Forum:Some Guidelines

New Guidelines for Commenting
Hey guys. This is what popped into my mind just by glancing at one of the pending approval sections.


 * Do not post just to restate a comment. This creates clutter and long, long sections.
 * Compliments are great, but they cause clutter. Do not post just to say, "Great job!"
 * Exception:If there have been no constructive comments for 24 hours, it is permitted to say, "I see nothing wrong, wonderful job."


 * Do not post conversational comments; that is, comments with no constructive merit. This is not a chatting page, this is for solid, constructive criticism.
 * The artist is entitled to his/her opinion as well as others, and well-worded, polite debates are permitted. This may be about color, markings, or the formation/texture of the image.

Those are the immediate bullets that jumped into my head. If any of you disagree or have more ideas, please post here. I hope we all want to be operating at top efficiency. -- 23:22, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * These all look pretty good to me, if I think of anything else I'll let you know. 13:53, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. 19:59, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well. 22:21, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Willow heart  1231  22:29, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Considering the mega cat fight I just archived, I had better put up some tenants on behavior during discussion as well. I hope all of you who are being silent really have no ideas and aren't just ignoring this post. -- 04:27, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

...**sheepishly** Sorry about the catfight, on my behalf, at least. I got a little worked up over just about nothing. In regards to the future as well as the recent past, I think that some behavior guidelines might be a good idea. And the silence on my part was, yes, no ideas =) 10:53, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe an additional "Cat Fight" policy should be put into place. Something like "Anytime a discussion for an image turns into that argument between two or more people that image is immediately declined and the discussion is archived. The image may not be resubmitted for a week." I say two people because that way someone who wants to black-ball an image can't have it done by making one aggressive comment. I also think that aggressive/combative behavior in these discussions should result in an automatic 24-hour ban against the users. The phase "Personal attack" comes to mind in dealing with that. But I'm harsh and I don't have time to mediate conflicts much ;) so I'll leave that decision to you. 13:09, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

I was just being silent because I didn't have anything specific to say, but I agree with some sort of behavior guidelines, as sometimes things get out of hand that shouldn't really be a problem in the first place. I would like to say thank you, too, because it's bothered me for some time now when I look at a page and there's been five different people with the same comments reworded (or sometimes said exactly the same). I think these commenting guidelines are excellent. :) 15:33, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

I sort of agree with your "Cat fight" policy, Kitsufox, but I don't think that the image should be declined, because the argument might not be the image creator's fault, so it wouldn't really be fair to the user if their image was just declined because two other people argued about it. I do agree with the 24-hour ban on any user that makes an aggressive/combative comment, though. But that's just my opinion. 16:46, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Part of my theory on declining the image automatically would be to discourage all non-constructive negative comments. It does need some improvement, though. Such as removal from the project if you're involved in X number of conflicts within a certain time period. Part of the "automatic image decline" part of my idea is that it will turn people who start these fights into exiles that others ignore because they've been interfering with progress. It should, theoretically, also discourage response to combative comments because people wouldn't want to get caught up in a fight-ending decline/archive action. Sure, the artist might not be involved in the fight, but frankly, I don't care ;) I'm more concerned with making fighting so ludicrously undesirable that anyone willing to undertake it will get treated like a poo on the sidewalk that no-one wants to have anything to do with. Theoretically, with the 24-hour Ban and the "fighting gets the image declined", It shouldn't happen. Because people who see aggressive/combative comments should feel the need to do nothing but inform a Sysop rather than respond. And if no-one responds it doesn't become a fight. As a sort of compromise thought, though... Perhaps automatic decline could be limited to those conflicts in which the artist is involved. 16:55, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for that 'catfight'. I didn't think I was coming off so rude, I'd say. I was just saying my opinion. :P And as for the punishments, maybe a warning first? 16:57, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. This all looks to me 17:20, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha ha, a poo on the sidewalk. I agree, these look fine as long as the image doesn't get declined when the artist isn't involved. Yes, perhaps a warning first, unless it's something uber bad. 18:25, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is a fight going on on another artist's image, those comments could be romoved or archived, so that the poor artist doesn't suffer. 18:56, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I say let all involved suffer. If the artist's picture started it, they're a part of it. 12:49, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you're saying, Kitsufox, and I think that maybe it should be automatically declined if the artist is involved in the conflict, instead of automatic decline when two other people argue on the image, because then someone could just argue on an image because they want it declined. Although I doubt many people would do that to someone. As I said before, I sort of agree with your idea, mostly because it will encourage others not to fight, or else the image will be declined and they would be punished. It would limit fighting in the project, so I agree with this idea. 19:48, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * The 24-hour block for comments of an aggressive/combative nature needs to be layered with the end of the discussion for fighting thing and a boot from the project for continuous fighting. An ignored aggressive comment wouldn't end it, only one that someone responded to. 12:49, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with there being a warning first. Besides that, it sounds good. 01:52, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

(S) - Banning idea's good, but not the image, unless the artist is at fault. And maybe a warning for 1st and 2nd time offenders, then a ban? And maybe after a certain number of times, you're removed from the project? Mosswhisker &amp; Stealthfire Want to chat? 01:59, September 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Such behavior isn't tolerated elsewhere on the wiki. Why would it be tolerated here? We already give 1-2 warnings on the main wiki, here we're talking about somewhere that seems to need tighter rules. That says to me a zero tolerance policy. It's only a 24-hour ban that I suggested. Just enough time for someone to think about what they've done, and what they should do differently in the future. 12:45, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I think the ban is perfectly reasonably, but what if the argument isn't at all the artist's fault? It seems unfair to them to decline their image, just because some other people are arguing underneath it. And if it was sparked by the artist's charart, how were they supposed to know that it would happen? Just my opinion. Think about it. 22:54, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oops. **reasonable, not reasonably =P 22:57, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I will post more on this when I have more time to look over the full discussion and actually think up some good points. In the meantime, comments are welcome here. -- 14:40, September 24, 2010 (UTC)