying "why not" as their reasoning all feel the same. We're not trying to gain leverage, influence, whatever, we just want to know where the boundaries are. Once we know exactly what you all want from us, then we may all be less hamfisted together. </p> </div> <p>I don't really get this reasoning though. It's not that hard to be inoffensive, it's not hard to move something to PM if you think it could be offensive. It's how this wiki's chat has functioned since we started. </p>

<p>Alright, since this isn't going away easily I'm now going to have to write a thorough comment explaining how this is a reeally bad idea. yippee. </p><p>First of all, this: "The list would be continuely updated by community votes" </p><p>just kill me now </p><p>please </p><p>guys I'm done, I really am </p><p>We've lived in this world before, and for TWO WHOLE BEAUTIFUL MONTHS we got a break from it and you already want to start it up again. This is a blocked words list that people will inevitably take much too seriously, only with three more categories to worry about. I CAN'T CONTAIN MYSELF. Can it really be true? </p><p>How will this ensure "harmony and content" on this wiki? If you all wanted to live harmoniously this whole time maybe, just maybe (oh cherish the thought) maybe if people would TRUST the chat moderators we have without CONTESTING every frikken thing and, if they do have a problem with the way a moderator is acting, actually take steps to get that person reviewed and possibly demoted and maybe if we all lightened up and said "hey man, we cool" instead of holding grudges and fearing demotion over doing our jobs and being pissed of and edgy and maybe if your roaring teenaged hormones took a step back and realized this is a COMMUNITY and you won't always get your way but you will still have fun thEN MAYBE WE WOULDN'T NEED THIS AT ALL </p><p>The truth is I don't think a lot of you really want to live here harmoniously if it means giving up your rights. If it means holding that thought because it's not that nice or helpful and it might offend someone. If it means communicating within the boundaries on a certain site. You can't get something as cool and amazing as a sense of community without giving something up in return. </p><p>Personally, I don't think this wiki is going to live past 2017. We've had a long run, and now the MBs are dying and we're dying right along with them. PLEASE please PLEASE pleASE PLEASE, let's not end this all with a flurry of toxic and meaningless community votes built on a absolute lack of trust in our fellow members. Just, no. </p>

<p>B) Implementation of this would be a nightmare as others have said, and I personally trust our CMs and admin's situation-by-situation digression in this type of thing - this is why we have real people moderating and not just a bot. </p>

<p>No idea why this is blocked, is it a widely used acronym? If it was BFG or something I'd understand, but I've never heard this one before. I'm neutral, as I don't think this should be a red-x if it's just an obscure acronym, someone could relatively easily say it accidentally. </p>

<p>b), I prefer 'man of the night' </p>

<p>I think banning hate symbols and "ironic hate speech" should be enough - banning mention of historical figures seems overkill to me. </p>

Unblock.

<p>3 tildes is easier and sometimes looks better and I vote B and you can just check the history for the page to see when the last vote was, it isn't that hard... at all. </p>

<p>As long as a page accurately conveys the information to the reader, it's fine. If there are disputes between editors, I'd rather take care of those problems at the root than have a hundred odd votes about what pages should look like here just so we can have a hard template to stamp every page with. We may as well just be bots updating post and like counts then. </p>

B.

<p>In all seriousness, this vote is the internet version of grumpy teenagers in family vacation photos. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Sky-Pirate Doubloon wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Assassin Swipe wrote: I mean I support the banning of the word, but will we kick people for it? I doubt it. :P </p> </div> <p><big>not here to vote</big> but the original discussion says that people will be kicked for it </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Dr. Satl, M.D. wrote: Under this proposition, the word "dab" would become a yellow x and would warrant an immediate kick. </p> </div> </div> <p>If kicks were used as a punishment I would definitely vote against this, as every citizen of this community has the right to dance, movement, and the free expression of themselves regardless of what other people think. However, I don't feel that kicks should constitute punishment so whatever, let's do it, it's democracy after all. </p>

<p>A2, B5. I think stories should definitely deserve more recognition here now that other wikis such as the LU Stories Wiki have dropped off the map. </p>