Forum:Redefining how AGF can be applied

Before you say anything, yes, I'm not a fan of AGF by any stretch of the imagination.

To get down to the point, it appears that the assume good faith guideline is becoming increasingly common in forum discusions, or rather, voting. However, when people quote the guideline, there is one fundemental flaw; the guideline is written towards new editors and any possible mistakes they might make, with the guideline summing it up as, "Be patient with newcomers. They may not know how to edit a wiki or what's supposed to be added as content."

Naturally, when people quote a guideline about new users editing in completely unrelated forums, it doesn't make much sense. When I say something, why do you quote something about portrayed vandalism? To put the current usage of AGF into context is like you yelling UTP at your computer because it asks you for a captcha.

So, the way I see it there are multiple options:
 * 1) Reword the guideline to better incorporate how we should all love each other and assume that no matter what the other person's real intentions are, lets say... when they make a crap thread in the War Room that sounds totally counterintuative, the suggestion is genuinely in the interests of the wiki and not just the proposer's. This option would ensure that the current usage of the guideline survives.
 * 2) Instead of rewritting the guideline, limit the scope of which AGF affects to just user editing, which in turn would mean the guideline would in no way, shape or form have any effect on the outcome of future War Room discussions other than the extreme exception.
 * 3) Abolish AGF entirely and instead replace the guideline with one such as Uncyclopedia's Assume Bad Faith. (I think I'm the only person on the wiki who'd be ok with this, mind. COD:NOT does not outlaw to this option).

inb4 "smuff is doing this for his own personal gain!!1!1!one," I am giving a multiple number of options to choose from, and if the first is chosen and the guideline is changed to better suit its current usage then nothing bad will have come out of the suggestion. So, assume good faith pl0x ;) 19:44, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I've had an incident before where no-one assumed good faith except for one awesome guy. The thing is that AGF doesn't always work, and people aren't sure at how to use it. So I'd say something like Assume Bad Faith, even though Uncyclopedia doesn't have it (faillink, bro) I'll need to see other people's points of views to get more ideas 19:51, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed it, try again. 19:51, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * <3 it, Smuff. I think that's a much better idea, and we can have more comedy in the policies then (what's better than a few shoddy jokes in our rules?) 19:56, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to have it made more clear that this is a guideline, not a policy. As such, people are free to assume good faith or not, but it's implied that it is much better for them to do AGF, rather than always assume the worst out of their fellow editors. AGF is a tough state of mind to apply in some situations, and the current ambiguity of whether it is a guideline or a policy (it's a guideline, btw ;) ) doesn't help. 19:54, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

I haz just two questions: COD:AGF is used for the wrong reasons, and usually anons aren't in good faith for an edit. I agree that it should be reworded or changed to Smuff's idea COD:ABF. /*\_Capoe_/*\ 20:13, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Why should AGF be seen as a guideline, even if it's n our list of policies?
 * 2) What is there not to like about AGF? (Just curious, since now Smuff has openly said he dislikes it.) Sgt. S.S. 19:58, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't force people to assume good faith. We don't have many other guidelines, so it's thrown together with the policies. No harm done with that, is there? 21:04, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with how the guideline is worded. In my current opinion, no change is needed. Shotrocket6 20:22, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * The way the guideline is worded means that quoting AGF in a war room topic means nothing of relevance. 20:23, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Smuff and Callofduty4, I believe that AGF must be redefined. Changing it into a guidline like Callofduty4 said would be a good solution. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 20:26, October 1, 2011 (UTC)