| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Discussion[]
I want to put this rule in place as soon as possible, so if you have any suggestions make them quick. This rule states that any users caught violating a guideline pertaining to this project will be given a strike. Users with three strikes will be demoted one rank temporarily. Users with 7 strikes will be demoted permanently. Users with ten strikes will be removed from the project. This rule applies to all users, including leads. Getting an image declined does not count. Comments? -❄ſceheart ♥ Blah blah 01:06, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. -Scarletwind✧Lisanna✧ 01:07, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
I support this. Shelly For a limited time only 01:08, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Can you at least talk to the other leads about this before making such a decision, or, do the senior warriors not count as leads anymore? It's not fair, and you know it. You'll find any way you can to demote Icey. That's what this is about. You hear me, I am against this. —Jayce() 01:09, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
You already know you have my full support. And Cloudy we were talking about it on IRC Iveh Yo! 01:11, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
And why didn't you ask the rest of the leads? —Jayce() 01:12, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
I dont wanna demote Icey. Shes a good SW. I just want the rules followed. I left it open to discussion, what would you change so you would support it? -❄ſceheart ♥ Blah blah 01:13, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Icey did that before this rule was put up. So you can't really demote her. I agree with the rule. Stoneclaw 01:26, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
This is complete and total bullcrap. You're lucky I care so much about this wiki, otherwise I would leave PCA. I won't ever support something as stupid as this. You can't tally someone if they make mistakes. I know full well what this is about. You're trying to weed out the ones you don't like, and the ones you know will slip up.—Jayce() 01:20, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
You need to calm down, Cloudskye, and stop swearing so much. This isn't about anyone in particular, and it looks like it applies to Iceheart and Scarletwind as well. It's fair. Shelly For a limited time only 01:24, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Shelly, you were in on their conversation too. Don't tell me what to do, okay. Had all the leads been included in this talk, I would be fine. But, they weren't. So, why should I be okay with it? —Jayce() 01:26, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Honestly I do agree with Cloudy that I think you should discuss things like this with ALL of the leads, and I think this may be about Icestorm too, however, I do think this rule is needed. So I guess I support, though I'm kinda on the fence about it. ♔ⓅⓐⓁⓔⒸⓛⒶⓦ♕ ☆StarClan be with you★ 01:27, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
It applies to everyone in the project. This isn't meant to "weed" anyone out, this is meant to be an added incentive to make people follow the rules. Sorry we didn't include you in the discussion; it was insensitive. But I still support this. Yes, leaving you out was "exclusion", but that has nothing to do with the rule itself. llwildheart™l01:28 Mon Oct 24
No one is trying to get you to leave, Cloudy. Honestly, I would be really sad if you did. What I want to happen is for the project to quiet down a bit. We've had a lot of lead changes and the rules change with the leads. We don't have Bramble anymore so we can't have the 24 ban. I'll admit, I'm running out of ideas on how to get that to happen. So, maybe this wasn't one of the best ones. The kit system wasn't either. I want all of this to work out. Everyone does. I agree to the full lead discussion. We need more of that, except that all the leads are never on at the same time long enough for it to happen enough. We're on the IRC if you wanna discuss it now. -Scarletwind✧Lisanna✧ 01:29, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
If you're swearing, it's against wikia policy, and I will tell you to stop. It doesn't matter if you're 18, it's inappropriate. Shelly For a limited time only 01:30, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Fine well never make the silly mistake of letting people come on their own again. Its not punishing the mistakes, its punishing disregard to the rules. -❄ſceheart ♥ Blah blah 01:31, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Okay we did some reveiw and we came to this: The strikes are gone. If you disregard the same rule more than once, you get demoted for good. Thats that. You can disregard 3 seperate rules, and then youre demoted for good, thats that. No soft ball here. -❄ſceheart ♥ Blah blah 02:55, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
But you can be promoted again if you show improvement, correct? 216.57.241.69 03:13, October 24, 2011 (UTC) (Shellheart)
