Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Pledge To End Dramatic Behavior

Hi, most of you already know who I am, so I'll spare you all of an introduction. Many users, including myself, are sick of all the drama occuring on here lately, and whatever the reason may be behind it, it's unnaceptable. This is a Fallout Wiki, not a Fall-out Wiki (That was punny). I've decided to give my best effort to try to end this drama. Dramatic behavior will always exist, but at this level it's ridiculous, so I propose a pledge to end it.

By signing this pledge, you as a user agrees to:

  • Not cause, nor stir up trouble.
  • Respect everyone's opinions, even if they aren't your own.
  • Argue with respect by making intelligent points, without insulting the other arguer.
  • Keep problems with another user with that user, by either utilizing the private messaging in chat, or on their talk page, not by making it a community issue.
  • If something you are about to say can be easily misconstrued from it's true meaning, reword it.
  • If you don't have something nice to say, and it wouldn't be productive to say it, don't say it.
  • Treat others as you would like them to treat you.' (There's a reason this is known as the Golden Rule.)

To sign this pledge, merely sign with a yesIcon check, then sign your name. To abstain from this voting, simply do nothing. I hope many users can agree with these terms, so we can be a loving community, that shares a common goal, making this Wiki the best. --Bunny2Bubble 01:05, March 29, 2012 (UTC)



Is it really necessary? This strikes me as a completely superfluous gesture akin to the "Virginity Balls" or "Purity Pledges" by Christialiban in America, which are usually forgotten after a time. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 14:19, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

This is mostly a show for good faith. I kind of have to agree though as it's easy to agree to something like this just to turn your back on such a pledge when it matters the most. I mean, who would actually put no here and pledge the opposite? :P Dragon Skål! 14:24, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
I happen to like being on top of lists ;3 - Hugs MadeMan2 "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

Well Tag, simple solution. Don't like it, don't have to sign it. *shrugs* Agent c 17:05, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I find something should be necessary, as I feel it's escalated to make the Wiki almost annoying at times. And you're right Tag, it may be forgotten, but if we ever have a user stir up trouble, we can always refer back to this to point out that they are going against a pledge. Like Chad said, don't like it, don't sign it.--Bunny2Bubble 18:39, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

If you don't have something nice to say, and it wouldn't be productive to say it, don't say it. --> Don't like it, don't have to sign it. Nuff said. User avatar tagUser Avatar talk 20:16, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that as non-constructive. Just thought I was pointing out the lack of obligation on anyone to sign this, and no harm no foul if you don't. Agent c 20:18, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
I meant no ill, I just meant what Chad said, you aren't obligated to sign it if you don't wish to do so.--Bunny2Bubble 20:27, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
I was pointing out that what was said didn't come across as nice, I would almost saying it came across as condescending, even to me who the comment was not directed towards. Nor did I feel that it was very productive to word it in such a flippent manner. Remember, it isn't just what you, but also how you say it (which actually forms part of the guidelines here). As you have worded it above, it comes across in a much better manner. User avatar tagUser Avatar talk 21:09, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I can see how that came off as blunt. My apologies, I meant no harm by it though.--Bunny2Bubble 21:12, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

My Apologies. Agent c 21:15, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

I am not questioning the intent, more about how things are expressed in such a manner that intent can be misperceived. Both comments came across as defensive in some respects, as such can make the reader feel aggravated and personally attacked by the later "blunt" comment. I know I should have not placed the "Nuff said" comment myself, but this is an example of what I am trying to express here. Reading the top comments kinda rubbed me the wrong way and I responded in kind. Reason being, I kinda understand where Tag is coming from and partially feel the same. I don't feel Tag was question whether something was necessary, more whether this is necessarily the right course of action to resolve the issues at hand. Personally, I feel the underlying issues run a lot deeper than what a pledge of goodwill can cure, I am not saying I know what the right answer is either, just that I don't feel it can be resolved so easily. The other concern I have could have implications of actually making the situation worse. If someone was to commit to this and later be pulled up on it, doing so in a aggravated manner could serve to antagonise them into an escalated response, cultivating deeper bad feelings between those involved. User avatar tagUser Avatar talk 21:49, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
Those are valid points. We didn't necessarily look for what the ill effects of something like this might bring. For myself, adding my name here will not be problematic, as I try to treat others with decency, pledge or not. If an occasion arises where someone is "called to the mat" over conduct contrary to their pledge here, then the person who feels they must bring that to their attention would be well advised to act according to the points outlined above, had they pledged also. To me it's just a reaffirmation of principles I already ascribe to and ones that I'd recommend to anyone, whether here on the wiki, or elsewhere in life, but I see your point. It's up to all of us to treat each other with decency, pledge or no pledge. The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg 22:54, March 29, 2012 (UTC)