Forum:Proposed comment policy

This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Forums: Index > Wiki proposal votes > Proposed comment policy

Seeing how the comments are being flooded by people who failed English 101 and/or have nothing meaningful to add, I propose enacting a dedicated comment policy, so that users can easily understand what they can and what they cannot post:

“

1. Don't spam. Comments that are considered spam will be deleted by the staff. Examples of spam include one word posts, meaningless statements such as Fallout 3 rocks or random, nonsensical comments.
2. Don't flame. Comments intended to provoke other users (flamebait) or insulting them outright (flaming) will be deleted by the staff and may be grounds for blocking.
3. Don't be rude. Excessive rudeness to other poster (whether they are anonymous or not) is not welcome. Such comments will be deleted and may be grounds for blocking.
4. Write legibly readably. If your message can't be understood, it will be considered spam. If in doubt, use a spellchecker. Note: Leetspeek does constitute unreadability.”

Thoughts? 11:35, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

How're we going to make every anonymous user read and understand this before posting? Nitty ^Tok. 12:22, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth codifying, but it would really be for admin clarity and for linking offenders to. It won't really be preemptive. In that light, I agree with what you've written. I would make an additional warning against excessive profanity. I would also do away with the bolds and italics. Make it matter-of-fact. All in all, though, I'm in favor.--Gothemasticator 17:39, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, hell no to grammar Nazi patrols on comments. Firstly I find your first sentence to be offensive and could easily be construed as inciting flaming in itself, in fact you post a lot of those kind of comments and insulting peoples literacy skills, when they are not relevant to the topic in any shape or form. Lets see what one of your last comments was "OP, if you try to impersonate someone well versed in law, first work on your grammar and punctuation.", how about you start on trying to act like you propose here, firstly you insult a users post and then provide nothing of meaning in anyway shape or form.

One thing you fail to realize here is that other people may not have the same skill set as yourself, and you essentially put them down as being inferior because of it, or thats the way you come across especially with what you say above. Well here is a little lesson for you, I am dyslexic myself much like Eistein, Newton, DaVinci, JFK etc. So what you know the proper use of English or at least you think you do, that dont make you superior in any way or other peoples comments of less importance, that is something you are going to have to deal with yourself. The second thing is that not everyones first language is American English, sorry to say and this might break your illusions here but it aint the most popular in the world either. So what they are not allowed to express themselves either?? I think you really need to go away and think about what is really needed here and not what you want. ☣Avatar☣ 20:48, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm Polish, not American and I've never lived in an English speaking country. You should take your own advice and go away and think on what I'm really proposing. I don't want grammar Nazism in comments, merely a modicum of legibility. Wikia isn't a chat room - users have the luxury of taking the time and minimal effort to at least ensure their message is readable and easily understood by others. No, they should do that.

Dyslexia is not an excuse for anything. In the age of Internet and automatic spellchecking in web browsers "I'm lysdexic" is a pathetic attempt to gain preferential treatment when a free, fast web spellchecker is a google away. FYI, I'm also dyslexic - I have serious issues with legible handwriting, but I don't use it as an argument. Dyslexia doesn't make you special - Einstein, Newton, Da Vinci and JFK never, ever, flaunted their disability as an argument - why do you?

My comment about the anon impersonating a person well versed in law was accurate and on-topic. He claimed knowledge of law - I pointed out that in order to be credible with that claim, he should ensure that he has at least a basic grasp of the English language.

People are allowed to express their opinions, however, they should have the courtesy to make them understandable and readable. These rules would ensure that illegible comments would not litter the comments. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 21:20, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I hate to say it, but your comment was nothing more but belittling and demeaning (much like the opening comment on this thread). Secondly there is no correlation between literacy and someone ability to understand law [1], so you made false assumptions and insulting comments. This is something I have seen from you a few times and I have bit my lip, but I aint going to sit by anymore and listen to your dribble. As for me, I aint using it as a excuse, in fact I do use spell check, but as with all spell checks they only check the word. So when you can find a spell check that tells me when I am using are and our in the wrong context of a sentence etc, there is no excuse for your own attitude to how people express themselves either. In fact your intolerance of such things in regular old comments and your need to belittle commenters on such things, does not set a good example for the rest of the Wiki. ☣Avatar☣ 21:46, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a correlation between literacy and understanding of law. The obituary you posted is an example of how good literacy goes hand in hand with understanding of law. Yes, she had dyslexia in its varying forms, but she did not let it get in her way of obtaining an education and becoming a judge. I'm pretty much sure that as a lawyer she paid extra attention to making her writing legible and easy to understand, precisely because she was dyslexic. I pay extra attention to make my writing legible; I don't treat it as an excuse, so why do you insist that it should be?

