Guild Wars Wiki talk:No Sarcasm

Examples

I had trouble thinking up what would be appropriate for an examples section. Dancing Gnome 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You're going to need to think of something to put on there if you want consensus for this policy. Right now it doesn't have much of anything... -- scourge 23:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is why it's in the drafts section. Do I really need an example for sarcasm? Fine. Dancing Gnome 23:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this topic should be covered under: Guild Wars Wiki:Document the game and shut up about everything else -- scourge 23:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with you guys? --Cursed Angel 23:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You know that proposal seems to make a lot of sense and would likely be a great boon to the wiki... sure a lot of the users wouldn't like it but most of those users spend more time "moderating" certain users and proposing new policies to give them new things to do. Dancing Gnome 23:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious about this thing? --Cursed Angel 23:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If I were to say no I would likely be banned for vandalism. Then again I could claim that my no was sarcasm and any ban against me would further reinforce the need for my policy. So I will just say yes I am serious, I did write it and the reasoning is set out on the page. Most users probably have in mind an incident where sarcasm has lead to some kind of ridiculous conflict. Then again I'm going against my other proposed policy; Guild Wars Wiki:Is This Proposal Needed? with my lack of evidence in this one. Dancing Gnome 00:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was meant to be a joke over the last few proposals (at this point, i am not sure anymore), looks fine as it is stated now, but sanctions should be lower that those stated for NPA (lots of asking and warnings, small ban). I would love it if we could have a guideling like the "Document the game and shut up about everything else" (because i come here for info usually, for drama i watch tv), but being a community-open wiki has its drawbacks. Maybe someday user participation will be limited only to "documenting" (and "hearing opinions about policies, but final decision is not yours"), but as it is now, i think something like this is needed... sadly. --Fighterdoken 00:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as a policy, make it a guideline. Even then, I don't like this, it was just created as a mock policy in order to take the fun out of the whole Guild Wars Wiki:Harassment situation. I doubt Dancing Gnome is actually doing this genuinely. In his post above, he doesn't even say he made this seriously because it may deemed vandalism, so he'll just say its 'real' in order to get out of that. The policy itself is ridiculous, you can't ban a form of speech or comedy. We have GWW:NPA to deal with personal attacks and such, this sarcasm thing is unnecessary. br12 • 00:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't see a reason for this. -- (gem / talk) 00:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I know sarcasm does not work on internet, when you talk to people they get your point when they see your expression but when you write something sarcastic on a forum people often misunderstand and then hate each others

This:*Do not use sarcasm on the wiki. The purpose of this proposal is to prevent the use of sarcasm... *Detected sarcasm on the wiki is to be dealt with by the Adminship with a ban considering the context of the situation.

anyhow scares me, this isnt soviet russia. --Cursed Angel 00:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Opposed for carebarism and/or unnecessary content control. — Skuld 00:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as Guild Wars Wiki:No mock policies? br12 • 00:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should extend it to jokes? After all the oh so valuable harassment policy was triggered by a situation not too different from sarcasm. Also this policy would prevent users from creating worthless policies simply to annoy the wiki, which two users above have accused me of doing, despite Guild Wars Wiki:Assume good faith, tisk - this demonstrates being a guideline is too weak. I will now quote another user, "Now, what i really would like in forums/talk pages/etc is a ban over sarcasm, because there will always be someone who doesn't get it and starts a flame war for it (that, and because people use sarcasm to start/support flame wars without being able to be blamed for it)." Not my words. I think he has a point. Dancing Gnome 00:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I could never support this policy, what is next, No words beginning with the letter S, no satire, no off topic discussion. It is just going too far. --Lemming 00:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Words beginning with the letter 's' haven't been the catalysts for numerous conflicts on the wiki, (not for the reason they began with s anyway). Not a good comparison. Dancing Gnome 00:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It was an example to illustrate how restrictive and unnecessary I believe this policy to be. --Lemming 00:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Your example doesn't take into account you propose a harmless letter, I have proposed sarcasm is harmful and I beleive that can be demonstrated and has been. Dancing Gnome 00:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the example failed, but so does this policy. --Cursed Angel 00:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So does your feedback at explaining why you think the policy fails. Dancing Gnome 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm can also work well if used properly. Sarcsm isn't the problem causer, it's the attitude of the sarcasm user or the reader that causes problems. Those users would cause trouble even without sarcasm, so this policy does nothing but makes our life harder. -- (gem / talk) 01:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Work well at what? It doesn't contribute anything. Attitude of a user is a perception and thus the fault of the reader, not the writer. How does this make your life harder? You can't use sarcasm on wiki... that's hard? It stops many useless conflicts over failed sarcasm. Or even successful sarcasm. Dancing Gnome 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Your example doesn't take into account you propose a harmless letter, I have proposed sarcasm is harmful and I beleive that can be demonstrated and has been." Ok, let's ban posting on talk pages because that can be harmful too. Sarcasm is NOT always harmful, and until you can demonstrate that to me or even that it is harmful in a majority of cases I will never support this policy. --Lemming 02:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This can't be serious

