Forum:Forum and Poll Rules Updates

So I recently mentioned how the Forum Rules are terribly out of date in the Manual of Style Forum and since that hasn't gotten a response I thought I would just make a forum about the forum rules. Besides the odd tones that doesn't seem to fit with the rest of our rules pages, it currently lists the inactive Mugiwara Franky as the Admin to contact in case of trouble. The rules don't address what we should do with miscategorized posts, such as non-spoilers in the spoilers section, music questions in the anime section, etc... There are some smaller edits I'd like to make too, but there's no talk page for the Rules, because they are currently a forum page. (Is that something that could/should be corrected?)

If anyone has any brand new rules they'd like to add, that would be sweet too. Personally, in my rage against unsigned posts, I'd love to see posts where the creator doesn't sign be deleted or something similar right off the bat. Just something to increase awareness of signing posts, which would call for something fairly drastic like I proposed, because we already tell people to sign their posts in like 5 different places.

Anyways, if people actually read the forum rules, I'm sure they'll find a bunch more things to change, considering they haven't been substantially edited in over two years... 01:29, August 15, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Yeah, they should be moved to something like One Piece Encyclopedia:Forum Rules. As for the rules themselves, I don't really care.

Does anyone else even care? Can I just go and edit the damn thing already? Some other things I thought of that need to be addressed in the forum rules are:

Poll Rules, including: What times zone polls offcially end, guidelines on poll option phrasing, rules against voting tamerping/fraud/bribery in chat/talk pages, etc., and possibly some rules to attempt to make sure people have actually read the forum and are at least somewhat informed on the topic. Really anything we can think of to make the polls more legitimate and less of a joke.

A rule that allows for the immediate deltion of forums created with no content other than the topic.

Something to deal with Repeat Forum Topics.

A clear description of what each forum category is for, and what it is NOT for. Ex: Spoiler Discussions are for spoilers, not fan theories. Anime is for discusions regarding the anime specifically, not fan theories or music questions. And a clear descirption of what is considered a "Site Problem" or "Wikia Appearance" etc.

And can someone actually move the page so it is no longer a forum?

When we're done with the forum rules, we should also try and take steps to make sure IPs actually read them before posting. Like adjusting where/how it fits on the forum table, and making the "Forum rules  Important! " have the important in more noticable red text, and having the "important" on one line, and the "forum rules" on another, allowing for larger font sizes for both. And maybe we can add a reminder to read the forum rules to everyone who makes a new one? I don't know if that's actually possible, but we do have reminders for signatures.... 16:00, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Should there be a rule that Forums in the Anime category should be free of spoilers from the manga? 16:37, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Draft Discussion
Ok, I have written a comprehensive draft of new/updated rules here

I added many of the ideas I proposed above, and folded them in with some of the old rules as well. The only thing I didn't add to my draft but would still like to be in the final version was the sections on how to Organize Forums, which I did not want to copy/paste because I frankly don't understand the code and didn't want to screw anything up. I do believe that those sections should be on the bottom of the page after it is merged with the draft, as I think the rules of forums are more important than the organization. I mostly absorbed the old rules and re-formatted and re-wrote them in order to make a more cohesive and easier to understand format. Any information or section of the current rules that I left out, I left out because I feel they are not required/do not belong in the forum rules section. Examples of this are "...Images" section (obsolete info), the "Role of an Admin" section (obsolete and not necessary for forumrules). I left out the "You and the rest of the Wiki" section because I feel as though the new rules reflect the idea of democratic changes well enough that this section is not needed. Plus, it sounds pretty preachy, and makes little/no sense to new editors, who are one of the main reasons why I am re-writting these rules in the first place. Some rules, (like those on ban forums) are old pre-existing rules that I did not create personally, and I just compiled in my draft after consulting with others. I would appreciate it if I was not blamed personally for creating them if you do not like them.

As far as where we go from here, I suggest a discussion of the draft and some changes will be made by the community, and eventually there will be a vote on the draft. If certain small sections or rules prove especially controversial, then we can vote on those sections individually, or even in new forums if those are changes to older rules. 20:24, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

Bump! 23:33, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Bump? 03:41, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Bump.... v.v 22:17, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I just added some things to it. I added a piece in the forum categorization about the new category "Site Changes". I also added a bit to the "Don't Cry Over Spilled Milk" section, urging people not make arguments personal and dredge up bad feelings.

And as helpful as the bumps are, the only way this conversation will really start is if someone actually responds and starts it. I've said all that I can say. I can't start a conversation by talking to myself... One person who's not me needs to respond to this if they actually want some things to change. 16:57, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

"Forum creators must have enough content to start a discussion. If any forum is created without any content other than a topic, it will be deleted." I think this can be more defined as you must write at least a paragraph or two.

"Do not incorrectly categorize forums. Forums that are incorrectly categorized will be deleted not moved." I think you should also notify the user who opened the forum that it got deleted.

"Images that are unrelated to the discussion are not allowed." I think images that are uploaded to Photobucket and posted here by posting the link should be forbidden too. If you want to show the image, post it in a link like this. If you want to post a meme joking about the discussion, then you shouldn't post a link like that, because you need a new sense of humor.

