Forum:End Policy

Support

 * 1) As proposer.--Legionwrex (talk) 16:42, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Lancer1289 (talk) 17:34, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Commdor (Talk) 17:53, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) --Zxjkl (talk) 18:27, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Bluegear93 (talk) 18:33, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes because some people are overemotionaly unstable. J.C IS A GOD!! (talk) 22:51, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) I'm not sure whether to take the support or neutral call. I'll just stick here for now Marauder 09 [[Image:FoC cover.jpg|40px]] I can make the Black Sun look like a Swoop Gang. 03:23, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) definitely--TW6464 (talk) 10:45, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Against

 * 1) Ban every talk about the end just because some people can't discuss it without a fight isn't a good solution. --MasterDassJennir (talk) 17:00, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Completely against, unproportionnal measure (see below)--DeldiRe 17:16, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Avg Man (talk) 20:55, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Garhdo (talk) 21:43, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Nord Ronnoc (talk) 23:09, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) The more I thought about it, the less and less I liked it. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 04:32, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Daniel Kelly (talk) 05:52, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Lksdjf (talk) 09:42, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Seems too far. Gboy4 (talk) 10:21, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
I like how the fact it says specifically argument, not discussion, but there is a point I do not like and I think however it should be clarified. If the discussion can remain a calm and civil debate, then it is permitted, but if it gets out of control, with insulting others opinions, direct insults, and the like, then that isn't permitted. There have been a few civil discussions about it, with others inflaming the discussion. If it can remain what I said, I still believe that should be permitted because if someone mentions it, it will be discussed.

So there are two options, either ban it all together, which we really can't, or permit civil discussion and have consequences if it gets out of control, starting with the discussion being ended. Expanding on that, if an admin or senior editor determines that it is out of control, and say specifically "this discussion is over", then it is over and any further comments will be deleted and if it continues, then it can be considered "disrupting the peace". Warning then ban in my opinion. This is a sticking point for me. It needs to be one or the other, you can't have your cake and eat it too on this point.

And if it isn't allowed in the main wiki, then it is not permitted in chat, private message or not. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:07, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points, I'll adjust it accordingly.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:09, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

Really ? Do we need to ban this topic to avoid conflict ? The language policy is clear enough to give appropriate sanction for poeple becoming insulting against another (for the ending topic or another). This policy is far way from a core principle of proportionnality. It is clearly unnecessary, poeple have to learn to be polite that's it. And if you want to take measures against those specific debate, it is enough to ask an admin to say something like "dangerous topic, i do not want a flame war in here or I will take measures" when this particular topic is launched. Forbidding this crucial topic for ME universe and fans is pointless even if I do not like to talk about it and that i'm convinced that there is no more to say about it. Nevertheless, permit such a policy is an open door for other banned topics... And last but not least, banning procedure are always a bad things for a communautary website, it creates war and disputes (we already seen it and it led to the departure of valuable contributors) --DeldiRe 17:15, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: new version is less accertive but still unneeded. --DeldiRe 17:19, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * The answer, yes, we really do. The language policy and going to admins has already proved to be very ineffective at dealing with this situation, hence, the reason we are even having this problem to begin with. It has been proven that most people cannot be polite about the ending, so this policy will fix that.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:21, April 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * I would agree with such a policy if it takes a general measure against flame wars but not with this particular actions to be taken against the ending's discussions. --DeldiRe 17:24, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict x2) DeldiRe, you were not around during the aftermath of the release and after Extended Cut was released so you cannot know where this situation is coming from. if you had been here and dealing with the issue, your stance would be much different. Your comment does show your lack of understanding and familarity with the situation so here is what actually was going on.
 * There were literally fires every day about people arguing over some aspect of the ending. There were warnings, bans, everything to try and stop it, but it kept coming back and disrupting everything because admins had to be pulled off from fixing article content to do nothing more or less than corral many troublesome users who would just continue to go on and on about it, insulting each other, repeatedly breaking the language policy, insulting other people's opinions, creating comment threads so long that comments could not be read fast enough, repeated flamewars over opinions. This is not something that can be approached with we cannot ban it, we have to control it. If we use this template for a civil discussion, then it is still permitted, but if it gets out of control, then there will be consequences. People will not abide by site policies on this issue, that is clearly documented.
 * Again, you were not around and do not know what was being done on a daily, if not hourly basis. People cannot talk about the ending without someone going off about something. It is too much of a polarized issue. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:33, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