The poster you so vehemently defend was not knowledgeable in law or any science for that matter. Just a typical fool who tried to pass off as an educated person. An educated person would at least pay attention to starting the sentence with a capital letter and ending it with a full stop.

Really, I'm puzzled as to why you are so jaded. I never had any beef with you, since you have the courtesy to make sure you are understandable. As I stated, repeatedly, all the rules are asking for is legibility in comment posts, contributing with a basic, elementary level of English. It's a simple rule - The Vault is not a chat room, you have the time to make your posts understandable, so do so. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 11:24, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that is where you are wrong. What you are essentially saying is that because someone is or writes in a illiterate fashion, then they do not have the ability to be able to understand law. What I linked you to was someone who proves your theory wrong, I can link you to many more people that work in the legal community that also have literacy disability's including but not limited to people like Erin Brockovich. As you said yourself, these kinds of disability's are no excuse and the same should apply to people excelling in the legal profession. So there is no excuse for you to treat someone in the same manner as you so avidly and critically put it. But for you to judge someone on a single sentence just because they failed to introduce a cap at the start and a period at the end is wrong, what happened to taking things in good faith around here??? And considering they posted nothing on any other science, you are ascertaining even more assumptions. Yes this is not a chat room, but these are comments where people should be free to express their comments as they see fit on the subject matter in a free and friendly environment without being policed on grammatical errors. ☣Avatar☣ 17:13, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

What. Listen Ghost, do you even read what you write before posting it? Please, show me court documents written by Jeffry Gallet that are written in an illiterate fashion or where his disability is apparent. I can guarantee you that you will find none, since every single lawyer who might suffer from dyslexia will make sure that what he writes is perfectly understandable and readable.

Really, you completely fail to understand what my policy entails. Comments that are not readable or understandable should be deleted on sight. Your claim that I want to judge people based on capitalisation and punctuation is utter bullshit and unfounded, bizarre accusation. You are making up charges to throw at me. Stop that. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 19:27, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

I am not claiming anything that is not apparent in your own words, you are judging people with what you wrote here " Just a typical fool who tried to pass off as an educated person. An educated person would at least pay attention to starting the sentence with a capital letter and ending it with a full stop." You have judged them in your own words to be uneducated and a fool, based entirely for the lack of Caps and a period. How would you like it if I went around telling everyone that your a fool for failing to be able to grasp a simple example of your own actions.

As for court papers, are you really that dumb to think that someone in such a position does not do what I do and have such works proof read before submission. My point still stands that someone who is illertrate is not uneducated or a fool as you put it. ☣Avatar☣ 19:21, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) Yes, I consider said person to be a fool. Why? He claims he is well versed in law, yet he doesn't write in an even basically correct manner. I don't know how you can be so naive to assume that if someone says he knows law, then he must be honest and correct and thus requires your defence. He was quite obviously a fool. Someone who really knows law would not state that he knows law, but prove it by providing at least a basic analysis of the deal and explaining his reasoning behind his belief that Interplay/Bethesda is in the right. Assume good faith, yes, but not to the point of mindless naivete.
Now, GA, if you started posting around the Wiki that I'm a fool because you think I don't see your point (I do, but I consider it to be naive), you'd lose your admin privileges. If you haven't noticed, I keep this discussion contained to this single thread, because this is a discussion between us two. Dragging others into it or even mentioning it is rather immature.
Last, if someone is illiterate (doesn't have the ability to read and write) then, by definition, he is uneducated. To obtain an education, you need to be literate, as handbooks etc. are written. I am perplexed by your claim that obviously literate and educated people, such as Einstein, Gallet or JFK prove that you don't have to be literate to be educated. Are you somehow unable to understand such a basic concept? _Tagaziel ^(call!) 08:53, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

A few of these proposed policies are too restrictive upon the user-base for the Vault. So much interest and traffic would be lost if every user kept having their posts deleted for minor indiscretions or expressions of personal opinion. Now, this doesn't void the responsibility administrators have to keep obscenities and excessive use of profanity out of forums and blog posts. I think these policies could use revisions to allow for more freedom of speech / expression. Bear in mind that if you find something to be spam, but it's not overly obscene in intent or content, you can ignore it, hopefully willing the poster to shape up their means of expressing ideas and opinions. -- Ghouly89 ^(Talk) 21:15, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Where are they restrictive? They're simple: don't spam, don't flame, don't troll, be understandable. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 21:20, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well, when you state your policies that way, I agree with you. It's just the finer details above under each of those categories that are restrictive. I am willing to accept this entire proposal as long as you aren't a die-hard nitpicker about little things. Now, that's not me saying you're uptight or other, just that I'm interpreting the policies above that way. -- Ghouly89 ^(Talk) 04:50, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

---

I remain in favor of putting into writing policies governing blog comments, discussions on talk pages, and forum pages. The present fact is that we already are removing spam, rudeness, flame-baiting and the like, so adding it to the policies is just good practice.

