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)