While I really wish the Ending Debate would go the way of the Indoctrination Theory, this just seems to be an over reaction. This wiki has been, despite some trolls here and there, rather good about the ending as of late. It's likely just the fact that it's been a year, and most of the hardcore ragers that are left are keeping to the BSN and YouTube. This just seems like an overkill policy. Avg Man (talk) 20:59, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

My feelings are thus: The game has been out for a year, and while some people still have strong feelings about the ending most can discuss their differing opinions with civility. This was not true a year ago, sure but we have moved on since then. The fact is that it is still something that people will have a strong opinion about and many people will like to voice those opinions on the more social aspects of this wikia. Many within this community can discuss the ending without vitriol and so banning ending discussion seems redundant. If we are to ban discussions of this nature then where does it end? What about if people debate the changes in combat mechanics too loudly, or the Talimancers get too uppity about Talibrations? Action can and should be taken if a discussion gets too abrasive, but having the ability to completely end a discusssion is wrong and I can't agree with it. Garhdo (talk) 21:06, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Except the proposal specifically says discussion about the ending is allowed as long as it is conducted civilly. What is banned is basically what happened a few days ago on Traditionalfire's blog, with hostile arguments that manage to just skim under the line of the language policy, but still create animosity and clog the RC.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:11, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3 counterpoints to that however: All discussion above is being phrased as though ALL discussion of the ending is off the table, or that any discussion could be closed, even in chat. That I disagree with. Perhaps removing talk from the main body of the wikia as a counterbalance? Also you were heavily involved in the discussion on that blog, weighing your own valid opinions, as the other opinions were valid as well. Some posts may have been a bit more heated but this is a topic that will promote strong reactions. Telling people not to get wound up about it would be like telling someone grieving a year later to stop crying and pull herself together. Also there is the vague point as to exactly which part of the ending we are forbidden from getting riled up about? The originals, the EC, Pick-a-colour, Indoctrination Theory, why we prefer Synthesis to Destroy, or all of the above? Garhdo (talk) 21:17, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all discussion is banned. Only heated ones as defined in the policy, which I do not wish to repeat in this comment, as I already defined them above. If people are incapable of talking about it civilly and get wound up, then they need to go into the corner and keep their mouths shut, because they add nothing to the conversation. This is a wiki for information, not a wiki for people to get wound up and then act as if their entitled to it. It's incredibly childish and annoying. As to which part, pretty much everything involving the ending.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:27, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet this is also a website that incorporates social functions such as Blogs, Profile Talk pages and Chat. I agree with the logic of what you are saying, especially now that the looser language policy will probably lead to more vitriol on some of those fires. However the ending will create heated arguments as it is a sore and strong point and telling people they have no right to discuss those points because someone gets angry is not something I can agree with. Let's say for example I was debating Synthesis versus Destroy with a new user. Lets say that I remain calm, but that user writes an angry post about my points (never mind that implying anger from written words can be VERY subjective) and yet I continue to debate rationally and calmly. Lets say that user comes back the next day and has calmed down and wishes to respond, only to find that the topic has been locked by an admin. That, in my opinion, is much more damaging than continuing the discussion. For one I have remained calm and am being punished for someone else's actions. Two the other user, now in a much calmer mood, finds that they can no longer comment, gets angry at their right to free speech being removed, and leaves the wikia. I can understand the points behind your argument but I cannot agree on the principle. Garhdo (talk) 21:42, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't an issue of social functions or whatever. Unfortunately, if your example is the only way to get people to learn, so be it, however I am not worried about that happening, because I have yet to see a completely civil discussion on the ending recently nor have I seen a user calm down (because whenever anyone suggests it, both sides completely ignore that comment). There is literally no reason what-so-ever that a user cannot debate the ending in a civil tone, other than that they want to be a hostile *** and impose their opinion on other people.