Other than those, I have nothing else to say about the others. So enforce them. 04:15, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts:

'' Do not incorrectly categorize forums. Forums that are incorrectly categorized will be deleted not moved. - Tell them to move it and if they don't delete it within a few hours. ''

'' Forums that have been unedited for a long period of time become archived, and the discussion is considered closed. Users are strongly discouraged from editing archived forums. Users are not fully prohibited from reopening archived forums, but again, it is strongly discouraged.- This is good, but I'd also like to propose that we put a set time of like 3-6 months before a forum can be reopened, so we aren't reopening forums the day after they close. ''

I agree with everything else. Galaxy9000 (talk) 15:49, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how I feel about images in forums, but I feel this needs discussion. Thanks for bringing it up, Nada.

As far as minimum content, I don't think there should actually be a restriction. This goes hand-in-hand with the blog rules forum, and I think a minimum content restriction should exist in blogs, but forums should be the way around it. short forums can become good discussions because users tend to have longer responses than those in blogs, and they are almost always serious responses. Forums are a more round-table discussion, while blogs are more like a speech with comments at the end. The only exception should be forums with only titles, because nobody should be allowed to create a blank page.

Most of these rules are actually written more for the Fan-based forums and not the Site-based ones. I think rules as far as deletion for the Site ones should be a bit more fair. But if someone posts a fan theory in the Spoilers section, I don't see why we should notify them. They wouldn't know how to move it anyways, because they are most likely new users. If someone miscategorizes a site forum, then someone will just move it for them.

And as far as archived forums, that rule doesn't quite work the way it's been written. Again, it's mostly for the fan-based forums. If a site problem is still a site problem, and it's just been archived because nobody's responded, why should they be forbidden from reopening it? But if someone just wants to re-poll on the same issue because they are unhappy with the result and think the other one should win, that should be forbidden. How about a rule like "For issues that have been settled with a poll, there is a time period of 3 months where the issue cannot be polled or discussed again without a substantial change taking place."? 16:32, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Galaxy9000 (talk) 16:35, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm down with that. I'm also fine with the discussing length thing. 05:51, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

The draft look pretty good. Actually, I'm fine with pretty much everything in the draft and say that we should use it.

If anyone have any issues with the draft, please say so on this forum, because this had been ignored for too long. 19:26, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

I've added some rules about the titles that forums can have that (the ideas for which I stole from the blogs forum). I also added the rule regarding how long before an issue can be re-opened.

Also if this has been ignored for so long, can I just like make them official since nobody seems to care enough to post here? Or should I start a possibly needless poll? Everybody who has posted here agrees with the rules so far. Like, does anybody have any ideas about how I can get these to become real rules with such an apathetic response? 04:46, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

Sig Rules Discussion
I want the rule about having to make our custom signature into a template removed. Why? Because it's a pain in the *** to make a template jut for the sig EVERYTIME I go to another wiki so won't show up. Frankly, it's frustrating for me every time I post on another wiki, realize I didn't make the template, and then I have to do it. People don't edit on just one wiki, they can edit on multiple wikis. What happen if they post something on a talk or a forum? They are forced to make a template. While it's easy to do it, it's still frustrating for people. 03:10, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Well.. it depends on the complexity of the sig. Mine's about 13 lines long in source code (I'm horrible at optimizing) so that would be kinda annoying to scroll through every time. Yours is nine lines, so same thing.

If cross-wiki compatibility is the issue, take a look at this blog post by Levi, it explains how to change your preferences so that a default signature is used if you post on a wiki that doesn't have the template. 03:40, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone know that. I only just found out about that.... Plus, it is sort of forcing us to make a template, even if we don't want to. And what about these who don't have a lot of coding in their sig? The rule still forcibly make people make a template even just for a simple dog with not too many coding. 16:14, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

If your sig fits in the preferences' form, then it's OK. If you need an external page, then you need to make two pages to avoid pasting the whole code each time you sign. Like this, we are not overwhelmed with sig code AND Jade is happy.
 * What's the maximum code allowed in the prefs? 19:44, October 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * 255 characters. Looks like this at the worst:

I feel like that is a lot of code. It's about 3.5-4 rows of code in source mode. I don't have a problem with sigs outside of templates if they are kind of short, such as User:Defchris's sig is. But the maximum wikia allows in the box seems like a bit much. 04:37, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

Poll Discussion
Since the rules I wrote state that major changes to our rules can't happen without a poll, I'm gonna start one here tomorrow even though nobody has really disagreed to these rules.

I'm gonna separate the forum rules from the poll rules, since issues are a bit different, and the poll rules are mostly new. I'll start the poll tomorrow sometime if nobody wants to discuss anything else. Here's the example of what the polls will be:

Should the current Forum Rules be changed and updated to what is in the proposed draft?


 * Yes, they should be updated.


 * No, they should not be updated.

Should the Poll Rules discussed in the same draft become official policy?


 * Yes, the poll rules in the draft should become official policy.


 * No, the poll rules in the draft should not become official policy.

Also, if people come in and actually start discussing major changes, I wouldn't have a problem with stopping either poll to accommodate for more changes. 20:49, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

Poll Rules Discussion
Since JSD asked, I'll give a brief overview of my issues with the draft poll rules, but I'm kinda preoccupied at the moment (and busy over the next couple of weeks due to uni exams) so I won't really be able to give any further responses or get into a heated argument about anything.

