FANDOM


Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.
Forums: Index War Room "Cool Story Bro" Policy
Forum logo

Hello there wikians! I'm here to propose a new policy, or an amendment to an existing one. Currently on the wiki, while there is not large amounts of it, there are cases of users attempting to use their own personal situation as an excuse for their behaviour. While I do wish these people well (If they're even telling the truth), I believe we should have a policy that covers this topic. It would not have to be long or very much in depth but could simply state that anyone trying to recieve support or sympathy, or evade a block using personal circumstances will not be granted any leniency and will still have to face the consequences of their actions.

Your opinions are welcome.Personal AdvancedRookie Sig2 12:09, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

I think this could probably work, and I have seen a couple people who have attempted this. I'd agree with it. KUDLq.png 12:30, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Or administrators could just ignore their attempts to gain support for themselves? -- sactage (talk) 12:31, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Per Sactage. - Spetsnaz Logo MW2 MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 12:35, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Users like Painincarnate just absolutely bothered the heck out of other users over his apparent "phobia" of ponies. This policy would prevent anyone else like him from being on this wikia and taking attention away from what this wikia is for. We all know that.

Plus we currently have The Power Is Mine doing the same thing. Not saying anyone is lying or has bad intentions, but it takes the attention away from the task at hand, on some occasions.

Thundergun 3rd Person BOGuitar t-boneTalk!Wunderwaffe DG-2 3rd Person WaW 12:44, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

We banned Painincarnate shortly after his fiasco. No need for this policy. It's not like it'll stop people like him from making an account. They'll still do it. -- sactage (talk) 13:02, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
It could mean we wouldn't have to ban these people. They make an account, they break this policy, we warn them, and in the best outcome they stop. If they don't you guys ban them, citing this policy. KUDLq.png 13:04, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
We already warn them and tell them what they're doing wrong, and when they don't stop, they get banned. Simple. -- sactage (talk) 13:10, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
But at least we can tell them a specific rule they are breaking. They are going to be all like "I see no rule for that! UNFAIR TREATMENT! ADMIN BRUTALITY (troll) Then we can just say, that you violated a rule COD:CSB (or whatever we want to call it), and then they will have nothing for their defense. They could also say they are exercising their first ammendment rights and this would make their argument invalid. --Thundergun 3rd Person BOGuitar t-boneTalk!Wunderwaffe DG-2 3rd Person WaW 13:14, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
We don't need a specific rule, we can just say "Intimidating behaviour/harassment" -- sactage (talk) 13:20, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Sactage, that's what we did with Brad.h. REDSKIN-26Personal Redskin-26 Squirtle sprite15:05, October 29, 2011 (UTC)~

In what aspect do you mean? Do you mean like stopping the blogs they make? - Crazy Sam10 Talk PollPersonal Crazy sam10 Shadow sig 13:16, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

I kind of agree. Circumstances are always the first thing that pop up when I tell a user they've broken the rules. Shotrocket6 15:43, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Personal behavior on the Wiki or Chat or IRC is the sole responsibility of the user. Irregardless of personal problems at home or elsewhere. These people who are usually young users need to learn that their behavior will have consequences, good or bad. True "its only the internet" but their actions affect other users and if they act out of line then they will need to act responsibly and accept the punishment handed out and not whine about it. A blocked user will not get any sympathy from the admins unless they were unfairly blocked at which time several admins will take a look at whats going on. So there really is no need for an additional policy. we already have rules against trolling, UTP, vandalism,harassment, etc. etc.etc.Personal WHISKEY35 signature Talk 20:19, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Per Whiskey. Personal Conqueror of all Zombies Ireland flagCoaZTalkPersonal Conqueror of all Zombies Ireland flag 20:23, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Per above reasoning. The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q20:36, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

"I'm here to propose a new policy, or an amendment to an existing one." While the general idea seems to be there is no need for a new policy, an alteration to an existing one to make to make this point more clear.Personal AdvancedRookie Sig2 20:47, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Can someone give an example of "own personal situation as an excuse for their behaviour." Not to disagree, just didn't understand the point. AK47 menu icon CoD4 AK47 lover Talk 06:57, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Painincarnate is a notable example of a user who used this strategy. KUDLq.png 13:22, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

