User talk:Warwick/StrikeSystem

This is getting really stupid, really quickly Random Time  16:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Yes it is. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 16:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You know you can stop being a dick any time you want Random Time  16:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 16:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Beginning to feel like a mistake... Random Time  16:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Go 'way RT &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 16:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No Random Time  16:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 16:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Strike systejm is extremely bad idea. We do warnings, you check a users talkpage and when you see enough warnings, you may take actions. Don't use a page hidden somewhere on the wiki (i.e. here) for this. -- ◄mendel► 16:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I am very very disappointed with RT, Mendel and to a lesser extent, Entropy. Warwick is someone with an extremely rocky history, due to her having the most RFAs and a tenuous relationship with a lot of members here at best. A big issue was that a lot of people didn't think she would suit the role of the admin yet here she is, taking the effort to take her new role seriously and attempt a new system when you guys have to come along and shoot her down. That is incredibly low

@Randomtime, you are certainly not helping. It's clear that you don't like Warwick though and you prove yourself as the bigger man by coming here and just saying that this is getting really stupid, really quickly? Warwick was at least mature enough to respond in a somewhat civilized fashion. I'm really trying to keep this at a appropriate level but your complete immaturity just screams at me, it's clear that Warwick is not the one that is at fault here. You certainly won't but I highly suggest you take a step back and think on what you just did, you really need to grow up.

@Entropy, you're not helping. There was no need to accelerate the situation like you did, instead you should have at least given a explanation on why you might disagree with what Warwick is planning. Even a rudimentary one would have sufficed, it could have bought about intelligent discussion instead of hurting Warwick's feelings.

@Mendel, I will call you out on this. You are completely 100% wrong in both your statement and attitude. You gave no reason on why a strike system was wrong, you just described what the current procedures are. Even then, how is a strike system a bad idea? If anything it's an attempt at clearing out some of the issues of the current system, without a doubt there are many times where the admins are on the fence on whether something is inappropriate or whether someone should be warned or blocked. A strike system at least puts some things into concrete which can clear up the slippery slope that has occurred in the past. You said it's a 'extremely bad idea' simply because you disagree with it, not because you actually took the time to think out how it works or its repercussions. Your final sentence is just about as inane as your opening sentence, obviously if this is finalized with any kinks ironed out then it won't simply be 'hidden somewhere on the wiki'. Did it occur to you that if this was completed then it might have been advertised appropriately? No you didn't think about that.

As I said, Warwick made a solid attempt to try and at least show that she takes her new role seriously. She wants to prove that she's changed for the better and this strike system was an attempt to give some hard evidence. All of you just marched in here like some lowly thugs and destroyed it without even the slightest thought on the real issue here or whether or not it can really work. Honestly, you should all be ashamed - b.r // talk  15:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We shot her down because it was a bad idea. New ideas != good ones. If you want to read the discussion about what was on this page (minus the 3 strikes = ban, which was even worse- we aren't a mafia), go read the talk page on Don't Be Stupid. -- Shadowcrest  15:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A strike system in and of itself is not a bad idea. Tracking it on the wiki itself, though, is counter-productive and antagonistic.  Furthermore, the block-worthiness of the "offenses" that Warwick listed was highly debatable.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 16:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we want to encourage Warwick as she learns the admin ropes. No, that doesn't mean she can do whatever she wants. In this case, it is trying to codify "don't be stupid" but it just wasn't very objective. --JonTheMon 17:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're usually a pretty decent fellow, b.r, but in this case I'll have to say you're the only one who is completely 100% wrong in both your statement and attitude. You also know me better than to act in a constructive manner when there's a joke to be made at someone's expense. I will admit it was immature of me to needle RT so, in the midst of a so-srs-bsns discussion, but if you're honestly surprised by that...seriously, lighten up. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 22:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, remember when I kept a list of players who I considered to be noobs in-game? That went well, eh rellik? [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 20:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * b.r., nice to hear from you again. As usual, I've been too short in my explanation to satisfy everyone. The long one is that the strike system is really not much different from the warning system we have now, especially for the issues Warwick is concerned about. So what we do ideally is tell the people who are doing this what they're doing wrong (and/or not understanding). We do that on their talkpage. With the strike system, we also make a note on the strike system page. And when we have two strikes, we warn on the talk page, and when we have 3 strikes, we ban.
 * Now since every step of this process also involves writing to the user's talkpage, the strike system page just duplicates this info. The user who is the object of all this has so far not managed to find other vital information on the wiki, so he's certainly not going to find the strike page, no matter how well it is advertised. All it turns out to be is some kind of pillory that doesn't even get deleted when people start getting a clue - old talkpage content gets outdated and/or archived.
 * My point in short: The strike page idea doesn't achieve anything the current system doesn't also achieve, and it does it worse! Warwick was free to rebut this point, but opted to kill the page instead.
 * You tried to rebut it, but I didn't fully understand what you mean when you refer to "clearing out some of the issues" (which issues exactly?); I don't understand how it "puts some things into concrete" more than a talk page note does and what the "the slippery slope that has occurred in the past" is.
 * "You said it's a 'extremely bad idea' simply because you disagree with it, not because you actually took the time to think out how it works or its repercussions" makes you calling RT immature look like the pot calling the kettle black. You don't know what I thought (well, I hope you now know a little better), and the mature thing is a) to ask and b) to assume that I may have thought about things and come to a different conclusion than you have. I disagree with it because I took the time to think about how it works and what the repercussions are. I may have had errors in my thinking (it happens), but attacking me in this way isn't going to help me realize that. -- ◄mendel► 03:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)