All right, I don't know if this is too late for me to get involved, and I know I've been gone for a while, but I used to be leader, so can I have a say? I honestly think this whole system is way too complicated. You guys are making it more complex than it needs to be. I know there should be rules, but too many rules can make it confusing. Why can't we just keep it the way it was, where if you did something really bad you were banned/kicked out of PCA? Now, I know you might say, "but what if they do the same little thing over and over again?" I don't know what's going on with all the snippy remarks up there, but come on guys, we're all senior warriors, we are here because we have been deemed responsible to enough to have a lea position in this project. I find it increasingly hard to believe that a respectable lead would intentionally break the same little rule over and over again just because they thought they could. Like I said, I dot know if I'm too late to contribute to this, but I'm trying to save you from too many complicated and confusing rules. oblivionAudience? 03:17, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
You're not too late. We're not enforcing anything until each leader has had their say. Trust me, I don't like it any more then you do...but we're outnumbered. Everyone else agrees with it... —Jayce() 03:21, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Oblivion, your say matters just as much as everybody else's. Don't think you will be just cast aside because most people are for it, because who knows, you might change people's minds about this. Iveh Yo! 03:25, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
After a lot thinking, and looking over Oblivion's post a couple times, I think it'd work better if there was no demoting. Maybe we could have the strikes for little things, like if you do something like redo an image without permission, you'd get a strike, and after three, you'd be banned for like a 1-3 days? And maybe the ban could get longer each time you get 3 strikes? Or maybe it could just be that you can't reserve another image after you're current one is approved for like, a week? I wasn't really here when the rules were as simple as Oblivion says, right after I joined the leaders started changing all the time and tons more rules got added with each lead, but I personally think it'd be nice if we went back to the PCA being simpler, with only the rules absolutely necessary. I know that probably won't happen, but we could at least try. I've been thinking it was getting a bit complicated for a while, however a lot of these we DO need. Maybe we could just simplify them? I know I'm not a senior warrior (at least not yet, I will be if my vote passes) but I do think that the warriors should have say in this, so..... yeah. :P That's my opinion on this. ♔ⓅⓐⓁⓔⒸⓛⒶⓦ♕ ☆StarClan be with you★ 14:14, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if mere warriors can say something, but I'll say something. I disagree with this new rule. If someone does something wrong, you should just give then a friendly reminder. I agree, there's been too many new rules nowadays and it's annoying. Let's not introduce any new rule for now and just follow the ones we have. --Leafstrike-- 18:24, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Well said, Moonleaf. A reminder never did anyone harm. If you ask me, I think this "rule" is going to cause more harm then good, despite the fact Iceheart and the others say it will work. It's just going to cause tons of fighting - and we already have enough of that, if you ask me. —Jayce() 18:28, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Woah, woah, woah. This is what I come back to? I am against this. It's not fair if we speak our opinion and get a "strike." We do what we think needs to be done, it doesn't matter if it's against the rules or not. It needs to be done. Why should we get demoted from our hard earned rank if we break a simple rule seven times? Removed with ten? We speak our opinions, and nothing will change. Like Moonleaf said, give them a little reminder. Even leads need to be reminded every once in awhile. Not demoted, that's a poor way to settle things. I'm against. --Splook sweet creature 19:32, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not stupid. I know this is directed towards me. I agree with Splashy above. No. That's unnecessary. No one should ever get a strike for speaking their mind. I agree with the above. I've been in this project logner than any of y'all, I have experience. And let me say that this is too much rules. This isn't even NEEDED! And because this is directed towards me, I disagree with this. Appledash the light of honor 19:55, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Okay I have made up my mind, I do not like this rule. It's unfair for newer, or even forgetful (like me) who will probably make a mistake. Everyone should be able to speak their opinion, and I couldn't agree with Icey and Splashy more. Ivyheart =P 00:30, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this rule would stop people from speaking their minds. It'd just stop them from breaking the rules repeatedly. Look, can we just simplify it? Just have it say: repeat offenders of the guidelines may be subjected to temporary or permanent ban depending on the severity of the case. Does that sound good? Shelly For a limited time only 03:21, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
What would be considered bad enough to be an offense, and who would be watching? This is a wiki, not a school, where there are tons of people to keep an eye on a small amount of people. It's the other way around. Someone's bound to get away with not listening to the rules. —Jayce() 03:26, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to add a point. Some of you express concern over getting a strike if you make a little goof or a God-honest mistake (this was discussed also). No, if you made a God-honest mistake and you seriously didn't know it was wrong then you will not be punished for it! It's not cruel and we're not going to punish you for something stupid. It'd be along the lines if you attacked someone's image, did something repeatedly that you were told not to do, stuff like that. Iveh Yo! 03:27, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