General Forum Poll Rules:

''All poll options must be written in fair, unbiased and similar language. This is so that the poll options will not subconsciously affect the opinions of the voters.''
 * Vague. Very vague. Especially considering the five-day argument I had with JSD and PX in relation to my poll, which suggests that they considered my poll "unfair", despite it turning out as well as I expected. On the other hand, I find it unfair when people fuse different things into the same poll options, or make three-option polls that are likely to split the vote with the possibility that the winning option will be one wanted by a minority of people (the English language poll that just started is an example of a risky one).

Ban Forum Rules:

''If the poll decides in the first week that the user is to be banned, the user is immediately banned for the duration of the second week of the poll. This is done in order to prevent vandalism.'' ''This week-long ban is not included in the length of the ban that is decided on. So any length that is decided on in the poll is additional time after this one week precautionary ban.''
 * This rule is completely unnecessary. If the user actually does vandalize the wiki during the second week then a such a ban should be considered. But there is absolutely no basis for a precautionary ban, and doing so would restrict the rights of the affected user to (a) improve their conduct; and (b) speak in their defence during the entire period of the banning poll (in direct contravention of rule saying The subject of a ban forum is allowed to and encouraged to speak up for themselves in the discussion section). Affected users should be given that right during the entire poll, and not just the first week.
 * As I understand it, this would mean the second poll would run as usual (with ban lengths of 1 week/2 weeks/1 month for a first offence) but the week would be added, with the effect that the the minimum ban time would be doubled. Again, this is completely unnecessary if the user doesn't actually vandalize the wiki during that second week of the poll.

Anyway, I think more clarification of the rules is needed before committing to them, since this meta-poll will be binding for 3 months on other polls that will be binding for 3 months. It's not like we're in a hurry - if we can sort out the issues first it would be better than just blindly voting for rules that may not necessarily reflect their final state. 09:33, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Zodiaque. About the poll rules, a good option IMO is to only ask two-option questions (even if it means having to ask several questions). Sometimes it isn't possible, but it should always be ensured that people can vote and forget about the poll afterwards. The whole "having to monitor the poll and change votes when necessary" is anything but democratic.

"All poll options must be written in fair, unbiased and similar language. This is so that the poll options will not subconsciously affect the opinions of the voters." This is not about the number of options on polls or their format, but the language used. I wrote this after the renders forum had the two options of "Destroy all renders" and "Keep renders". I feel as though the use of the word "destroy" was inflammatory and led people who didn't actually what renders were to vote to "destroy" them. I actually abstained from voting in that forum until the language was changed to "Replace renders" which sounds much less inflammatory to me. So this rule has absolutely nothing to do with the subjective "fairness" of poll structure, but merely the language used in the poll options. If attention is paid to the key word "language", I don't really see this as being a vague rule at all since "language" =/= "format". Though if you have a wording you thing would be better, I'll gladly go in and change it.

Regarding 3 options, there currently is not rule in the draft about them, so it's really open to the preferences of the person who makes the poll, and to those who might object to the poll draft. If you would like to make a rule about this, I'm open to discussing it in a new section, but since there's no rule about it in the current draft, it would not be covered by the current poll.

Regarding the ban rules: I got a breakdown of current policy from directly from DP in a long conversation in chat. This is already the policy that DP follows. This rule is not new to the draft, it has been in effect for some time. So, these rules about ban forums are already currently active, and the outcome of this poll will not affect that rule. All the poll rules update does is merely write down this rule in one place. If you would like to try and change that rule, a new section (or an entirely new forum) would be necessary to change the rule.

Since the way I understand it, most of your concerns are about things that are not covered in the current poll, I don't think you should be so hasty to vote down the rest of the rules. I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about things "Binding for 3 months", Zodiaque. This forum has been nearly completely ignored for the past 3 months or so despite it being the only active forum in its category. I started the polls simply because no matter what my efforts were, I could not attract attention to this forum. I don't wish for the progress I've made to be derailed due to rules that this poll cannot change. So, if the users who have currently voted "No" agree with all the other rules, I would request that you change your vote then. Also, since the rules you object to are not covered in the current poll, you have no need to rush to change them before the current poll is over, so you are free to start discussions about them after your exams, Zodiaque. 14:47, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Zodiaque, why do you say the poll rules poll would be binding for three months? We have no rule about that (and that's actually problematic)—and even if we had, we could specify that this poll is an exception. If JSD's rules reflect what we currently do, it's better to have it written down. We can always make them better afterwards.


 * Well, that was the least of the issues, but it was based on the rule saying: "For issues that have been settled with a poll, there is a time period of 3 months where the issue cannot be polled or discussed again without a substantial change taking place". I guess it depends on people's definition of a 'substantial change', really. Feels kinda silly to have a poll about rules that are going to be changed a few weeks later, and it's not clear whether that 3-month rule would prevent discussion of the rules that are in this poll, or only allow for discussion of new rules. My main concern was the new ban forum rules, which definitely aren't a codification of DP's current policies given that they haven't applied for all the ban forums I've seen so far. 10:17, November 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * That rule about 3 months comes from the discussion above. See that for details on why the rule exists. It was made because of the re-starting of Forum:Renders as Infobox Pictures, and discussions like Forum:Arabasta Vs Alabasta: Part 2 which was made after Part one was closed for the second time. And as far as this forum is concerned, I would consider the actual discussion of these rules to be a "substantial change." Regarding DP's ban rules, they definitely applied to Forum:Klobis, as that was happening at the same time I was writing the rules. (DP just forgot to ban Klobis for at least part of that initial week). I'll see if I can get him in here to confirm these policies. 16:47, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

Polls
These polls are currently Closed. The voting closed at 22:00 November 7, 2012 (UTC). You must have been on here for at least three months and have at least 300 edits to vote on this poll. New rules or rules not covered in these drafts may still be added later, but would require different polls, as these rules would not be included in this poll.

