Forum:"I'm right because of UCS"

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > "I'm right because of UCS"
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 11 February 2011 by Cook Me Plox.

First, let me start off by saying that this should not need a Yew Grove thread; it's a really trivial thing but it's happening a lot lately.

Recently there have been many people who have been using RuneScape:Use common sense as a reason why the opposition to proposals is invalid. More or less saying "I'm right, you're wrong, because of UCS." This is (at least in my interpretation) not what the policy is about. I find that it means something along the lines of "If a policy hinders a task that has support but goes against policies, disregard the policy." People are distorting this by saying that their position is commonsense. This is obviously not true if there is opposition not due to policies, as has been the case in all of the times I've seen someone do this.

I'm proposing that we add something under Examples of when not to apply UCS about justifying your side of an issue to others that disagree.

Discussion[edit source]

Support - I hate it when people do this. ʞooɔ 09:17, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Yeeeeeeeeeah. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 09:18, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Bloody annoying. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 09:19, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I hate to put this here, but I must before someone else does, per UCS. Otherwise, bloody annoying works fine as well.222 talk 09:21, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - "Death by [UCS]" seems to be the trend now like it was previously as IAR. Justification should come from valid arguments, not blindly stating policies. Ryan PM 10:14, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - bad_fetustalk 10:28, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Moar support - Didn't we change it to UCS to stop people doing that? Real Mad 13:23, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Gee, this policy continues to bring headaches. I had hoped I took care of everything last time around, but I guess not. By the way, since you are proposing something, and this has {{Forumheader|Yew Grove}} at the top, this most certainly is a Yew Grove thread. Wink --LiquidTalk 14:21, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - omfg UCS u nubs Andrew talk 15:36, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Andrew talk 15:36, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Just use common sense about RS:UCS Wink JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:51, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per above. The irony is that this proposal is partially to stop people from citing UCS as validation for their opinion, yet that's what is being done in this discussion. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 16:51, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to me: </sarcasm> JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 16:56, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
I don't pick up on text-sarcasm. I'm actually referring to Brains, Chess, and you, though no offense was intended. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 16:59, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
None taken, I just don't understand you... What did you want to say? that I use it incorrectly? but... that was my whole intention... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:05, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
When people are sarcastic on the internet, I can't tell unless they are laying it on incredibly thick, as sarcasm is often communicated though body language and tone. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 17:07, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
I had that when i first participated in discussions too, but there are also ways to identify it on the internet. First is that someone who is strongly against something suddenly starts supporting it(chess hates it too, but still links to it). For that you need to know the person who says it. Second is emoticons. Wikipedia also says: “Don't worry about offending people; simply appending a smiley emoticon or humorous XML tag (</sarcasm>) to your comment will assuage any hurt feelings” so if someone adds a smiley(like i added Wink) it is quite likely either a joke has been made, something funny happened or sarcasm is used. I must agree 222 makes it look like he is serious, but i assume he knows how it should be used. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:34, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
The emoticon we have for blinking, to me, looks like a person who thinks they just made an amazing point, leading me to believe whoever is using it takes their point very seriously. Ironically, I don't see it that way when I use it, because I don't see the picture when I type {{;)}}. Also, sarcasm brackets only work when you use them as part of the original sarcastic statement. Not as a clarification after somebody questions whether or not you were serious. Anyway, this side conversation is getting away from the discussion at hand, so let's stop. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:00, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support - We should add some UCS to tell people not to UCS when they say UCS because what they think of UCS might be different then your UCS.... or something. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 17:01, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Yo dawg, i heard you like common sense, so I put some common sense in your common sense so you can use common sense while you use common sense now. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:05, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Use common sense to determine when to use common sense - And um, Support. Matt (t) 02:50, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with Steler here. Was this serious? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:08, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah... {{{Plz}}} Matt (t) 03:53, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
And... Isn't this exactly what the thread wants to stop? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:22, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
im20confus.jpg
Matt (t) 06:14, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
*psst, ur squinting* JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:55, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
*is confuzzled* User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 10:45, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Support - It's good to regulate something like this, and to lay down scenarios that it doesn't work. In all honesty, there should have been scenarios put in the clause when created, otherwise it's like Play-Doh; people can shape and corrupt it into whatever they want to in any situation. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 18:50, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per above. Suppa chuppa Talk 06:20, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - One less way to game the system. — Enigma 16:38, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Yay for us. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 10:45, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Close this loophole. What I regard as common sense somebody else may not. (I regard common sense as useless as it's not scientific but that's beside the point here) What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 21:57, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Sense is not common, it's rare to very rare. Like a Dragon Pickaxe drop. Only rarer. And UCS should be accompanied by at least a half-hearted attempt at explanation, as should all uses of policy, to one degree or another. Speaking of which, where is my Banana crate page, hmmmmmm? -- TheLastWordSword 21:47, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I'm right because of UCS. l00k s0m3 fr33 st00f!! (@)ʇɐuʇɐu(@)(@)(@) m0r3 fr33 st00f! 07:52, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support - "My brain is better than you coz of UCS." False. Rewlf2 07:51, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - I've added something to When not to apply UCS. Feel free to rewrite it. ʞooɔ 02:29, February 11, 2011 (UTC)