As to the complaints about Tagaziel's behavior - why not let the policy be written and then simply hold his own posts to the same standards as everyone else is held to?--Gothemasticator 21:53, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well when you see things like this here, that is tantamount to internet bullying (and this isn't the only example I have seen around here). I am going to fight any policy every step of the way, that gives them any kind of legitimacy in there actions beyond the article pages where it is required. ☣Avatar☣ 22:11, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

It's notable that Blutuefell, one of the offenders on the page you linked to, has been blocked several times now for lousy behavior like that. However, I think I see what you are getting at. It's the holding up a high standard of grammar and command of language that you object to, not the rules against flaming and rudeness, right? If so, I can see your point and agree. However, it would be good, I think, to prohibit leet speak. I would also like to have some language present concerning a total disregard of punctuation and capitalization. I can handle poor grammar and writing skills, but I remember the Mr. Dot boondoggle: his posts were indecipherable. Why don't you take a crack at rewriting the proposed policy, Avatar?--Gothemasticator 22:29, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much yes. As for 31337/leet speak or whatever you want to call it, that is something I agree upon, as mods to be able to moderate they need to be able to speak the same language. As for presentation of the English language, there is no requirement of that for mods to be able to perform there duties in moderating users. The only other thing I dont like is vague rules that can be interrupted in many way and twisted to suit one needs, as more often than not these kinds of vague rules end up getting abused or ignored when desired. ☣Avatar☣ 23:11, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

What is vague about "write legibly"? What is easy to twist in the basic requirement of "be understandable to others"? _Tagaziel ^(call!) 09:54, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

The vagueness is on where the line should be drawn. I get the feeling from you that even a simple typo would make a comment not legibly and therefore deleted. ☣Avatar☣ 17:13, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Corrected it into "readably", less ambiguous. The line is drawn at sentences that cannot be understood. Where did I ever say that I'd delete people's posts if there was a single typo in them? I may mock people for their lack of effort in writing posts (as it's laziness, not lack of actual skill that makes people miss capital letters and full stops), but I'd never consider it to be grounds for deleting, unless the post is either meaningless (lulz) or is undecipherable gibberish. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 19:27, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, in their current form, I agree with your proposed comment polices. Maybe I just misunderstood how strict they were. As long as they stop people from posting unintelligible gibberish / spam, then that is alright with me. -- Ghouly89 ^(Talk) 01:15, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

All I asked for Ghouly :) _Tagaziel ^(call!) 08:53, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

Honestly there is not much I agree with here. Firstly the dont spam should be changed to off topic, and cover even multi response convos where the natural evolution of the talk takes it off topic from the original blog entry. The only reason other places have issues with single word responses etc, is because it bumps threads in forums to the top and takes them out of flow of the whole forum, as you said yourself, this isn't a chat room nor a forum so such concerns are not valid here. If people wish to state that they think FO3 rocks in a blog entry about reviews for FNV, then so be it, to me that is a valid view based on the topic in the blog entry.

As for flaming, geez how on earth are you going to manage that around here, especially when just saying something as simple as FO3 is far better then FNV, can pretty much start a whole bunch of people flaming responses to that. There are a lot of strong views here by many people on which games are better than the other, even between FO1 and FO2. So you might as well put a whole ban on discussing any personal views on any FO game. That will also kill most of the constructive debates that also happen, but at least it will cull about 50% of all comments. Which might be a good idea since being here I have noticed a lot of fans (especially new fans to the series) being mocked by and run off by the more established members here, if there views do not conform to what is considered acceptable view of which games are best etc. But I can pretty much see this rule being used to propagate the established view point only, anything contradicting the established view will be considered flaming and be deleted.

For the dont be rude bit, that dose not belong here, that simple put should encompass the whole of the Wiki and does not require being repeated. Doing so can lead to continuity errors between the two policy's.