Forum Rules Poll
This poll deals with updates to the forum rules, as described in this draft. The current rules would be updated to a new format, and some new rules would be added. (The section on organizing forums would remain, it just was not moved into the draft page, as the info there did not require updating.) Should the current Forum Rules be changed and updated to what is in the proposed draft?


 * Yes, they should be updated.
 * 1)  21:30, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)  21:31, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:30, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:32, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 03:51, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 14:57, October 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, they should not be updated.
 * 10:16, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 10:24, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:38, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

Poll Rules Poll
The updates to poll rules in the same draft include changes about how polls are run and formatted. There are also new restrictions on how users may discuss the poll around the wikia, and new punishments that may occur if users violate these rules.

Should the Poll Rules discussed in the same draft become official policy?


 * Yes, the poll rules in the draft should become official policy.
 * 1)  21:30, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)  21:31, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:30, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:32, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 03:51, October 25, 2012 (UTC) Exact details and wording can be hammered out later. This is good as a basic set of rules.
 * 14:57, October 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the poll rules in the draft should not become official policy.
 * 1)  02:50, October 25, 2012 (UTC) I have issues with the way these are worded at the moment, and can't see any substantial discussion about them on this page.
 * 10:16, October 25, 2012 (UTC) ^ what he said.
 * 10:24, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:38, November 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:38, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

Post-Polls Discussion
The polls have closed, and both have passed. Though, if you see the above discussion there are still some unresolved rules.

Also, there's the question of whether or not these rules should apply to all active forums, or just the ones that are opened after the rules passed. I'd say for ones where the polls haven't started yet, they apply. If there's a poll, they don't. And if it's the re-opening of an old forum, they apply. 22:26, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Loopholes
The shenanigans SeaTerror has been pulling of copy/pasting the content of a forum that was marked for deletion because the creator did not sign should not be allowed. For reference here is the original forum, which was marked because the creator did not sign, and the forumheader was deleted, both of which are clear violations of the rules. And here is the same forum, except SeaTerror "created" it and signed the first post. It is clearly not his own ideas/content, as well as the fact that the history of the new forum no longer reflects the history of the actual forum.

It is a clear attempt at creating a loophole just because SeaTerror disagrees with the rules that were voted on during his ban. 06:12, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

I think it's about time we re evaluate these and repoll them. Only 11 people voted on the poll, which isn't nearly enough. 06:22, March 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * No. No. No. No. No. You need a lot more than "Only 11 people voted" to get the rules redone. You would need to show that an overwhelming amount of users want to change the rules, and they would have to post in here saying as much. The displeasure of you and ST is not enough. Now, unless you have anything to say about the actual subject of this section, don't post here. 06:32, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you can tell me what to do.

I'll post here as much as I want.

It's not a loophole by the way, it's just the rules weren't written very well. 06:34, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

But I'm perfectly fine with introducing a "no copying forum posts ever rule". 06:35, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

I don't really find anything wrong with the rules, but if you want to propose to rewrite it, you should at least tell what you think is so confusing about it. Maybe it could be reworded to help you? Though I do agree, saying 11 people voted in the poll is a pretty stupid reason to re-evaluate the whole thing. Just tell what you're so confused about. 06:38, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Considering over half the community didn't vote.. yeah, that's a pretty big amount. Nothing is confusing. But the fact that ST can exploit a loophole like this proves the flaw in the writing. 06:40, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

This vote wasn't even how we are supposed to do things. We are supposed to discuss and vote on each different rule like we are doing on the current chat rules forum. I doubt the people who voted even read the sandbox and just assumed they were all good rules. It isn't a loophole and any new rewording would have to be voted on anyway. SeaTerror (talk) 07:01, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

If we make a poll about that,we must vote for each rule,like ST said 07:13, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

If there was a new poll we could do it like that, but there is no reason to redo the poll. There is nothing against the rules about the way the first poll was done, and I gave ample time for users to voice their opinions about both the content of the poll and it's structure, and nobody objected to the format. Prove a majority of users want new rules, then talk about a new forum.

Now, back to the subject at hand, how about a rule that just states "No user may steal or plagiarize the content of another user"? In addition, I'll also clarify that forum creator must sign themselves and no user may sign for them. 19:42, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

There was plenty of objection to the rules in the previous sections. They were chosen to be ignored and the poll went ahead. You're also making a big deal out of nothing since what I did is not stealing nor is it plagarism. There is also no rule that says a user cannot sign for another user. SeaTerror (talk) 19:56, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

There were objections to the rules, but no objections to the format of the polls, therefore the passing of the rules is "legal."

