Forum:Clear Blog Rules

Hi everyone, as discussed in One Piece Encyclopedia talk:Guidebook/Blogs and Chat, we will have to make and vote on blog rules since the previous forum only made one rule, that the wiki must contain blogs related to the wiki and the manga itself. Nothing more. So please, suggest blog rules which will all be voted on after discussion. Thanks. 11:41, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions
I'd say no blog needs to be deleted unless it's obviously a troll/spam or if it's gettin outta hand just lock it :/--

I agree. 12:23, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

I say no to power level blogs. Questions like "who is stronger" or "who would win in a fight" produce non constructive discussions which end up in pointless arguements. However, we should be thorough about the width, that the term "power level" includes.

There CAN and HAVE been great power lvl blogs with interesting arguments so no point sayin' flat out no to those IMO but if the blog gets outta hand delete/lock it.--

^ That's true. We could make a lock template so that if a blog gets out of hand, an admin is notified to lock it. 13:41, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good since some of them have interesting ideas that don't provoke arguments. 16:55, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

The main rules I think we need are: got to be related to One Piece, minimum amount of content (so not just two or three lines), and no abuse/insults. Blogs are meant to be discussed, surely, so unless the argument gets out of hand it's not a problem. 17:04, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Most blogs about power levels and bounties do provoke arguments or are repetitive. Those kinds of blogs should be at least regulated, if not banned. And Sabo blogs are guaranteed to provoke arguments since that is probably the most contested topic in One Piece. 20:23, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero evidence that power level blogs lead to arguments. There may be an argument on one or two of them but not on every single one of them like everybody implies. I would like the rule that blogs have to be about One Piece gone but I know that won't happen. The "rule" about Sabo blogs will not be on any vote since that was a full blown lie created by DP when he randomly added it the first time. SeaTerror (talk) 20:55, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Some power level blogs do like "who is the strongest Straw Hat". Those will just lead to people making lists and arguing about them. I agree with the Sabo rule regardless of it's source since that subject is always going to lead to arguments and it is not original. Look how many blogs come up when you search for Sabo in blogs. This isn't even counting the blogs that have been deleted. 23:02, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Prove that there will always be arguments on power level blogs. Sabo is a bad rule and should not exist. Only you and DP will want it. Also if you actually looked at the results you would see that some of those blogs only mentioned him and not as the main point of interest. SeaTerror (talk) 23:20, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

If there isn't a clear rule about power level blogs, then it will be difficult to determine, when the discussion has gone out of hand or is repetitive. Plus, it will end up being on an admin's hand to delete or lock it, which is what we are trying to avoid here in the first place. (and don't tell me that there's gonna be a democratic decision every time a lock is about to be determined)

I agree; maybe we could allow them with an admin's permission to filter out the argument provoking ones. And ST we should poll the Sabo rule; if you are right, it won't pass and if DP and I are it will. 02:32, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with a sabo blog. I've seen other speculative blogs and they haven't caused much disruption. So what's the difference? 03:27, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Sabo's mortality, power levels, and next member blogs, I have found, are the most non-constructive blog topics, with the first two going as far as being the two most volatile topics and all of them are an all-you-can-eat buffet for trolls. An activity feed full of vulgar blog comments just makes everything look bad. Flame wars lead to newer users making inaccurate judgments about this wiki, which we don't want. 03:54, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

I love how you have yet to provide any proof for any of your claims. SeaTerror (talk) 05:26, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that we'll have to go over everything on the original forum again since there is only technically one current blog rule. I still say the rule about non OP related blogs should be debated again. SeaTerror (talk) 09:39, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

^^^^ and dont tell me this forum's gonna last for 41 days until a poll comes up ... why not just start a poll?... we all know it'll be decided by a poll :|--

Nah, that rule is fine, nobody wants unrelated blogs anyway. Now, about power level and sabo blogs, who said that if you don't like them, the rest of the wiki doesn't either? Blogs are there to have fun and all. By your logic we should disable blogs since you never know which one will cause a war and which one won't. And if one blog does cause a war, you have all the power to lock the blog and delete the offensive comments. The fact that you don't like a specific type of blogs doesn't mean that you should delete them. I don't like some blogs either, lets delete them! 09:49, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

People never even discussed why non related blogs would be bad. People break the rule anyway including you Staw. Also going to poll right away would be moronic since we have to discuss what should be polled first. SeaTerror (talk) 09:59, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