Well said, Ivystripe. Little mistakes aren't what we're worried about here. It's users that repeatedly do things they are asked to stop doing that worry us. Shelly For a limited time only 12:30, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with this rule. People shouldn't be banned or demoted for forgetting the rules. If they were deliberately breaking the rules then we wouldn't need something like this to punish them, it would be obvious and we could just ban them. User:XXXSpecklestreamXXX/Sig 14:25, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
Ok, people, were human! No one is perfect. We all forget rules sometimes, that doesn't mean we should be punished for making an honest mistake. (If it is one) Especially if it's not on purpose, it's demeaning. Eventually, if this rule is made, I can see a lot of people leaving this project because of this rule. Speckle has a point too. If they deliberatly brake a rule, you'll know and you can talk to them about it, no need for permantent banning or demoting them, unless it in nessicary. Sweetflower 17:54, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if apprentices can have a say, but I still want to voice my opinion. I agree with Speckle and Sweetflower, we're all human. You can't tally a person's mistakes like they're in a science experiment. If someone deliberately does something wrong, then yes, you should take the necessary action to right their wrongdoing, but if it's a simple mistake, like misreading a guideline or just forgetting one, I don't see why we would need to demote someone to a lower rank. It's unfair. If I'm not allowed to state my opinion, then I extend my deepest apologies. User:Shadewing/Sig 19:18, October 25, 2011 (UTC) Shadewing
Shadewing of course you're allowed to voice your opinion! That's why we're having this discussion: so that everyone can have their say. And Sweetflower makes a good point. It can be very confusing when you first join a wiki/project and it's easy for new members to forget things or to not understand certain rules. If we were to tally up their mistakes then they would feel excluded and leave, which would be against the whole idea of a project that is supposed to be open to everybody. User:XXXSpecklestreamXXX/Sig 20:06, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
No. This is a useless rule. I don't want this added. Everything was fine the way it was. Appledash the light of honor 20:08, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
And also, I wanted to point out, this is a TWEAKING project. Images should be changed if ones feel it should be changed. This isn't to create offense to the OA. Kitsu herself stated this. Appledash the light of honor 20:08, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
How about strikes will reset after...lets say 2-3 months. ---- MY HAND IS A DOLPHIN!!!!!!! 20:11, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
ANOTHER comment...Ivy, Scarlet, and you, Ice, aren't the only leads in this project. You should have consulted me, Splashy, Cloudy, Misty, Paleclaw, Wildheart, and Oblivion before you even DARED to consider putting a forum. It's not fair. I remember never being included in other SW chats, but this is different. Appledash the light of honor 20:16, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
This rule will not go into effect, because you're not allowed to make a rule that can demote a user just because you don't care for their actions. I'm sorry, but this is against everything Wikia stands for. As long as I'm around, I will be fighting this rule, whether you like it or not. It's stupid, useless and will only cause more drama. —Jayce() 21:24, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
Everyone needs to chill. This sint about people who make mistakes, or kicking people out or any of that. All i was looking for is a way to get people who repeatedly break the same rule to acctually follow them. Im willing to throw all that^^^ out, all i want is way to enforce the rules. -❄ſceheart ♥ Blah blah 23:22, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
Ok, some of you just totally missed the point I was trying to make. Let me bold it: Under this rule, you will not be punished for an honest mistake. This includes new users, no, if they mess up, they will not get in trouble, we will gently remind them that that is against the rules (such as an apprentice adding their newly approved image to the respective character's article when that is a lead job. We will gently remind them that they cannot do that, and no punishment will happen). And Icestorm, did I ever say I thought it was fair you guys weren't invited to the chat? I was invited as they were finalizing their points and when Cloudy got upset my heart sunk to rock bottom. I feel terrible about you guys not getting invited on this. And yes I realize every bug needs to be worked out before we make the decision on whether to enforce this or not. That's why it's not put into place. Iveh Yo! 23:29, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
The thing is, Ivy, while certain users might think they made an honest mistake, the leader and her other leads (myself included) might not see it that way. There is a different between a slip-up and a deliberate thing, although some might confused one for the other.
