 |
This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 8 July 2010 by Aburnett. |
Alright. First off, it doesn't seem to do anything besides state the obvious. If a dick is interpreted as a extreme troll, then every one knows not to be one, and an essay is unnecessary. furthermore, its very vague- on the wiki, about the only way to be an "extreme troll" is to vandalize, which is a separate issue that doesn't need to be repeated.
As for being a "dick" during a discussion, can we not just say "be mature" or "be constructive"? What are "dicks" not able to do under DBAD that they are able to do under what i stated above?"
Next, I consider it unprofessional and immature to use "dick". I know it gets used alot and people are "used to it" as well as likely "not offended by it", but would you use it in a normal encyclopedia, a news report, an advertisement, etc when it wasn't really necessary and could easily be replaced by a different, or less offensive word?
As for harshness, people are used to this. If someone is trolling, this is exactly the response they want to get. Thus, I do not see a use for it. I would like to do away with the policy all together, but at least PLEASE change dick to something else.
Regarding the other thread, i consider this a separate issue as that didn't discuss the removal of the essay all together. And shouldn't threads be closed by a neutral admin?
22:48, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
Discussion
Comment - Threads may be closed by any sysop. It is just generally left to neutral ones because that limits people thinking threads were closed a personal attack. The DBAN->DBAD thread had more than enough support to be passed, but if you have a problem with it, I'm sure you can take it up with Andrew. Also, no matter how much you hate a proposal, once it's been passed, making a thread a few hours latter will probably not get it changed. It will just cause increased tension. That's up to you though. User:Haloolah123/Sig 12:51 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Comment and Neutral - If you really want to carry on this, go ahead. I doubt this thread is going to go anywhere, however it might work out better if you aim for a more general goal. Making it so that only neutral admins can close threads? Up to you. 222 talk 18:18, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Really, it didn't matter who closed it at that point. It was going around in circles because the few opposers were so adamant about their opinions that they would keep it going forever. That would actually fall under gaming the system as filibustering IMO. I'm sorry if you didn't like me closing it, but it doesn't matter; it had been a week and there was a clear consensus. Every opposer except you had agreed to let it go because further arguing was and still is futile. If you want to continue going around in circles on this discussion, have at it. DBAD is official whether you like it or not. Andrew talk 19:03, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
- I should also add that DBAD is not just about trolling. I really don't know where you got this assumption from. Andrew talk 00:32, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
Closed - This is basically just a re-hash of the opposition voiced in Forum:Change DBAN to DBAD. This opposition has already been addressed, and the consensus was clearly in favor of the name change. Allow me to quote from User:Cook Me Plox's talk page:
| “ | There were only 3 or 4 total opposers, and all except one had agreed to let it go because they understood that since everyone was so adamant about their positions, further arguing was futile and would just cause the discussion to continue going around in circles. | ” |
If people who opposed a change simply started yew grove threads every time something didn't go in their favor, we would never get anything done. Sorry, but this is closed. --Aburnett (Talk) 01:20, July 8, 2010 (UTC)