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on this wiki, and I've seen many things. Might as well start typing up GWW:No Noobs and GWW: No Fun. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

I take great offense to you implying that "this can't be serious". And your mom's face. — Skuld 01:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Good thing everytime I see your mom's face the lights are off in the room and it's nighttime, otherwise I may be offended as well. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

Your momma so fat, her eyelid-folds cover the worst of it, sparing me of any potential offence. — Skuld 01:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your mother Skuld Mantooth out for a nice seafood dinner, and then NEVER call her again! --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

reminds me of the guy from the beginning of "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry". -elviondale (tahlk) 22:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mirrored Stance. --Cursed Angel 01:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It should pass. Sarcasm has been the cause of several fights over the history of GWW. — ク Eloc 貢 01:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Posting text on pages has been the cause of every fight over the history of GWW. Let's ban that too. (And yes... that was sarcasm.) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why this should become a policy. — ク Eloc 貢 01:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

just make it a part of that NPA thing, sarcasm against someone is somewhat a personal attack anyhow, it depends on the situation.--Cursed Angel 01:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The most ironic thing about this policy is that it just invites sarcastic comment on the talk page. --Lemming 02:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The only sure way to prevent all future fights is simple. Ban the wiki!!!11one--Ryudo 02:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Posting text on pages isn't the specific reason for conflicts. Please think about your comments before you make them; rediculous comparisons does nothing. Dancing Gnome 08:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither is sarcasm. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This policy is probably the best idea I've ever heard. It's an especially good idea because sarcasm is so easy to detect in conversations on the internet. LordBiro 08:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aiiane ; keeping going int the securist way is dangerous. It remembers me when i was in middle school the papers saying " don't play with snowballs it is dangerous" The first thing i think is " don't live, it is deadly". Indeed it is, forbidding snowballs fight don't seem a little foolish faing this fact ? It's not even sarcastic, it's just the logic end of this road. Making everything safer and safer will just end by killing everyone, either here or irl.

Posting text on pages will cause fights, and will allways, because it's simply impossible to everyone to have the sames ideas or even share and accept opposites ones.

"Posting text on pages isn't the specific reason for conflicts. Please think about your comments before you make them; rediculous comparisons does nothing. " I agree with you, but why you don't just forbid The specific reason for conflicts ? Everyone would agree with this "law" you should have done it before this " usefull" comment. ( it's not sarcasm it's irony, but saying this is sarcasm, by this way i'm making irony, so it's not sarcasm...) The specific reason for conflicts is human minds ans differences. We have all our differents minds, we will never be all living happilly together, it just can't be done.

But forbidding more and more " dangerous" thing won't help the situation, it will only get people more and more nervous, because for the sake of safety and security, you sacrify liberty and freedom.

SO to get to the point : I think it's an idea as bad as forbidding snowballs fights in schools. And personnaly, the first thing i want to do when i see a rule i found these childy, is launch a huge snowball on the principal before leaving for ever.

Enough of my childhood and my spits over your idea. What do i prupose to replace it if you listen, understand, accept and follow what i say ?

Instead of hundreds of "don't do this, don't do this, don't do either this or this and never this..." Whith for trespassers that will be more and many more at each new rule, the common warnings, supressings of the misdeeds and eventually bannishment.

we can't allow anarchy, even with some terminators patrolling, because thoses would have a very hard work, and the world would finally become so ugly than no one would ever want to come again.