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:50, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Gardho said with better word what I wanted to say, such a policy is just too strong in its principle. And to respond to Lancer, first I was there when EC was out even if I didn't participate at the heated debate and second stop saying poeple that they know nothing about this problematic (or other ones, it is the same arguments that you said for chat policy debate). Maybe, we were not confront to the problem but it is not true that we can't give a good opinion on the topic. It is always good to have a third party who see the problem with some distance. You are maybe too close of the problem and you want to find a fast solution which is not always the best because chosen too fast in a hurry and under emotional context. You should be more aware to our vision. As Gardho said, I'm also well aware that this topic (flame debate) is an issue and that actions need to be taken, but once more this policy will lead to more problem than it will solve. Poeple who will be banned or no more allowed to speak freely will become angry and frustrated and the debate will be more strong and less civil. It is obvious --DeldiRe 21:58, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, why should we even care if they get upset? They have demonstrated a complete disregard for us and how we feel, and they don't care if they upset or anger others.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:03, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a point but the problem is that we risk to punish poeple with good faith for the behavior of a minority. The measures taken should stay directed at the trouble maker. Well, I will not develop my opinion further, I would prefer to speak about how to improve this wiki content rather than speaking about some jerks who are only active in the social features of the wikia :) --DeldiRe 22:14, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that is isn't the minority. Almost every single person who discusses the ending ends up flaming, myself included. This isn't meant to punish anyone, and the civil person can simply start another comment string about it with the troublemaker gone. Problem solved.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:17, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that doesn't solve the problem, but starts it up again ad infinitum, ignoring the original issue and instead shifting it to a new discussion. 23:31, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * All the more reason that this proposal should be passed then. If people are really so childish that at every single comment string they will create a flamewar, then it's best that the ending just isn't discussed at all, period. The hope is that after enforcing this policy a couple times, people will finally get it through their heads that this behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated any longer.--Legionwrex (talk) 05:45, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Nord, the reason it says "possible ban" is for repeated offenses. Obviously we aren't going to ban people for a first time offense on this.--Legionwrex (talk) 23:11, April 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * What is an offense ? What is repeated ? From when does the discussion need a closure ? Once more, I tottaly agree with your goal Legion but this way of action seems totaly out of proportion. Too uch discretionnary power for the enforcer, it would lead to debate and endless discussions on "why is the discussion closed ?". And moreover, as stated by ronnoc, poeple will still try to give their opinion in an other way. --DeldiRe 23:45, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * As defined above, being aggressive and uncivil in discussion about the ending. Repeated is pretty self-explanatory. It needs closure the second it becomes the annoying flamewar we have been dealing with for the past year. No DeldiRe, if I had done this when nothing has happened, that would be out of proportion. But people have been acting like whiny children about the ending for over a year now. They have shown they don't care that it's bothering other people and they do it anyways, even when repeatedly asked to stop. Well enough is enough, now is the time when the "wiki leadership" (for lack of a better term) needs to step up and tell them to knock it off and grow up. If they have a problem with it it's only because their ego is bruised at not being able to bash others with their opinions, even though there is literally no reason why they can't discuss it civilly.--Legionwrex (talk) 05:45, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Three words: freedom of speech. This policy breaches that and sets a dangerous precedent. Period. Daniel Kelly (talk) 05:52, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I wasn't aware this was the U.S. Government. Lancer, isn't this the type of thing that is grounds for removing a vote?--Legionwrex (talk) 05:57, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * People can and should be able to vote for whatever reasons they want, whether or not they exist. Lksdjf (talk) 06:21, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said this was the U.S. Government. Even if I had, you'd lose. Wikia is an American corporation which means it is bound by the laws of America. However, that is not my argument. My argument is that this policy sets a dangerous precedent. Daniel Kelly (talk) 06:29, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see why this is needed. Unless I am sorely mistaken, insults are already banned both by precedent and existing policy (such as the recently passed language policy)? So, I don't see why we would need a special rule just for the ending discussion. TheUnknown285 (talk) 14:39, April 5, 2013 (UTC)