Forum:Discussion:Gaming the system and vandalism as a game

Some more thoughts for discussion that I've had on my mind (looks like games are):

Gaming the system
I've seen this happen most recently in IRC, where some users have purposefully interpreted an IRC rule word for word. Doing so is most commonly known as gaming the system, and is a policy on other wikis. When one games the system, they are not using common sense and instead use the rule in question to their advantage. Doing such is considered bad faith.

Policies are written for a reason; they are not meant to be looked at based on their grammatical structure. Each one of our policies has an intention and purpose. Let's use an example from the RuneScape Wiki, who has a policy known as RS:3RR or three revert rule. A user that makes two reverts to a page and then another revert to the same revision 24 hours and 1 minute later would be gaming the system. The spirit of the policy is to protect the wiki against edit warring, and is not meant to be taken word for word.

Now for an example more related to this wiki. The first paragraph of our user treatment policy outlines how we treat other users properly. As examples, it lists specific some specific swear words. One could game the system by stating that because a certain cuss word is not listed there, they are free to use it at other users. On the flip side, a user could also game the system by reporting other users to an administrator each and every time they say "damn," despite the fact it may not be in the same context the policy protects against.

Like I said before, it is important to use common sense before trying to make a policy apply to something in your favor. This wiki is not a court of law, and as such, policies should not be taken literally.

Vandalism as a game
The Call of Duty Wiki, being a wiki of moderate size and still growing, gets its fair share of vandalism. We already have a subsection of a policy advising editors to not feed the trolls. Even still, we sometimes acknowledge vandalism through customized vandalism templates and whatnot and thus glorify anti-vandalism.

What's so bad about that? By doing so, we create an incentive for vandalism. This is not to say that reverting vandalism is a bad thing, but it cannot be forgotten that it is not a game. Putting something on one's userpage such as "vandal fighter" probably makes that person's userpage more of a target for vandalism versus others. We are not a battleground between vandals and anti-vandals that must be fought to the death. Additionally, taunting vandals on their talk pages gives them unneeded attention, and only encourages them to come back for more.

All of this is very similar to resisting the urge to feed the trolls, but I feel that this provides more relevant examples and an important reminder. 13:01, August 17, 2010 (UTC)