The rules that will be polled anyway are
 * Sabo Blogs
 * Powah Level Blogs
 * New Straw Hat Members blogs
 * Bounties blogs
 * DF blogs
 * unrelated blogs (since we're redoing them let's redo everything)
 * images in blog comments

Whoever has something else to suggest, please do so. If no suggestions are made, I'll make a test poll. 10:51, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Let me make something abundantly clear, my wanting to disallow Sabo's mortality blogs has nothing to do with my personal opinion on the matter. They are simply one of the topics I have seen get out of hand. That being said, the rule about Sabo should be "Sabo's mortality, since that's the only aspect that gets out of hand. If someone wanted to do a comparison between Sabo and Doflamingo, for instance, that would be fine. Unrelated blogs are just asking for trouble since that technically can allow almost anything to be put on a blog. For all we know, we'll see a fight prediction between Ichigo Kurosaki and Kakashi Hatake on here and have to allow it. That rule is simply to keep the content in line. 14:16, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Agree with DP here. However, rules aside, I'm considered about the way the blogs get deleted. Maybe there should be some room for approval there. I don't know how such a thing could be achieved in accordance to the wiki's rules. Maybe it could be something like a candidate for deletion tag, which has to be confirmed or approved by at least 3 regular(3 months/300 edits) users. What do you think?

Well, unrelated blogs shouldn't be allowed on the wiki because of many reasons. And there are two more rules I want to suggest. First one is advertising, eg if somebody makes a wiki or an image or anything else and advertises it here. I believe that this kind of blogs do nothing but harm the wiki and should be deleted. Another rules I want to suggest is not to allow unoriginal blogs. And by unoriginal, I don't mean blogs about topics that have been discussed many times, i mean blogs whose content has been copied by another blog or another wiki or even another site. Those blogs are pretty rare but when we get one, we surely should delete it. Ah and of course I think that deleting spam and vandalism blogs or blogs with very few words in common sense but I just want to make sure that it has been mentioned in the forum as a rule because some people might complain later *cough*ST*cough*. Moving on to vaz's suggestion, I believe that as long as we have stable rules, it should be up to admin to delete/lock a blog or not. Despite that, I would like to bring up again the idea of making a lock template to be used in blogs when they get out of hand, in case an admin doesn't notice them (which is highly uncommon but still, admins have lives too) 14:41, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:FutureCyborg18/Baroque_Works_%28Power_Levels%29

DP just deleted yet another power level blog while he knows perfectly well that there are no rules saying he can't do that. 18:15, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

The old rules still apply, since we haven't voted on new ones. Thus, he is entitled to do that.

Next time check the rules before you tattle, and maybe you won't look like you don't know what you're talking about. 18:24, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Those "old rules" don't exist. They were never voted on. No blogs should be deleted until we get real rules and not rules anyone added without discussion and poll. 18:30, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

How about we just allow Power Level blogs and let any admin lock comments if they get out of hand based on their discretion? I trust the admins to know when things do get out of hand/troll-y. I don't think a template is necessary for it though, since this judgement should be left to admins, and not the average user.

I do however agree with DP that blogs about if Sabo is dead or not and/or "____ is the next SH" shouldn't be allowed. Those blogs are rarely intelligently written. But the main reason I don't think those should be allowed is because every time one pops up, veteran users just dismiss it and they aren't nice about it to the blogger, who is typically a new user. 19:31, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

We should not allow whether Sabo is dead or who will be the next Straw Hat member blogs, because they are often terrible and offer absolutely nothing interesting to this community. Also, they are incredibly annoying, and even the most patient person have his/her limits.

Same thing go for power level blogs. They are often written by morons, and often have only a few stupid lines that contribute absolutely nothing intelligent to the topic of the strength of characters. Also, as other users stated, is a lovely way to start a flame war in less than five seconds.

However, I think we shouldn't bring out our pitchforks and torches every time there's a power level blog. If the blog is actually well written, interesting, prompt intelligent conversations, then it should be allowed. However, if the conversations degrade to insults, lock it.

