Forum:Blogging Policy

Per the discussion here, I have made a draft of a new blogging policy:

Blogging is a great feature on this wiki, as it allows users to comment on discussion very similar to the forum. However, with blogs come personal opinions that, more often than not, someone will disagree with. Our Blogging Policy lays out what to be mindful of when creating new blog posts or commenting on one.

Flaming
Flaming, defined by Wikipedia as, "hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users," is not tolerated anywhere on the wiki. Blogs allow people to add what they think about the topic with the comments section. Let your opinion be heard if you want it to be. Do not however, personally attack someone else for having a different viewpoint. Be respectful of what other people may think.

Flame wars are generally the culminating result of contentious user interaction. Sysops and bureaucrats may use their ability to hide and delete individual comments in order to keep the blog comments on topic. If the goal of the blog itself is to incite a flame war (known as flamebait), than administrators are permitted to delete the entire blog. Blog pages may also be deleted if users are unable to stay on topic despite the hiding or deletion of individual comments. Users may be warned or, if necessary, blocked, for excessive participation in flame wars.

Controversial topics
Debate is healthy in moderation, but oftentimes, people can get fired up about it. Topics that could spark controversy are not allowed on the wiki. Example titles might include, "homosexuals", or "infinity ward vs. treyarch". Sysops and bureaucrats will delete such blogs. Administrators will use their own discretion in determining if a blog is controversial, but please make sure when creating new blogs that your topic does not contain content that could be offensive to some people.

Feels a little incomplete, but I'm bored and it's a draft. Anything that should be added/removed/changed? 17:55, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * You should add a section about prohibiting blogs about "userx vs usery". I've made it an unofficial rule to delete those on sight because pitting two users against each other always ends badly. Darkman 4 19:24, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well written and straight to the point. I feel that the examples for controversial topics aren't too clear. I don't find an IW vs Treyarch topic to be particularly controversial. I suggest something more overt, such as "Infinity Ward is gay", to be clearer in meaning. Also, a link to the Blocking policy would add completeness to the policy. You might also want to include an over-arching statement about offensive topics being disallowed entirely (such as homophobic, racist and other discriminatory blogs). We've had several infractions in the past and it would be prudent to cover it in the blogging policy. --Scottie theNerd 19:25, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Although technically there is no "freedom of speech" on this wiki, I feel that the ability for people to freely express themselves over the internet within reason is an important one. I may offer more opinions on the policy in the future, but for the time being I think that we should be mindful of trying to allow as much freedom as possible while drafting this policy. Imrlybord7 19:42, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm perfectly fine with the policy as it is now. I agree with Imrlybord about freedom of speech but I think it is well written and easy to understand. 21:17, April 4, 2010 (UTC) 


 * I do not understand how Infinity Ward vs Treyarch is controversial, I am not happy that you deleted my blog without alerting me. Conqueror of all Zombies 21:24, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * The point that is trying to be made is that there are some steadfast supporters of both game developers, and flaming can be an end result of these loyalties. Scottie's example I find to be a much better one, as the title of the blog is flaming of its own. 21:44, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's a good example because it's not inherently flaming (no hostile in interactions between users). It is, however, definitely flamebait. While I'm at it, a short dot-point list of inappropriate blog topics would be a clear way of summing up the policy. --Scottie theNerd 05:21, April 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I just made a blog called Ingorance, it is just about stupid things people not on this wiki have said about military stuff in general. Is that controversial? Conqueror of all Zombies 21:47, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm a bit put off by general topics accusing people of ignorance. Many people may be guilty about doing just that and you might be unknowingly insulting someone. For the same reason, I'm not fond of the Alliance to End Firearm Ignorance due to the project page listing anecdotes of incorrect usage of firearm terms. It's a bit low to label people for using the wrong terms and concepts when they aren't aware of that particular field of knowledge, and that's the same logic I'd apply to your blog post. That's just me, however. --Scottie theNerd 05:21, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * While groups discussing "ignorance" may sound mean and condensing, I don't have any problem with them as long as they don't cause any problems on the wiki. Darkman 4 06:03, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

We don't want to start flame-wars.  Lt. Dunn  Talk  00:25, April 5, 2010 (UTC)