Now for the 1337 and write readably. They should be combined into a single rule that states that the English language only should be used and none of its alternative forms, alternative forms include but not limited to leetspeek, textese, chat speak etc. Also while grammar and punctuation is desired, it is not essential for posting a comment. However if a post reaches a point it becomes unreadable to a reasonable person, it will be removed. ☣Avatar☣ 19:17, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

---

Tagaziel and Ghost Avatar, you are both getting a bit far afield. The proposal at hand is a written policy about what blog comments are unacceptable - not the relationship between literacy and education. GA, if you have a suggestion as to how the proposed policy can be better worded so as to avoid the abusability you mention, please submit your own version. Tagaziel, I'd like to point out that "rudeness" is a pretty subjective standard to which you could be subject, even in this thread. For example, Are you somehow unable to understand such a basic concept? would be considered rude in many circles. I consider it rude. Perhaps it would be best to stick to insults, which is more easily understandable and enforcable.

Please, let's move this proposal forward or else drop it for lack of support.--Gothemasticator 20:36, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

---

flame baiting? isn't it called trolling?

My guess is flamebaiting it deliberately trying to gather trolls in order to gain attention or anything that'll get someone you dislike so riled up, they screw up and get banned. Perhaps, reverse-trolling. By the way, I'm pretty much on board for all this. -Malus X 02:30, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

I see no real problems with this rule list, except for 5. Seems to be taking it a little far there with what people can post. But that's just my opinion. Shadowrunner^(stuff) 05:16, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need grammar nazis going through the comments. However, a general "Don't be a dick" rule might work. Also, a simple "Don't be a dick and you won't get in trouble" rule can be put above the comment box where even anons who've never commented on a blog post in their life can't say "Well I didn't see it" TestECull

---

I find myself taking offense to this, and I want to take the time to explain why, line by line.

Examples of spam include one word posts, meaningless statements such as Fallout 3 rocks or random, nonsensical comments.

One word posts can be clever, insightful or downright hilarious. "Fallout 3 rocks" has literal meaning and I suspect that, while the purists around here may cringe, such a comment hasn't ever delayed the satisfaction anyone receives from smugly thinking that F:NV is superior. "Random nonsensical comments" is such a broad brush stroke that it has the potential to be grossly mishandled by any admin having a bad day. To boot, this seems to suggest that those of us here who appreciate the finer intricacies of communication should be entitled to comb the hair on the savages, as it were. Say what you will about that metaphor, but I think the way you classify "spam" is a little bit eerie.

Don't flame. Comments intended to provoke other users (flamebait) or insulting them outright (flaming) will be deleted by the staff and may be grounds for blocking.

If you're simply talking about people being overtly abusive, it's odd that this isn't already a rule.

Don't be rude. Excessive rudeness to other poster (whether they are anonymous or not) is not welcome. Such comments will be deleted and may be grounds for blocking.

Blocked for rudeness? (Thick British accent) "Yes yes, gubnah, right-o. Won't you jolly jaunt your knickers over to my reading room for a spot of tea and a look around the Fallout Wiki?" "Oh poo, that Person of Refinemetn, such a boorish chap, 'tis n't he? I wish Tagaziel could right jog on in here and teach him a bloody lesson!"

Write legibly readably. If your message can't be understood, it will be considered spam. If in doubt, use a spellchecker.

There are countless combinations of circumstances that can lead to a clunky comment. This is a bustling community brimming with excitement and ideas from people all over the world who sometimes write quickly and distractedly - or who sometimes simply can't write very clearly - but who still have something meaningful to say. A constantly patrolled (and quite nebulous) "readability" standard could become exceedingly messy and exceedingly unfair. Maybe we should forward this suggestion to the White Glove Society?

Leetspeek of any kind will be DELETED on sight. No exceptions.

This also seems a tad weird and, if we can be copletely honest, I think a solid 90% of comments that contain leetspeak are intended to mock that very mode of communication. And this says nothing of the idea that new forms of communication are springing up everywhere as advanced technological societies become more physically condensed while proportionally becoming more emotionally alienated from one another. Your grandchildren may well speak leet at the dining room table. Love them for who they are and maybe they'll come around. Censor them and watch them develop evermore ingenious way to protest the stick-in-the-mud demanding everyone be polite and communicate clearly. --Person of Refinement 08:20, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

---

In all honesty, I could not be bothered to read all of the above. I have read the proposed rules though and I fully agree with them, ecspecially the one about instating a grammar gestapo. Saddest past about most people who have appearantly failed English 101 is that it's their native language... But with that all said, Wiki's pride theirselves on correct information and workable layouts. There is absolutely no reason why correct grammar should not be a part of it. Even if your grasp of the English language is not up to par and you wish to contribute, there should be no problem with someone else correcting your grammer. Afterall, it's all for the greater good of this Wiki. -Dodgy

Your use of a comma after "honesty" in "In all honesty" is arguable. There should be a comma on either side of "though" in the second sentence. "Saddest past" is nonsensical; I suppose you meant "The saddest part." You misspelled "apparently" in the same sentence. Your use of "..." is a little hammy and was intended, I surmise, to inspire the reader to pause for a moment and think wistfully about your clever prose before moving on to the next sentence. It does no such thing. There should be a comma after "But." One should never use an apostrophe to pluralize anything, like you did when you wrote "Wiki's." The correct way to pluralize Wiki is to simply add an "s." "Theirselves" is not a word in the English language. You misspelled "grammar" in your second to last sentence.