I have several more thoughts on what rules we should have, and what rules we most definitely should not have, but for now, I'll keep quite about it :P 19:58, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

I love how people like you Just, have repeatedly made blanket claims without any evidence to back it up. SeaTerror (talk) 20:01, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Kinda hard to provide evidence if all of the "Sabo is alive!!!!", "next straw hat member!!!!" and "who is strong?????" blogs are deleted right away, ST. Be logical, mate. 20:05, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Not all of them have been deleted plus they never should have been deleted in the first place since it was never a rule. So I'm calling plain BS on any of these claims since you people keep repeatedly not providing evidence. Plus everybody who has been making the claim has been using absolutes.SeaTerror (talk) 20:10, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

The only way for us to provide evidence is to dig through old blogs and read all of them to see if they prove our case which would be boring and way too time consuming. And you haven't provided any evidence to refute our arguments either. 20:37, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Burden of proof has always fallen on the person making the claims. Either way there have been multiple fallacies coming from your side so your arguments have already been proven to be weaker. SeaTerror (talk) 20:52, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

What fallacies are you referring to? You still have to provide some evidence for your side or you don't even have an argument. Just to be clear, my position is that most power level blogs cause flame wars, not all. 20:59, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

If you mean fallacies by lack of evidence, then by your logic, your argument is also weak and have multiple fallacies, as you did not provide any evidence either. 21:14, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition this is the major one. Also for our side it wouldn't be possible since DP deleted every single one though from the ones that survived for a tiny bit there were no actual arguments. The burden of proof falls on your side for making the claim that every power level blog/sabo blog/straw hat blog = arguments no matter what. Plus if you found really old ones it wouldn't even count since most of the users from the old ones don't even blog anymore or come to the site anymore. SeaTerror (talk) 21:21, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

That is why I am saying that many, not all, power level blogs will provoke arguments. Since it doesn't seem like this is going anywhere why don't we just make a poll for the new rules so we can have some firmly set blog rules as soon as possible. 21:47, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Sabo and Straw Hat shouldn't even be on the poll. SeaTerror (talk) 22:01, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed wth Vid. This should be a suggestion's section. Everyone should just write the rules they suggest, and then they should be voted on. Those who are highly debated can then be discussed upon. There is no point arguing among suggestions, while they actually get lost in a crowd of words (how poetic is that?!). If we go on like this, I see history repeating itself.

So if no one else objects I'll make a test poll for power level blogs. 22:06, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

No. This is exactly what ruined the last rules discussion. There should be one poll for all the rules suggested, with an agree/disagree choise underneath each one.

Good. Please also add: One piece or community related content rule, and minimum length rule.

No it is bad. Only one person wanted that stupid bounty one. SeaTerror (talk) 22:55, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

The community related content rule was already polled on the previous forum. 00:45, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. More than one person said to do it again. SeaTerror (talk) 00:49, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Added it. 01:30, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see why we have to revote on the stuff from before. 01:34, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

We really don't but it will keep people from contesting them in the future. 01:47, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the part about blogs being related to OP or the Wiki, since that was actually voted on in the last forum. It was an overwhelming majority (13-1) and there is no need to re-poll something that is A) Already a rule that was chosen by the community. B) Clearly going to have the same result if it is re-polled. 06:20, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I just added it because I got tired of arguing. 06:24, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Added a section 'bout DFs--

Removed. Wasn't suggested anywhere. Also if you're going to remove the One Piece related one when more than one person wanted it on then Bounties is getting removed because only one person wanted it. SeaTerror (talk) 06:52, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Let's just be clear since we are redoing this entire rule thing.--

It was never a rule so not how it works. Removed again. SeaTerror (talk) 07:10, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

dude -_-' .. ok I'll suggest it here, there should be an option if blogs 'bout DFs should be allowed.--

That doesn't even make any sense and is too broad. Plus you are the only one who suggested it. SeaTerror (talk) 07:43, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Let's just poll everything that's been proposed so no one has any complaints at the end and we don't have to do this again. 15:54, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

The under conditions option will get us nowhere. We should remove it. 16:09, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

It will help with things like power level blogs, where not all should be deleted but many should. Maybe we could allow them with an admin's permission. 22:44, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

@Staw: The "under conditions" has a point. Those rules, where the "under conditions" options gets the more votes, will be further discussed upon.

As long as we have rules, it should be completely up to admin. 14:01, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Nop, what I mean is, that if the "under conditions" are more than the "yes" or "no", then that certain rule won't apply, but it will be further discusses and rephrased.

Poll should not have opened since it was still in discussion. Plus if you added what Rora said then the non OP related should have been on the poll too. SeaTerror (talk) 19:09, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Now the poll is closed since we have rules against this. Everything must be agreed upon first. SeaTerror (talk) 19:22, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

If we agree upon them, then why vote on them? If you mean we have to agree if they will be on the poll, then this won't happen, cause those who would vote "yes" will say put them on poll, and those woho would vote "no" will say don't put them. And so this goes on forever...