The point of the matter here is that this will never become an okay thing, because there will be flaws in it that can never be worked out. There are quite a few of us that strongly believe that this is indeed a way to get rid of users that "don't follow the guidelines". —Jayce() 23:40, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
No. I still disagree. This rule is useless and it will stir up more drama than there already is. PCA was fine as it was before. And I'm agreeing with Cloudy up there. Appledash the light of honor 14:13, October 26, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Icy above. I just saw it today, and I think we should leave PCA the way it is. --❋Rainey 14:20, October 26, 2011 (UTC)
Just think of it like this. Ever since PCA started, it was simple and stood for what it's supposed to be. Doing images for pages. Just recently have all these rules been started to be put in effect. If PCA has thrived for years on those simple rules, can't they stay the same? No one's gotten mad at eachother enough to start debates like this until just recently. So I say, leave the rules the way they are, and let PCA take it's toll. --Splook sweet creature 20:37, October 26, 2011 (UTC)
Could you guys just look at what Iceheart recently said? You can think up an entirely new rule, but I still think something needs to be in place. Cloud, you've told me yourself that a lot of the newer members of this website, along with the project, are beginning to get out of hand. You were willing to go as far as suggesting the site get a new admin. A way to regulate the rules more efficiently will be a help to solving that problem. Shelly For a limited time only 21:11, October 26, 2011 (UTC)
This website could use another admin. I don't care what you think about it, that's my honest opinion, as I've been part of this website since 2009. Yes, I would like a new rule, but not when it involves demoting users. More so the leads, who've worked very hard to get where they are at. That's not right, and I don't care if they don't follow the guidelines to a pin. Something needs to be set into place, but not without a discussion (like we are having now), and a proper wiki vote (like you did with the queen issue). —Jayce() 21:18, October 26, 2011 (UTC)
That's what I just said, Cloud... I said that you don't need to use the demotion system. I'm happy to see you're discussing it. Shelly For a limited time only 21:20, October 26, 2011 (UTC)
On the Making of Rules[]
Guys, here's the deal: If you want to make a new rule that can limit or exclude people from membership of a project (a project that excludes general wiki members from participating almost wholesale already) I think the rule needs to go through careful and complete discussions. On the wiki, where everyone who is a part of the project (and of the wiki) can participate. It's one thing to rush a rule when it's effecting a completely new area of the wiki (like the chat) and another to rush it when it will effect people who are a part of a project that has run for over five years.
In short: As sysop of this wiki, unless you can show me a substantial majority of the membership of this project, and endorsement from your Senior Project members, I will stand by the throwing out of the rule. You want to create a strike system, do it properly and discuss the hell out of it so that it's fair, justified, and you have the support of the people effected by the new rule.
Kitsufox Den/CoSC 20:05, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
New Idea[]
Okay, guys, that way it doesn't get mixed up in the clutter ^^up there^^, I've come up with a new idea, and Iceheart likes this one. I'll post what I put on Shelly's talk page, as well as what's on Iceheart's.
- It involves the whole "ban for 24 hours" ordeal, but there's no demoting. It's more or less a "you're not allowed to edit the PCA pages and/or upload a charart for 24 hours". I've yet to work out the technical details, but it's a lot easier then Iceheart's idea. Like, say if Iceheart picked a fight with Icestorm (bad example, but we all know it happens)... Iceheart, since she started it, would not be allowed to edit any PCA pages for one entire day. It's a minimal thing, but it might knock some sense into users. Repeat offenders would have a day added on at a time, and if it racks up to two weeks, they get kicked from the project, but would be allowed to return once that time's up.
- I really don't know how it would work, aside from them just being told they're not allowed to edit any PCA pages/upload images for one day. I mean, one of us could probably keep tabs (probably me, since it was my idea) on a word document or something, as to who gets what, and for how long. I also thought of something else. If they edit anything PCA related (during the 24 hour ban), their ban gets extended another 12 hours. It's not long, but nor is it a slap on the wrist.
