Forums: Index War Room Opnion blogs
Forum logo
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.

Well, I was told to move this disscusion to the 'war room' so here i am talking about the topic. I would like to propose getting rid of opnion blogs on the front page (putting them somewhere seperate but still easily accessed) and allow anyone to create them (not just the news team). I feel this would be a good idea as it will allow for a greater range of opnions. the BF wiki does this and it's worked great. what do you think?Hyperborrean22 (talk) 15:50, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


Since this is coming off of your recent blog, seen here, I feel the method we currently have functions far better. By having our opinion blogs proof-read and verified before the category is applied prevents us having blogs such as this one which is nothing more than one sentence of input, and someone else's YouTube video. I see no reason to remove them from the front page as they are, and further see no reason to allow any user to add this category. 16:10, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I think we're talking about different articles. I was under the impression you were referencing the "Is this the Call of Duty WIki?". The reason why I made that post was because it was my opinions but I felt writing it out was pointless seeing as the video explained it.. explaining it would of been making people read then watch the same content. if we're going to be discussing this post you definitely didn't make it look like censorship was in force (as stated in the comments) because there had been an opinion blog at the time about titanfall which I felt and still feel is very irrelevant. finally, I would like to quote you:

"this is an Opinion Blog, not an official news blog, so don't tell users what they can and can't post"

oh and by the way, you send me here to "discuss" and then you attempt to kill the conversation. censorship once again. I would like to sit down and have a decent conversation about this but you keep forcing me to get defensive.Hyperborrean22 (talk) 16:38, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

You put forward a forum and I am opposing it. I dislike what you are proposing and have voiced it. That is not censorship. 17:07, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, in response to the Titanfall blog, that was a Community News blog, not an Opinion blog. And even if you feel that blog was not relevant, it does not change the fact that blog in question did not meet the satisfactions of Opinion blogs. 17:09, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
In fact, could you please tell me how removing the category, which is clearly stated in the rules not to add, falls under censorship? So far it seems you just keep crying wolf whenever someone disagrees with you. I told you to make a forum if you wished to change how opinion blogs a re done, which you have done, and I in turn replied with why I dislike this change. In response you've claimed we are not having a discussion but that I am censoring you. If you don not consider this a discussion, then it would simply imply that you only consider it a discussion if I were to agree with you. I will gladly discuss why I believe this forum should not pass, and I will stand by the fact that the blog you made not within guidelines for an opinion blog. Frankly, if your only defence is to constantly claim we're censoring you (which we're not, and you should really look up the definition of the word), then your argument is incredibly weak and turning into a broken record. Now from here on out I will keep to topic of the forum, of how we deal with Opinion blogs, and I ask you also followsuit, without more claims of "censorship". 17:21, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
Also, it's pretty clear that you either haven't read or just don't care for our policy on Opinion blogs:
"All users can make opinion blogs (such as reviews or opinions about a certain topic in Call of Duty) which can then be categorized with Category:Opinion blogs by a News Team member if the blog is good enough (covers enough detail about the topic, preferably unbiased and well-written, etc.) to show up on the main page."
It states that it's only for detailed, unbiased, and well-written blogs that are either reviews or opinions. Your blog met NONE of the criteria for this and wouldn't have been able to be granted Opinion blog 'status' by even a News Team member. And the Titanfall blog is somewhat relevant, as it was made by a large portion of ex-Infinity Ward staff. Zombie Rank 8 Icon BOII Kylet357 · talk  17:20, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

You "would like to sit down and have a decent conversation" while constantly claiming CENSORSHIP CENSORSHIP CENSORSHIP. Please stop. It's boring to read.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  19:09, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. "[having] a decent conversation" requires that both parties are prepared to argue in good faith. This is something you have not done when you start constantly clamouring about censorship whenever you are told something you do not wish to hear. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk19:20, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

A) The News Team aren't the only people who make Opinion Blogs. Any user can write an opinion blog, and then the News Team reviews it and sees if it's quality enough for the front page. We'd rather not have a ton of poorly written news blogs hogging the Opinion section.