What i think could be better, (wich logicaly means no one else will agree with me, and therefor would like maybe to insult me) is : Make the fewest rules a spossible BUT, for sarcasms, irony, insults, personnals attacks or every way of talking "bad" a simple statement like : " Don't make peoples angry ! if you do we will punish you ! " You can then add a list of what CAN make peoples angry, like insults, sarcasms, et cetera. The difference is that there is still freedom. Forbidding all sarcasm is as inappropriate as forbidding all talks on talks pages, because a part of it is bad indeed, but another pat is not, and can maybe be very usefull.

SO my idea would be more likely a " be good or we'll kick your ass" The better point is allowing some people to fight within certains limits, as long as it's a fight of ideas and not a mutual vandalism i mean.

I'm not a good leader and i know it, so i'm realistic, my idea won't please anyone, and therefore, as it is easyer not to take in mind differents ideas, the readers of my speach will probably do as if they didn't rad it. Useless that i wrote that ? i don't know, i just keep using my write of free speech while i still have it, because it's not yet totally considered dangerous, that's all.

By the way, i allow everyone to insult me on my talk page, as long as i can do the same on yours :)

good day fellow comrades, the frenchie lussh 09:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit, that must have taken a long time to write. — ク Eloc 貢 09:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

probably, but i like to say what i think while i still can ^^ lussh 09:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

True enough. — ク Eloc 貢 09:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes

I totally agree with this policy.

Given that statement, what does a sysop do? Prove to me it's sarcasm. Prove to me you know better what I'm saying than I do. I'm not saying it's sarcasm - that's for you to decide, and me to react to. This is going to be a relatively common occurrence if this policy passes; may as well test it now.

And stop fucking trying to tell me what to say and how to think.

Armond 09:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what i'm talking about,i agree with you, so i like you, may i insult you ? :) lussh 09:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

<3 Go ahead. And please, shatter as many policies as you can, because I don't care about them and will fight to the death for your right to do so since I've allowed you to. Armond 09:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dear, i'm glad to meet you lussh 09:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What now? lol — ク Eloc 貢 09:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't sarcasm which creates conflicts in the wiki then what is it? Stop throwing air around and respond with something tangible. Maybe Liche/lussh has a good idea in identifying the general reasons why these conflicts arise, on fault of one or all people involved, take that into consideration and then maybe do something about it. I'm not saying ban people in a cranky mood. If users would respond with constructive comments aimed at a solution instead of chucking tantrums about "words being causes for conflicts" and other ridiculous statements they know to be stupid and self-destructive just so they can argue, then perhaps this DRAFT proposal could identify the "real" problem and maybe work towards dealing with it. There is no point in creating numerous proposals to deal with symptoms of what people seem to believe is a greater cause which creates minor cases. Dancing Gnome 09:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not sarcasm that creates conflicts here, it's you, get lost. I don't want to repeat myself if you don't understand lussh 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How much sarcasm goes around every day that doesn't cause conflict? This is oppression of speech, and anyone who says otherwise needs to grow a pair of eyeballs and a brain. Armond 10:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Put this in the Humor section where it belongs.71.174.30.7 12:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this needed?

To Dancing Gnome. Please use your own standards and show me situations where sarcasm has caused an issue and please also explain how this policy woul have stopped that from happening. -- (gem / talk) 10:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ryudo/archive. He said sarcasticly "I'm so sorry I failed Eloc's Test of Editing. I shall try harder...." which then things went out of hand after that. — ク Eloc 貢 10:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think it would have been happyer if he didn't had the right to say this ? lussh 10:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my point exactly. And he hadn't most likely even been aware of a policy like this, so now he would have been facing a sysop warning. That'd be more than enough to drive someone away from the wiki, not help the wiki. -- (gem / talk) 10:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is called "things that blow way out of proportion and control and almost never happen anyway". Deal with it. Armond 10:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Things did not go out of hand in that case because of the sarcasm, things went out of hand because of the blatent insult Eloc dealt telling Ryuodo to fail less. --Lemming 14:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't plan to push this further, it's pretty clear it is strongly opposed and the reasons to promote it were ill conceived, namely sarcasm alone is likely not the reason conflict arose and also sarcasm does not always lead to conflict. I also recognise a concern for unnecessary censorship, this would likely not have any great benefit - it doesn't work towards mitigating a situation, it just outright bans what can be harmless humour. The point was also raised how sarcasm is to be defined or identified being practically impossible. This is just a draft and I don't plan to propose it... unless I have to, to officially let it die. Dancing Gnome 15:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)