Good thing I was here to help you. Hopefully more people like me will start policing the comment threads in order to make this the best Wiki it can be. --Person of Refinement 22:10, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Can't see a reason for the policy (in the specifically flagged comment sections at least). Comments don't seem to be that bad or in need of cleanup as far as I can see, and the suggestions are far to restrictive. If we're going to have a policy, it should be something simple, but profound - I suggest Don't be a Jerk - It covers Spamming, Flaming and Trolling, doesn't discourage people with limited English skills (in fact it discourages people being a grammar you-know-what), and lets you use leetspeak to make a humorous point.

Lastly, I'll end with this point. I once heard a prominent linguist say "If when you attempt to communicate a message, the person you are attempting to understands it, then by definition it is "Correct", no matter what grammar or other language rules are broken". Words to live and post by? Agent c 01:29, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Let people who actually work with law make rules. "Don't be a jerk" is very vague and easy to abuse. The proposed policy is very clear on what's permissible and what's not. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 10:13, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Vaugueness works in its favour. It can be used against any anti-social behaviour without us having to react to future unforseen behaviour. Also do we really have to "Call in the law" here - this is a wiki, not the floor of congress. Agent c 02:41, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

"Favour"? No rule should ever be vague. They need to be precise, so that we can rely on them, rather than having to interpret and rationalize our decisions every time. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 08:30, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Its vauge enough that it can cover unforeseen anti social behaviour, yet it is specific enough to be relied upon. As for the elimination of Vaugueness, I'm sure you're familiar with Justice Potter Stewart's comments on Obscenity? "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description "hard-core pornography"; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that" If vaugeness is good enough for the US Supreme court, its got to be good enough for a wiki.Agent c 13:37, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

The American legal system is far from the most reliable role model. Johnny Trash ^(Talk) 23:16, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Poll

Poll finished on 11:13 am January 17, 2011 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Enact the comment policy as proposed in the draft at the top of the page.

• _Tagaziel ^(call!)
• ☣Avatar☣ 20:14, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
• Sombar1 22:03, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
• Agent c 02:42, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
• Johnny Trash ^(Talk) 08:33, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
• -- Ghouly89 ^(Talk) 00:27, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
• With one exception. Please remove the "spellchecker" sentence. It is unnecessary and needlessly provoking. --Gothemasticator 06:13, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
• Mr.Lexx^(talk) 19:59, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
• The editing- and user conduct guidelines as how they are explained in the The Vault:Editing guideline and The_Vault:User_conduct_guideline are clear enough, no need for revision in my opinion. Jspoelstra 17:08, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

---

Votes: 3 against, 4 in favour.

Result: vote passed. Policy has been added to FW:CONDUCT.

Thank you for your participation. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 19:01, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Well I cant say I agree with this at all, especially after seeing it in action with deleted comments like this:

“"Yeah i agreee 110% with you. I never heard of anything fallout releated in till bethesda took it into play. I LOVED fallout 3 better than new vegayyyy…"”

Marked as spam, seems that people cant even express there views on certain games in comments. ☣Avatar☣ 21:31, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

The clincher for this comment seems to be "new vegayyyy," not the opinion expressed. I wouldn't assume bias in this case. Hal10k ^{(Leonard Bernstein!)} 22:01, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it was marked as spam, I wouldnt really count that as spam. But here is another few examples for you marked as spam:

“I can't get over how the newest thing is spectacular until it gets old. If FO3 was so terrible, why is it still so popular? The winners write the hist…”

“Just because the game isn't set in the core region you claim that FO3 isn't a true Sequel. I don't think either of them are real sequels, it's just an…”

This is why I said previously that the policy is to vague and open to interpretation. ☣Avatar☣

That's a bit clearer, but I'd prefer to know the context before I make a judgement.

Either way, it's better to have a vague policy than none at all. This way, if a situation like this occurs, you can bring it up with the editor who deleted the comments and ask how the deletion was justified under the policy. If you still disagree with the editors interpretation of the policy, you can bring it up with another Admin.

If you'd like to propose an amendment to the existing policy that you think would reign in occurences like these, you're free to do so. Hal10k ^{(Leonard Bernstein!)} 00:25, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

---

---