And the point of your re-posting the forum is that the history of the forum no longer reflects who actually posted. In the forum you created, we see the signature of User:ItchyNutz, yet when checking the history, we see that he never posted in this forum. That's not good.

The rule states "Forum creators must sign their posts. If forums are created without signed posts, they will be deleted." There are a couple ways in which this states you cannot sign for the creator. 1) "Forum creators must sign their posts " the use of the word "their" means that they must sign them themselves. 2) "If forums are created without signed posts..." the use of the word "created" shows that the signature must be present at the creation of the forum, not later when it is added by another user. Also, I was just stating that I would add another bullet to the rules once this discussion is over clarifying that users may not sign for others. 20:06, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't say you cannot sign for a user. At all. You also cannot add another bullet to it without discussion or a vote. Also if you're really complaining about history then you're the only one to blame since you are deleting an actual conversation with history just because of an IP user who obviously doesn't know better. Plus your rule is a contradiction in the first place because of the Template:Unsigned template that already existed long before you made those rules that people didn't read. You also still ignore that there were objections to the rules but chose to go ahead with the vote instead. SeaTerror (talk) 20:24, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

I mean, I guess it doesn't say you can't sign for them (though that might still be against the rules of alerting someone else's post). Regardless, your signing for them doesn't save any forums from being deleted. There were no objections to the poll itself, so there was no reason to stop the poll. It's just that simple. 20:29, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Isn't against the rules about editing somebody else's comment either. Oh and it does save them from deletion because regardless you are allowed to sign anyway. So if the comment gets signed it stays. Also read the comments if you think people didn't object to it. SeaTerror (talk) 22:02, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Don't fekkin' claim other's material as your own. That's called plagiarism. And don't give me none of that "this is the internet" bullshit. If the creator doesn't sign the post or removes the navibox, it gets deleted, the only exception allowed being if they realize they forgot to sign and sign it prior to intended deletion but after publication. Don't try to be cheeky and cover for people. It just makes you look like an asshole. 23:30, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Completely wrong about the creator not signing. There isn't a rule stating you cannot sign for the creator. SeaTerror (talk) 23:40, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

I'm just gonna state this again, since it appears you didn't get it. Two reasons why the forums get deleted: 1) "Forum creators must sign their posts " the use of the word "their" means that they must sign them themselves. 2) "If forums are created without signed posts..." the use of the word "created" shows that the signature must be present at the creation of the forum, not later when it is added by another user.

And if you add a signature for someone else, you are altering their post. 06:32, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

Wrong on both counts. It literally says nothing about not adding a sig for them in the rules. Also you have to be insane if you think just adding a sig for somebody else is altering their posts. Go get the Unsigned Template deleted then. SeaTerror (talk) 09:39, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

Wow, really? Can please explain how I am wrong then? "You're wrong" and "It says nothing about it" aren't good explanations. Especially if when you actually think, it does mean that adding their signature

And the unsigned template is completely different from just adding someone's signature. I grow seriously tired of arguments based entirely on hyperbole, especially when they're so incorrect. A user's signature is their property, not a public thing. Adding it to their posts is using it without their permission, and also creates the idea that user signed at a different time than they actually did. The unsigned template however, is a public thing created so that users can attribute posts to the correct person.

The whole point of this rule is that it takes a harder line on forums with no signature, which were running rampant before this, even with use of the unsigned template. By requiring users who create forums to sign, we spread awareness to those users who create forums that we are serious about our rules. Together with FRR, I feel the number of unsigned and headerless forums has dropped, which is good. Your "loophole", which I feel shouldn't even be worth discussion just works to undermine the whole point of the rule, and it shouldn't be allowed just because of that (though as I've said already, the rule doesn't allow it anyways). 14:27, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

ST, if anything this argument is only making you look more like a pseudo-intellectual asshole than initially. You can not just say "You're wrong" and claim it an explanation. This is a running trend I've seen from you. You are being stubborn and annoying, as is a certain someone who shall go unnamed unless he finds out whom I mean. I'm sick of all this forum jonesing and arguing. What happened when this wikia wasn't a warzone?

People may claim we need forums to enforce rules or ideas, but I honestly would much rather have an admin-run dictatorship than constant arguments that suck the life out of this wiki and drives people off. --&#34;Got anything that isn&#39;t slaughtered yet? I like to look my meat in the eye before I kill it.&#34; - Pickles Oblong (talk) 15:10, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

I have to explain how you are wrong even though I said it in the next sentence? That's a new one. There literally is no forum rule that says you cannot sign for a user (not to mention its easy as hell to do anyway by checking timestamps). The unsigned template can also be used. There is also no rule against what I did with my forum, so there isn't a "doesn't allow it anyway" rule. SeaTerror (talk) 18:59, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

"You are being stubborn and annoying, as is a certain someone who shall go unnamed unless he finds out whom I mean."

http://www.singleforareason.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/cool-story-bro-tell-it-again-hoodie_design1.png

As for the topic, just make it a rule that other users can't add signatures for each other, or recreate deleted topics. Solution has been presented, now use it. 21:52, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

We would need to discuss any new rule changes like that. SeaTerror (talk) 22:06, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

We don't need a rule about not signing other people's posts. Seriously… Now, it shouldn't be forbidden to recreate a deleted forum either. It was deleted for a trivial reason, easily "fixable". If the new post fixes it, I see no problem. (Claiming the post your own is not fixing it though.)

