GuildWiki talk:You are valuable/Draft 1

looks good. but how do you reconcile the fact that sysops and bcrats usually do have the last word in discussions? &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 01:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that question referring specifically to this draft or the policy in general? I don't see the line(s) you're questioning. --Shadowcrest  01:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the fact that this policy (both the original and this draft) implies that the judgement of a bcrat/sysop doesn't hold more sway than that of the average user. While this is generally true when it comes to content (should we list this on the page or not? for example), its nor necessarily true when it comes to site related things, rfas, bannings, deletions, etc. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 01:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Content wise, this policy is fine (users not content). For the other stuff... urg, I need someone smarter to express what I'm thinking :o. Will respond intelligently soonish. --Shadowcrest  02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, doesn't Administrate users, not content talk about all those points? "...They [admins] get a significant amount of pull in these situations—normal editors must abide by the decisions made by administrators in these contexts [bans, pro/demotions, deletions, site-related arbitrary decisions (builds wipe, etc.)], regardless of whether they agree... ". Would that count as a contradiction of YAV? An exception to YAV? Both? Does it matter? I had always thought of this policy as something to stop new users from not being bold and to stop admins from lording their position over non-admins. --Shadowcrest 02:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All users are equal, but admins are more equal than others? :P  &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( talk ) 02:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While this policy is "you are valuable", how does this policy define a non-valuable user? Does it?  Or are users valuable, but not when they are being vandals (intrinsic value vs contribution value)? --JonTheMon 03:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

@Jedi: As written, I don't think that there's anything to reconcile. We value the fact of the anon contributing as much as the Admin and we do not demean the anon's point of view on the basis of his anon status, but "not all points of view have (or should have) equal clout." I did, however, tweak the sentence that said that arguments should be viewed independent of the author slightly in order to (try to) prevent any confusion.

@Jon: As the policy states, "all good faith contributions are valued equally" and "either a user is valuable or not as established by their history of contributions." *Defiant Elements*  +talk  13:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph has been made longer but not clearer. For the rest, I do not get the point of the changes at all. Could you please succinctly state (maybe overstate) what the change is suppposed to achieve? I don't see that we need this change at all, yet. --◄mendel► 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)