He is also a example of a user who was Perma-banned for it. :3 REDSKIN-26Personal Redskin-26 Squirtle sprite17:58, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, wikians must follow the rules no matter what, this is an encyclopedia, all users must work at making it more informative, not to do whatever they want. SiPlus 14:14, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

I back this idea up immensely. I'm tired of seeing comments like "FUCK YOU FAGGOT" then the same person is like "huur sorry lol I have anger issues/my little silbling said that" Slowrider7 18:02, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

This is self-mocking, but this is a perfect example of what I've done and knew it was wrong, which is the opposite of this. You might want to check it out it has some valid points to support this (Cool story YR) So yeah, I agree fully. YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  19:41, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Support this big-time. Painincarnate was a textbook example of someone trying to use their personal life (and trying poorly, at that. A "phobia of ponies"? Give me a break, lol) to get away with breaking policy on the wiki. This wiki is like a game of Monopoly, where too many players are getting the "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. Now, we need to get rid of that card to keep our game of Monopoly running smoothly and without dispute. Sgt. S.S. 20:50, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

I completely support. One's mood or sob story is no excuse to be a dick and violate UTP. Painincarnate is probably the best example, and there are many others. Zachary West also complained about how his life sucked, and Brad h. constantly complained about his horrible love life. With this policy, such behaviour can be avoided. WaW Pickup MG42SPNKRTalkWaW Pickup MP40 Reverse 20:59, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least, should we implement this, give it a more friendly name? Shotrocket6 23:43, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Mhm... I don't know, if the policy is anything like what it is in my head, then "Call of Duty Wiki:Cool Story Bro" is a rather good summary. Smuff[citation provided] 01:25, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
Also, as this is would be a user policy, I take it this would be an amendment to COD:AEAE, amirite? Smuff[citation provided] 01:39, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
I think a new page would be in order. It's a rather expansive subject. Shotrocket6 01:44, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
I imagine we could find a better name, but I believe the policy should have a small page on its own. While AEAE could be a suitable place for the subject, I believe that the topic needs its own page.Personal AdvancedRookie Sig2 16:15, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
AEAE should be mentioned in COD:CSB and if people are going to use pointless excuses, then it's fine to say "Cool story bro, all editors are equal so you're not gonna get away with this" YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  17:18, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
We should as Shotty said, if this were to be implemented, make a more euphemistic name. The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q02:55, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Administrators are under the responsibility to make the correct judgment when it comes to situations like those that the forum outlines. I don't think this policy is necessary, though the idea is very good.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  18:12, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

CommentEdit

Alright, to everyone using Painincarnate as an example after the first person that mentioned him, we don't need to keep hearing him as the prime opposition to this, just say, "per <>" and get through it, I don't want to have to read something again that says the exact same thing someone else said. The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q22:25, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

You know, you could have just used {{Comment}}. There was no need to create a new section. :/ Sgt. S.S. 11:35, October 31, 2011 (UTC)


I have exams so I didn't come here as often and look what happens :/ AK47 menu icon CoD4 AK47 lover Talk 20:09, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