I know we don't need a rule about it because it would be a bad rule. I also never claimed it as my own. SeaTerror (talk) 19:32, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

Reform
Bump. My statement from earlier still stands. "I think it's about time we re evaluate these and repoll them. Only 11 people voted on the poll, which isn't nearly enough" 07:10, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. Some of the "rules" are just plain bad. We are supposed to discuss and vote on each different rule anyway. I doubt the people who voted even read the sandbox and just assumed they were all good rules. SeaTerror (talk) 07:16, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

One rule I certainly find ridiculous, is that people are banned while waiting for the poll to finish on their ban duration. Unless they're deliberately vandalizing the wiki they should be free to edit as normal. 07:24, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah agreed with SHB, this rule is really bad. And I agree we should rethink the rules. 07:28, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Bumping since this seems to have been overlooked. SeaTerror (talk) 18:51, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

It's not unheard of for a user to vandalize their ban poll. People get upset after they learn they're going to be banned. When a company fires somebody for breaking the rules or the law, they don't keep that person on for another week, they remove them from the premises immediately. Some users could maybe be trusted enough to make good edits during that week, but I feel the vast majority couldn't be. Banning them after the first part of the poll is a safety precaution. And I don't see what's so bad about it, as we already know they are going to be banned. I don't see what they could add to any discussion about the ban length that would be helpful. Besides empty promises or rationalizations made in desperation to try and shorten the ban after they know it's coming, I can't think of anything else they would add. If promises like that were truly genuine, they would/should have been made before the first part ended.

And from my experience, the rules against unsigned forums have been really helpful here. Nearly all forums made by account-holding users are signed now, because we've put an emphasis on these rules. Why undo that progress? 13:43, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

That was never part of the original rules and the only time it was ever actually needed was when Meganoide was here. You're just making up crap about any "progress" since you got so butthurt over people signing the posts for them when it wasn't against the rules. These "rules" need to get changed since people never actually read your sandbox. SeaTerror (talk) 19:39, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Time for a bump. SeaTerror (talk) 17:19, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Bump x2 18:20, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Bump x3. SeaTerror (talk) 18:08, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

ST, it is my firm belief that these rules are the rules now. They were voted on by the community, and whether you like them or not they are the rules.

Now, in regard to one of the rules, I think we should make a compromise. After it's been decided that user will be banned, we should let them remain on the wiki for the week during the completion of their ban forum, but with a few conditions:

(1) If they commit any act of vandalism or harassment of another user, whatever ban length is decided through vote is automatically increased to the next level with no discussion or exceptions given. (The options an admin has to ban a user are 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, permanent). So for example, if the vote says a week, and the user vandalizes, then their ban goes up to two weeks. Say it's 1 months, it goes up to 3 months. If it's a year, it goes up to a permanent ban.

(2) They shouldn't be allowed to edit their own forum at all. Not only is that one place where they're most likely to create trouble, but it's also a place where they will try and make empty promises and apologies while looking for a shorter ban. It's best just to leave the discussion of the length up to the community without the offender involved.

If we add those two stipulations, or something similar, I'm alright with people being able to edit during that week. 22:14, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with that JSD. 15:34, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Only you believe that. All the rules should be looked over and actually discussed. SeaTerror (talk) 17:21, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Time for a bump. SeaTerror (talk) 08:24, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic ban in the second week of voting is stupid, as I discussed earlier. JSD's "compromise" is also stupid. He gave one single example of a person being annoying during the term of the ban poll (OPN), and in that situation people responded appropriately by changing their votes to a longer length, on their own. Effects of the auto-ban: The compromise wouldn't work because different people have different ideas of what constitutes vandalism, and people are free to move their vote to a longer term on their own initiative anyway.
 * User to be banned gets banned for an extra week, without justification (or even longer - Geno got banned for three extra days because the community was tied on the ban length), which could up to a double-length ban (as seen with Galaxy).
 * User to be banned loses opportunity to demonstrate an improvement in behaviour (which voters may notice, and vote for a shorter ban accordingly). Alternatively, if they continue to break the rules voters may notice this and vote for a longer ban.
 * The user should be able to edit their ban forum, to speak in their defence. If they create trouble, voters will take that into account when determining the ban length.
 * If the user makes "empty promises" and as a result people vote for a shorter ban, then ignores those promises and acts as they did before, another ban forum can simply be opened (see: Galaxy's forum).

Overall, I've been very disappointed in the way JSD's acted with respect to this forum. There were problems with it from the beginning due to a lack of explanation for each individual rule, and even though he wrote this:

"'Also, if people come in and actually start discussing major changes, I wouldn't have a problem with stopping either poll to accommodate for more changes.' - JSD"

he refused to halt either poll after concerns were raised, simply because he was winning. I think it's time for a repoll, this time after more thorough discussion and explanation, and based on individual rules (or small sets of related rules) rather than a complete package deal. 09:10, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

Looks like he chose to ignore this once again. I guess we should now just actually revote since he doesn't care to respond. SeaTerror (talk) 05:31, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Bumping again. SeaTerror (talk) 18:52, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

First off in regard to that quote of mine, at the time of the forum I thought that I had adequately addressed your concerns with my response to your post. However, you or no other user responded to that post, so I never thought there was a need to stop the poll. All it would have taken was one more user to say "I disagree, I think the poll should stop and discussion should continue" for me to agree with that. I did not keep the poll going because I was winning, I kept it going because discussion stopped after I posted.