So, comments? This not only solves the issue of not having users demoted, and it also provides them with time to think about what they've done. If you continue, you will be booted from the project, but you will be allowed to come back at the rank you were kicked out on. —Jayce() 01:57, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I prefer this idea way better. You aren't getting demoted completely from your project, but just get a gentle ban, kind of like a reminder? I like this idea completely better. And, if, you get banned for two weeks and so forth, you get your status as you come back, correct? Good idea, Cloudy -w- Splook sweet creature 02:05, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
So this is what I missed? Anywhoo, I like this idea better then the last one, you dont get demoted or anything, so no one gets discouraged. Just a time-out for somethin' like that. Nice -Bloo!yo 02:09, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
Bloo, you miss a lot, m'dear. And it wouldn't really be a "ban" as in you cannot edit the rest of the wiki. It's just a PCA ban, compared to the other rule, where you actually got a full wiki ban. This also promotes contributive editing, for our newer members. ;) —Jayce() 02:13, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm fine with this idea as well. It's very well thought out. Though I still think we can incorperate this into the existing rule about fighting, and maybe see if we can get specific banning powers for the project to go with it. It would be complicated and we'd need the help of a programmer, but it's doable. Shelly For a limited time only 02:18, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of if it's merged with the new rule or not, this would have to be a rule that each and every member (leads included), took seriously. This is supposed to be a project to improve character images, and with all the fighting recently, we might as well rename the project Project:Drama, since that seems to be all that's going on. —Jayce() 02:26, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
I think it's mainly been since the tweaking thing started, personally. Stuff like that is more complicated than just making images and people get touchy. Anyway, as I said, your idea is good Cloudy, however it's incorperated. Will this go to a vote within the next week? Shelly For a limited time only 02:30, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
That would be a good idea, but I'd like to see the opinions of every project member before this goes into the voting stage. —Jayce() 02:32, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a much better idea than demoting people who have worked hard to get to where they are. Excellent. oblivionAudience? 03:20, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
I think this sounds much better, though on the other idea, your rank was only temporarily taken away (some people missed that). Lol I was staling you guys's pages and saw this idea, and I like it a lot. Iveh Yo! 03:25, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
Everything's already been said. GREAT idea Cloudy. :) I like this one MUCH better. ♔ⓅⓐⓁⓔⒸⓛⒶⓦ♕ ☆StarClan be with you★ 03:55, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
I do not agree. What if that user was having a bad day? What if something happened to them in real life and they have no where else to take it out on but here? Aspen(Talk) 01:27, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
They shouldn't be taking their rage out on another user. I learned that the hard way. Aspenflower, there are things that shouldn't be done online, and taking real life issues out on everyone is one of those... —Jayce() 01:34, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
Excellent idea and good point, Skye. Sometimes, when people take out their rage on others, on or offline, Aspen, it can get pretty ugly. Believe me, I've done that exact thing and regretted it terribly. Skye's idea is great. It's not a demotion, and it doesn't involve breathing down other user's backs and tallying their mistakes. It's just a way of saying 'hey, you messed up, so just don't do it next time, or the same thing will happen.' Skye's idea has my full support. User:Shadewing/Sig 01:37, October 28, 2011 (UTC) Shadewing
This rule is better than the other. :D Stoneclaw 01:39, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
It seems that everyone that cares about this has commented. Shall we put it to a vote soon? Shelly For a limited time only 21:30, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. =) —Jayce() 21:33, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
You want to write it up, or shall I? I do enjoy writing these official things up. Shelly For a limited time only 21:37, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
You do it. The only votes I know how to set up are ones for PB. xD —Jayce() 21:39, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
Kay, I'll get on it with your rule, as it seems to have the majority support from this page. Shelly For a limited time only 21:40, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
Alright, all written up! The vote can be found here. Shelly For a limited time only 21:52, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
- I would just like to make a small observation about a major issue I have with this version of the rule (which is, in fact, better than the prior version). That is, it creates exclusion. If you put this rule into effect, I will have to insist that you then don't require project membership to create project art. No project should have the ability to limit a users contribution to this wiki. No rules should have the power to prevent a user from contributing to a project. I suggest, that if a user is a continual problem instead of being booted from the project, that user be reffered to a Sysop for punishment appropriate to a user who is causing problems on the wiki instead. Kitsufox Den/CoSC 02:41, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
I'm okay with that idea. It doesn't really affect the main idea of the rule, just so long as there's always an active sysop. llwildheart™l23:22 Sat Nov 5
- I can always be reached via email for an emergency/quick action needed situation. At the moment the only times I'm "inactive" involve work (such as tonight) or illness (such as last week). Kitsufox Den/CoSC 23:52, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
The vote has now been paused to take into consideration Kitsu's change. As the vote has pretty much been completed, I'd like to propose that the previous one be scrapped and a new one that integrates Kitsufox's suggestion be started. She has a point, and it would be easier than trying to keep banned users from editing PCA. Shelly For a limited time only 00:55, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
What seems to make sense to me is that project users just watch. Not like hawks or anything, but just stay attentive. Rule breakers will be given warnings on their talk pages and such, but until they actually do something that's really worth punishing; such as starting multiple fights, swearing, art thefts, etc. it might be best to keep the punishments down to a dull roar to avoid hurt feelings. I've seen a couple users leave from things started up a bit too fast. If things really get out of hand, we'll involve admins who can sort it out from there. I think that sounds fair. Comments? -Scarletwind✧Lisanna✧ 01:45, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Frankly, we don't need a vote to agree that we'll watch and report problem users when they get out of hand. It's not really a rule so much as a duty. Shelly For a limited time only 01:49, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
So do we even need a rule? llwildheart™l05:28 Thu Nov 10
No, I don't think we do. We just need common sense xP -Scarletwind✧Lisanna✧ 00:53, November 11, 2011 (UTC)