we would use COD:CSB for you if it was a policy right now :) The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q01:58, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
I think COD:CSB would more be geared towards users claiming to have mental illnesses. Smuff[citation provided] 02:04, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
Ohh I see, seems to be better that way anyhow. The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q02:55, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
Hahaha so I would get banned :D And TCW, your new sig looks nice :) AK47 menu icon CoD4 AK47 lover Talk 17:27, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, accusing CSB for that would be gaming the system. And as for mental illnesses, what would be the limits? Sure anger management and stuff that causes outbursts needs consideration when trusted users have them illnesses. They're trusted, may have the odd show (like me) and I've noticed we've got off a bit lucky imo. Just sayin' YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  19:28, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
If I haven't misinterpreted what you said, you're saying that mental illnesses should be taken into account when dealing with troublemakers. But, according to policy, they will be dealt with the same way as any other editor. Like me, I have Asperger syndrome, but that doesn't mean I can play a card like, "Oh, I didn't know that what I said to Editor X might be taken as an insult because my social skills aren't the best". I'd still get in trouble for it, same as anyone else. Sgt. S.S. 21:56, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you AK47 lover :), and per what Sgt. SS said. And YR, what are you talking about, you don't accuse policies. The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q03:30, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
...and if they're busted for lying, then maybe a slightly harsher punishment? Aspis ftw. YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  18:28, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
But how would we be able to tell if they were lying or not? Like Smuff said here, people bullshit about their lives all the time on the internet, and because you can't see them, you can't tell if they're lying or not. Sgt. S.S. 20:35, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
Get them to prove it or if they're trusted users, we instabelieve them. (as in me and you) YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  14:12, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
But how could we get them to "prove" it? Something like a note from a doctor is no good, because the internet makes it too easy to fake. We could get a message saying "User X has Uncontrollable Vandalism Disorder, signed Dr. I. M. Genuine", and we would be none the wiser as to whether it was real or not. Sgt. S.S. 14:20, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
Maybe only trusted users then, because if they vandalise once then it's either for a laugh or their sibling's to blame. If it's a new/untrusted user then there's trouble. YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  15:38, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment Comment — Hold on a minute! Wasn't one of the reasons why we retired the Armed Forces policy was becasue it is hard to prove what someone is saying over the internet? Wouldn't this policy have the same problem? Personal Conqueror of all Zombies Ireland flagCoaZTalkPersonal Conqueror of all Zombies Ireland flag 01:10, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

But you see, this policy would not benefit people who say they have disabilities and such, therefore we wouldn't have to prove anything as even if they said the had some for of illness it would be more or less disregarded. Maybe the policy would have these problems if it were giving them some sort of special treatment but since it is in all basicalities, it is an expansion of AEAE.The Wikia Contributor Talk 02:20, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
The armed forces policy didn't benefit anybody-people who claimed to be part of the Armed Forces would be banned. The proposed policy is to ban people who use their special needs to trya get away with stuff. It's not an extention of AEAE. Personal Conqueror of all Zombies Ireland flagCoaZTalkPersonal Conqueror of all Zombies Ireland flag 02:26, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
I thought the point of the policy was to ignore circumstances? Shotrocket6 09:21, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
Sort of. The point of the policy is to stop people using circumstances as an excuse for breaking the rules. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk16:03, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I thought. I don't know what CoAZ is talking about. Shotrocket6 19:36, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
I though AEAE stood for All Editors Are Equal.Personal Conqueror of all Zombies Ireland flagCoaZTalkPersonal Conqueror of all Zombies Ireland flag 02:04, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain please? I'm having a hard time understanding. DarkMetroid567 17:08, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Basically, the idea behind this policy is: disruptive users will sometimes claim that they have some sort of disorder to try and get themselves off the hook for what they did. For example, a user vandalises a page for no reason, then claims that they didn't know they were doing it because they have schizophrenia. Under the proposed policy, saying something like that wouldn't make any difference, and the user would still be punished, the same as any other user. Hope this helps to clarify things a little. Sgt. S.S. 11:29, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
I see. Then I guess I support this, even if the user really is out of their minds. DarkMetroid567 00:11, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment Comment — I don't really understand the point of this proposal. Is it to make the "circumstances of the user don't apply" point more visible and citable? Because this is more or less already in the policies. Copy/pasted from COD:BG: Also remember that, regardless of the individual in question, blocks should apply to everyone equally. Copy/pasted from COD:AEAE: No one gets any special treatment, including administrators. Since all editors are equal, we already have a policy to cite in the event of "I have X so I couldn't help but do Y but I really didn't mean it please don't ban me I won't do it again". I don't think we need a new one to show this again. Personal IW FTW Awesome Face 100pxI.W. F.T.W. (talk)16:44, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

I believe the argument is that we do to make more clear our intentions. Shotrocket6 17:09, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
But could we not also add a clause to COD:BG stating this make clear, instead of making a policy for it? -- sactage (talk) 17:05, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Dead  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  02:08, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.