And if users want to change the rules, they should discuss the individual rules they have a problem with, and not discuss repealing the whole last poll. The community still voted for the last ones in accordance with the rules. Repealing the entire package is the opposite of progress. Editing and refining the rules is progress.

And I did not purposefully ignore this forum after Zodiaque's post. I've been mostly inactive over the past month or so, and only editing on pages I've been following. And I chose not to respond to ST's earlier posts because they did not enhance the conversation. If you believe "All the rules should be looked over and actually discussed" ST, you should discuss them in detail, not just say they need to be discussed. It's not my burden to discuss them, it's the burden of other users. You don't need me for this discussion. 19:16, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

We should redo all the rules. 19:17, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

Another majestic bump. SeaTerror (talk) 02:12, August 5, 2013 (UTC)

Meh. The only rule I feel needs to be reevaluated is the ban rule, and maybe a bit of a lighter punishment for the "no signature" rule. 04:30, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

I see my statement about detailed responses being needed for this forum to move was heeded. (insert sarcasm here, there, or everywhere) 19:08, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. 10:36, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Right, bumping this, also with a new rule to add.

We need to set a limit to how many "bumps" can be posted in a certain time span. certain users (and others) have been bumping talk pages and forums every day (sometimes 2-3 days), and quite franky, it's just getting annoying. Forums/talk pages are in the active discussion template and do not need to be bumped. They'll be seen if somebody checks the box that shows all the polls.

Of course, I do believe a bump is needed if the forum dies for about a week (to put it on the recent changes for lazier people), but if it's bumped four consecutive times in a row, and nobody responds, it should just be considered dead and be removed from the active discussions. 04:52, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

^Should we create a separate forum about this, since it's off topic? 06:31, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

No. It should be part of the forum rules. 11:54, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

Bumping this with yet another issue I feel needs to be addressed (still can discuss the prospect of bumping).

Comments really should not be allowed on polls. They're for the discussion, not for the sidelines of the poll. 21:56, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

I'd say rather than worry about time restrictions about when you can and cannot bump a forum, just make it against the rules to post things like "bump" that don't add to the conversation.

And poll comments are really important because I know several users that will vote without reading discussions, especially when they are long. 22:04, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

People who vote without caring about the discussion shouldn't even vote... people shouldn't make decisions on singular comments in the poll, that will just end up in the comments being extremely long and you will end up with five paragraphs of text inside the poll anyway, they should make decisions from the actual discussions, to get a much better view of the circumstances and just one guy's opinion.

Say just one guy has made a comment on the poll, and some lazy bum hasn't bothered to read the discussion, and just want to vote, and he then sees that comment and no other comment. If it says something like "i voted this because xx" reasons, and sure the reasons would be positive, but he wouldn't be able to compare to the negative reasons nor the positive reasons of the competitor, thus not making the right choice when voting for the side that the comment was on.

If you seriously want to have a summarized talk page of a discussion there's the about parameter in the poll where you can summarize the discussion, but leaving comments where you are just supposed to leave your signature is just dumb and kind of desperate if you ask me.

Poll it. We already know more people will vote to allow comments anyway. SeaTerror (talk) 23:19, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

I just made a simulation of how JSD wants the polls to be in the future. Corrupt and chaotic: http://puu.sh/4Tqsv.png. If you still want comments to be allowed then please explain the logic.

Nice troll image. I give it a 9/10. SeaTerror (talk) 06:40, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

Let's have a poll. 11:08, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

Sewil >_>...<_<--

If the majority decides to have comments, we should have a limit. We don't want giant text walls in polls. 11:19, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

ST: You obviously missed the point of my image. If you have nothing of value to say, don't say anything. You also completely lack the knowledge of what "trolling" is. Trolling is the act of trying to anger other people or a community for own self-enjoyment. My intention wasn't to anger anybody, but if you feel that I have somehow angered you, I apologize.

Though I don't really see why. I was trying to make a point, which was that comments in the poll will lead to no-one reading the actual discussion but rather just post the text beside their signature, so that the "lazy people who won't read the entire discussion" will read down there instead, but that will only lead to the same thing, and they wont read anything at all instead. So what comes next is attract people to vote for one side, where the comments come in handy since they are right there where you are supposed to place your signature, and again, if you don't have your own opinion since "you are too lazy to read the discussion" you can just go with the one that has the best comments.

This is what causes a corrupt community and is why I don't want comments to be allowed in the signature-slot.

Whoops, forgot about this for a few days. I believe strongly in the importance of comments on polls. That said, I also believe those comments are only useful (and not ugly) when they are kept as short as possible. I understand Sewil's reservations about people posting short essays in the polls. As a general rule of thumb, I try to keep my posts so that they are 2 lines of text or shorter (including my sig). That's just my personal rule, but if people think it's a good idea to hold everyone to it, I'm obviously not opposed to it. It also might help encourage people to keep their signatures small.

