| rdfs:comment
| - +1, and your mother's a whore. --71.229 06:35, 4 July 2008 (EDT) Technically, more of a guideline proposal than a policy. - PANIC! Image:Panic sig4.png sexiness! 06:36, 4 July 2008 (EDT) These kinds of things are almost always between two people, maybe we need something like two people talking back to each other about the same thing on a talk page more than 10 times and it's time to STFU. I'm guessing this is to prevent things like the epic walls of text that appear on Rapta's talk and the stupidity that gets people like Igor banned because they don't know when to STFU. The problem is most people don't know how to express their point in a precise, succinct way, I always have epic walls of text, but at least they are comprehensive god damnit. - 06:46, 4 July 2008 (EDT) Your points are u
|
| abstract
| - +1, and your mother's a whore. --71.229 06:35, 4 July 2008 (EDT) Technically, more of a guideline proposal than a policy. - PANIC! Image:Panic sig4.png sexiness! 06:36, 4 July 2008 (EDT) These kinds of things are almost always between two people, maybe we need something like two people talking back to each other about the same thing on a talk page more than 10 times and it's time to STFU. I'm guessing this is to prevent things like the epic walls of text that appear on Rapta's talk and the stupidity that gets people like Igor banned because they don't know when to STFU. The problem is most people don't know how to express their point in a precise, succinct way, I always have epic walls of text, but at least they are comprehensive god damnit. - 06:46, 4 July 2008 (EDT) Your points are usually succinct. There's just a lot of them sometimes. And yeah, it's almost always between two or three people who end up in a giant wall vs. wall discussion on a build or the AN. Although, people like that 91.143 guy would fall under this, too. WvW isn't necessarily a bad thing (look at the discussion between GoD and I on his "ONOZ!IGOR!" rant) but when the conversation has no structure and begins to cycle downward into veiled insults then it's time to STFU. - PANIC! Image:Panic sig4.png sexiness! 06:51, 4 July 2008 (EDT) Could of course need some elaboration to when it should be used; and why they should stop (i.e. very short note about ban now, may want to make it more serious). Overall I like the idea and think it's a good addition. Godbox Image:GodlyCompanion-cube.jpg 09:59, 4 July 2008 (EDT) Or u could always permaban them for trolling like Igor (twice). --- Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG Ressmonkey (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2008 (EDT) If they would STFU instead then there'd be no need for a ban. When to use this: Always. Also, this is about as serious as it needs to be. It's just a guideline that people should be reminded of when walls of bullshit start appearing in places like the AN. - PANIC! Image:Panic sig4.png sexiness! 10:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT) <3 — Skakid 11:34, 4 July 2008 (EDT) Should it be moved to another name with a redirect at STFU; such as NPA? Godbox Image:GodlyCompanion-cube.jpg 11:41, 4 July 2008 (EDT) PvXwiki:Shut The Fuck Up. gogo. --Image:Ibreaktoilets Signature.jpgTab Moo 11:42, 4 July 2008 (EDT) (ec)The name may be a bit harsh, I for one consider it to be quite good but consider that a new member may not like being told to Shut the fuck up. Should maybe be moved to a less... insulting name. Godbox Image:GodlyCompanion-cube.jpg 11:42, 4 July 2008 (EDT) It shouldn't be literally used to tell people to shut the fuck up but whatever you want. A rose by any other name tbh. - PANIC! Image:Panic sig4.png sexiness! 11:50, 4 July 2008 (EDT) For Precedence I also cite PvX:DICK and Wikipedia:Please be a huge dick. - PANIC! Image:Panic sig4.png sexiness! 11:55, 4 July 2008 (EDT) I have to say, it's looking pretty hawt and could be quite useful to insert into the next giant wall of text argument: PvX:STFU tbh. - 12:12, 4 July 2008 (EDT) I disagree. Most people find "STFU" offensive and saying that to new pvxers trying to defend their build is not the good way to make them change their viewpoint. PvXwiki:Have a Break or something like that. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 16:54, 6 July 2008 (EDT) Heh, this is rather well written. — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 13:43, 4 July 2008 (EDT) Does that mean you're in favor, then? - PANIC! Image:Panic sig4.png sexiness! 14:00, 4 July 2008 (EDT) I'll get you, Skakid... next time! Not as of yet. However, since this is rather a guideline rather than a policy, it's not really viable for enforcement, which means that this can be passed with little/minimal controversy. It's blunt, so it's my type of policy/guideline. However, that means that I'm pretty biased, so other users should weigh in. — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 21:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT) I haven't actually seen any opposition yet... Admittedly there haven't been that many users on the page. This wouldn't allow more bans or anything, but would more give general users something to refer to in order to suggest two other users STFU, in the most polite way possible and might actually potentially prevent bans ;o - 07:54, 5 July 2008 (EDT) Been 7, myself aside, that agree so far. Don't know what Ressmonkey's stance was. But tbh, noone will oppose this. As far as enforcement, etc, there's already precedence for warnings and bans if something gets that far and since this is meant to be the step before that, there's no real point in issuing a warning or whatever for violating it. Although I would love for Rapta to ban somebody for the reason: Refused to go outside and eat something. - PANIC! Image:Panic sig4.png sexiness! 08:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT) ILL DO EET -- Armond WarbladeImage:Armond sig image.png{{sysop}} 00:18, 6 July 2008 (EDT) My stand is that I dont think its needed. If theres a problem, admin discresion, mediation, or other policy should cover it. I understand its supposed to be a non-banning guideline, but Id rather see people banned. Also, I have a feeling that this is gonna be cited in the wrong place because long amounts of text arent always under this policies jurisdiction, and some users wont realize that. --- Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG Ressmonkey (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2008 (EDT) The aim of this is to prevent problems and consequences. As we've seen in the past, bans aren't the end of the situation in a lot of cases; proxies and drama being the most common backlash. I thought "when it should be used" was clear but perhaps I should expand "when not to use this"? - PANIC! Image:Panic sig4.png sexiness! 09:07, 5 July 2008 (EDT) I absolutely LOVE it! And the page itself is worded very well. Would be cool to have a width:100% banner with a time stamp. Anyway, love the idea Image:Choytw sig 1.JPGChoytw ~~ Talk+ 10:44, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)