B) What place is more "easily accessible" than the front page? And why can't these blogs be on the front page? They provide more content for readers and discussion, and are very easy to find, which just opens the discussion further.

C) Based on how you're handling yourself in the discussion section of this forum, especially in regards to censorship, I'm not exactly sure you made this forum with the Wiki's best intention in mind. If anything, this seems more like a personal issue.

KUDLq.png 20:17, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

great work hammering in the point of not mentioning "certain words" (see how I'm listening to you and not saying it). now, if we're all so happy to read I should like to type.

the idea was there would be some kind of link in news blogs to an opinion section. then people could write stuff how they feel but the rules are a bit more lax as it's not creating a veneer of poor quality on the front page. I never meant to imply it would be just as easy to access (although I can see how you would interpret it that way) but rather of a close level. this is so it's not as visible as it is on the front page but still accessible so (once again) the rules are a bit more lax.

looking back I understand the quality of my blog was not to a great standard but the idea of laxing the rules and allowing anyone to get their voice out there would at least give people practise. In theory it would allow new users to practise editing blogs so if they were to apply for the news team they would have some experience. I know what your thinking, "they should have already skill when applying and letting any old rubbish on is not going to help" but the thing is, it acts as practise. people make one rubbish sentence at first but they develop. just like a child learns writting at shcool. he will first learn block capitals, then words, then basic sentences, then more formed letters, then connectives, then the next thing and the next thing. in the same way someone starts with a sentence or two, then a paragrah, then two paragraphs, then a picture is included and then whatever is next (i can't recall the order like school because i didn't learn like that but you get the drift). it's also worth pointing out getting a warning (wether official or casual) is extremly dishartening (so much so i left this place and went to work on the BF:WIKI (that is why has been spawned from a blog made months ago)).

in addition, I would like to just look in the dictionary to find opnion. the dictionary used is the the concise oxford dictionary. It defines opinion as "a belief or assessment based on grounds short of proof". as I look through the alternate definitions, I find no menton of an opinion beiend "unbiased". the closest thing I can find is pertaining to legal advice which I guess could fall under reviews in a way but reviews are subject by default when you break them down so take that as you will.

finally (and this really has no relevance to what I'm trying to acomplish by now so ignore this if you want to), I would like to reitterate Titanfall has it's own wiki. we didn't need to report and that as I still feel it had no relevance. I understand Respawn is pretty much the original Inifinity ward but they're a different company now and are not making CoD anymore. with the logic demonstrated with that post, this wiki should have a slash next to call of duty with titanfall next to it. (once again I would like to stress this as irrelevant. Don't bother repplying to this sction as I will just ignore any remarks)Hyperborrean22 (talk) 10:43, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