Now, what about rules against cheap bumps? I still believe ignored forums are much better served when people care to post their actual opinions, not just the word "bump". 04:22, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

As I said earlier, if we are to allow comments, we should have a limit on words or sth. 09:13, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

@JSD What is the point on writing an opinion again, if you have already stated it above, but for some reason people ignored the matter at the time? Personally, I have used the bump comment twice and both times it bore results. I say keep it.

The current way of doing things is fine.--

"Bump. 15:18, October 23, 2013 (UTC)"


 * Or

"Bump. I still believe comments on polls are valuable. 15:18, October 23, 2013 (UTC)"

Which one of those is easier to respond to? It's the second one, since my opinion is already stated in that post, and you don't have to re-read the entire forum to find out what my opinion is. It's not much more effort to include my opinion, and it helps keep the forum filled with true content, not just 10,000 posts of "Bump."

Also, another reason why poll comments are valuable is for users who have not yet posted on the forum until after the poll has started. Those users can state their reasons for voting there, since few users will continue to read the discussion after the poll starts. Especially those who have already voted. 15:18, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

Limit to Bumps
So what should the limit between bumps be set to? Three days? A week? 09:32, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

A week sounds good to me.

Limit between bump? Lolwut 10:07, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree for a limit between bumps. There may be an urgent matter which involves other pages and functions, in which case time is of the essence. What would be useful, however, would be a limit of bumps. If a talk page has, let's say, more than two or three bumps, then it should automatically be considered a matter of non interest and the decision should be taken by those active talkers, at the time.

I think you mean a talk page section. To apply it solely to the talk page could be detrimental. I also think there should be a deadline as to when something can be bumped. Like a month or so. I can think of a recent non-issue that was bumped after about two years of no attention. 10:29, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I mean each section indeed. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Also, I agree with what you said. That should apply in every discussion section, be it forums, talk pages or blogs. If new data come up for a certain matter, then a new section should be established.

There should be no time limit, we just simply shouldn't allow mere bumps. If we force people to actually participate in conversation through posting real content, then we'll get more progress out of all forums and talk pages. 20:25, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Staw, some people bump discussions more than necessary. However, it's understandable if it's an urgent matter. 03:19, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with JSD, people should actually contribute to the discussion instead of just bumping it. 03:24, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

True. Some people just bump for the sake of bumping without actually adding anything productive, or anything at all for that matter. Honestly, I've seen stuff get bumped that really didn't need to get bumped. It was either resolved or we simply had to wait more. There should be a legitimate reason for bringing back an issue, and not just bumping for the sake of tying up loose ends. 03:45, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

I like how Lelouch is the only one that does that. 04:23, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Do what? 11:01, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

''Staw, some people bump discussions more than necessary. However, it's understandable if it's an urgent matter. 03:19, October 25, 2013 (UTC)''-->This ofc :D--

You are the only one who bumps pages without giving arguments so instead of suggesting this kind of ridiculous things, try to improve your own self. 20:57, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Lol, no. Yes, I do admit I used to do it, but I've stopped now. However, I've seen other users just bumping it which I find unproductive. Which was why I opened up this discussion. 04:14, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't, bumps are for a reason. That would be by far the most braindead rule on the wiki. 04:23, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Define braindead. 04:32, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I believe this was posted because of me... "Other users" probably means me seeming as you have expressed your problem with my contributions on talk pages. I only bump discussions which I either have contributed to or plan to if there was more points to discuss.

Anyway what you are asking for is a rule which tells people what they can post. Of course 'bumps' shouldn't be done everyday, this is obvious common sense. Three or two days really should be the absolute minimum but this shouldn't be a rule, it is clear common sense. 17:31, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to bump this one for obvious reasons, so I'l lsay this: Whoever has a solid proposal for a bump rule, let him state it here in detail and accuracy, so we can take it into consideration. Unless, I'll be deactivating this soon.

"Forum or talk page posts made for the sole purpose of making the page appear that it has been updated (practice commonly called "bumping") is not allowed. Posts must contain something relevant to the forum."

Maybe a little re-wording to describe what bumping actually is in a way that's less confusing, but that's my proposal. 20:57, November 4, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that addition. Let's add that. 06:28, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

We'll need some more people to agree with the anti-bump rule before it can be official. 23:27, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Considering Discussions Inactive
We should also discuss how long we should wait before considering a discussion "inactive". I've seen plenty of forums/talk pages survive a long time in the category, even when no posts have been made. 06:28, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should we should make discussions inactive based solely on how long they've been inactive. They should stay listed as active until it is resolved. I know it leads to the list of discussions becoming quite long, but I think that acts as a motivator for people to make sure things get resolved.

And to clarify it's one thing to call a discussion inactive when there's been a proposed solution, moderate agreement, and no posts against it for several days, and another thing to call a discussion inactive because nobody's posted on it for a few weeks. The first example is ok in my book, the latter is not. 23:27, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

"Active" means that it is getting posts at least once a way. Leaving forums and talk pages in the category that are inactive just clogs everything up.

They're not archived, and can still remain as stickies on the forum itself, but calling them active is just stupid. 23:30, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with calling them "active" then let's just change the name of the category/template so that it accurately reflects the purpose they were created for. Something like "Discussions in need of Closure" or something along those lines. 23:34, November 24, 2013 (UTC)