OK, now I'm going to be completely honest with you because frankly this thing has gone on for far too long, so I apologise for any language I may use. Prior to this all starting we had two things written down. The fact an opinion blog had to be well written, and the fact an Opinion blog had to be proof-read and validated by a new Team member. Despite this, you created a poorly made blog, and added the category yourself, in response to this you were given a straight forward warning claiming that only News team members could add the category, nothing was ever stated on the fact the blog was so poor in the first place, as the fact you added the category was the only real issue. When this warning was added, there was no malice, censorship, censureship, bias or any other kind of negative emotion going into the removal. It was policy and the blog was poorly written. From there it took you 1 month to give a response on the matter, to which you immediately started attacking the wiki itself, despite it being a rule that you shouldn't add the policy. From there you claimed you wanted to change said policy, so I told you to use the War Room, and since you didn't know what the war room was, shows you spent much more time bitching than you actually did looking around the Wiki, which would explain why you were unaware of the opinion blog policies. And even in this forum, you've managed to derail it yourself, by claiming that I am not giving you a "decent conversation" purely because I disagree with having a system where opinion blogs are not moderated. Going back a bit to all your comments about the Titanfall blog, there are so many reasons why this is irrelevant and do not stand up in your argument. Firstly, the Titanfall blog was a "Community News" blog, and not an "Opinion" blog, which I don't think I can stress enough since there is a difference. The blog was made back in the earlier days of Titanfall, so we still had the odd blog about it. But the overlying reason is such, that blog was well written and he category was added by a news team member. So even if the news wasn't strictly Call of Duty, it still meet the guidelines of an Opinion blog while your blog did not. So using that blog as some kind of counter to the fact we removed the category from your blog is not only irrelevant to this entire debate, but completely mute. Furthermore, I can understand that you may feel the need to better learn how to write a blog, you cannot add your drafts to the front page. It would almost equate to learning how to properly write a letter for an offical reason, but sen sending off all your practice letters as you go. If you want to write the blogs, that in itself is fine, but the issue was that you added the category yourself, which was already written down that you were not supposed to do. And finally I would like to pick up on what you said at the end of your last comment about receiving a warning. Since you did something against policy, it is generally considered the right thing to do to warn them they have done something wrong, otherwise a user can complain they were blocked without warning. You broke our policy on opinion blogs, and assuming you had not read the policy, we gave you a warning that only news team members could add that category. Now trying play the victim card and claim that 1 warning for doing something against policy disheartened you enough to leave for 1 month (to which your first arguments were trying to state we just victimise users) seems completely bollocks to be completely honest. IF such a basic warning puts you off editing for a month, how are you going to cope if you get any other warnings, such as for uploading an image incorrectly, or performing a bad edit? Even the BF wiki gives out warnings if someone breaks a policy, and just because their policies are more relaxed in some areas doesn't really mean much. In fact, you recently came on to my talk page to again try and twist this debate into what must be some kind of sympathy card by claiming a friend "that shall not be named" left because he had edits reverted. Well most of the time users that leave because they had lots of edits reverted are users that constancy put something incorrect in the articles and refuse to listen to warnings about adding them. So in closing, you have managed to take a warning over a something that was written down in policy, and expanded and twisted it so much that the issue has become larger than it was ever supposed to be. So much so, you've even derailed your own forum on the matter since you cannot seem to hold back from claiming censureship whenever someone disagrees with you. If you do wish to keep this forum going, then do so by addressing points correctly, and stop trying to keep this charade going on any further than it has to. 15:13, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
As Sam has pretty much covered everything, I would just like to add on that one of your arguments is that there should be a lenient and easy way for people to "apply" for the News Team if they want to write Opinion Blogs. This means you clearly haven't been reading what everyone has been telling you, since ANY USER can write an opinion blog, it's just up to the news team on whether or not the blog is of high enough quality to use the "Opinion Blog" category. KUDLq.png 15:27, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

i see i'm beating a dead horse. it's apparent you don't want to talk (as seen by your deliberate ignoring of my good points and solely focussing on the negatives and at times creating negatives which i don't even say for the sake of your own argument) just know who i referenced earlier was not meant to be a sympathy card and having known him for 4 months i konw he can't be a vandal (he's a damn b'crat now!). i assume you one minded morons can figure out how to archive this for me. debranoz!

p.s. fix your damn adds already! this has been a mess for the past day!--{{SUBST:Signatures/Hyperborrean22}} 11:58, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Right. So what you've done, is make a mountain out a molehill because you didn't get your own way. And now knowing that your argument hasn't worked you've finally resorted to insulting us because we don't agree. You, and this entire farce has been completely childish. If you have nothing of any worth to add to this discussion then let it drop now. Your behaviour over this whole ordeal has been appalling, and we have been as tolerant as we can. Clearly you don't want to discuss this purely because you're losing and you're trying to twist it on to us, and in fact, while you claim we haven't looked at your points, you're just brushing off our points as claiming we're "ignoring" or "censoring" you. If you have absolutely nothing to add which is actually related to the nature of this forum then I will close it, and depending on your behaviour, may block you for such a display of poor attitude. 13:39, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

you don't realize you're being trolled when you are do you?--{{SUBST:Signatures/Hyperborrean22}} 17:35, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Closed - Lack of proper user conduct. 17:39, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.