Forum:All Editors Are Equal

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > All Editors Are Equal
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 7 January 2011 by Liquidhelium.

RuneScape:Opinion Weighing Levels

Discussion on this topic has been moved to Forum:All Editors Are Equal/Archive

RuneScape:User Status Policy

A lot of the support seems to be going towards RS:USP, RuneScape:User Status Policy, so I think we should try and discuss this, otherwise this thread will never finish. 222 talk 07:56, December 23, 2010 (UTC)


Support - Per Sentra. Matt (t) 09:30, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Supportish - Sure, I support anything other than AEAE, though I was working on a rewrite of AEAE on my sandbox which I prefer to USP. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 13:23, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - We could always split this into two easy to name policies, "All opinions are equal (RS:AOAE)" and "All arguments are not equal (RS:AAANE)" RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 13:28, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

What? Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 13:41, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I support RS:USP and my above suggestion, I don't mind which is implemented. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 13:28, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per my support in the previous proposal. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 13:35, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If it's alright with the proposer, can we close this section and propose the version I just finished in my sandbox? It has two additional sections, both of which I believe are vital to ensure it's not misinterpreted. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 13:41, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'd support your sandbox version. It's a bit repetitive, but it's necessary to prevent misunderstanding in as many cases as possible. I especially appreciate the section at the bottom explaining any misunderstanding, which was agreed upon in discussion but never approved for addition. RS:Status would be a short, effective name with no room for misinterpretation. Leftiness 15:52, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
The first section you have added is good and should be added, but the second section seems a bit useless if the name is changed. I also the User Status Policy is a better name than the one you have used in your sandbox. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 16:00, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

RuneScape:Status and opinion-weight

As mentioned above, I've done a slight rewrite of AEAE in my sandbox. Here's a list of the changes.

  • Policy Re-named "RuneScape:Status and opinion-weight" - Yes, "User Status Policy" is a step in the right direction, though "Status and opinion-weight" ensures that the policy will not be used in every situation regarding user status and whatever they want to apply it to.
  • New section "Status and opinion-weight in the determining of consensus" - This section serves to further articulate the policy's application in the determining of consensus, which I don't believe is adequately done in the preambulatory section. As stated in the last sentence, this section can be summarized as "it's not who made the point it that matters, it's the point itself."
  • Changes to the "Appealing to a higher authority" section - This section was renamed "Notes regarding...", then the subtitles complete the sentence ("Notes regarding... Jagex and Runescape authorities"). This serves to show how the above section (Status and opinion-weight in the determining of consensus) should be applied to each of the groups.
    • RuneScape and Jagex authorities - This essentially says that anything a P-Mod says, even regarding RS rules, cannot be considered more valid simply because a P-Mod said it. The same applies to F-Mods. However, an exeption is made for J-Mods, as they are Jagex employees. The new version says this: "Furthermore, while Jagex employees are likely to be more knowledgeable than the average player, only statements released by Jagex employees in their capacity as a Jagex employee must be regarded as binding." I can explain what I mean by this if it's not making sense.
    • Wiki authorities - Everyone's favorite part of AEAE Lol. I don't remember changing this much. The meat of it can be found in these sentences: "No point made by an administrator (or any other 'wiki authority') can be enforced as if it were a policy purely based on the fact that an administrator said it. Only rules determined by consensus can be enforced." It also makes clear that Admins don't have opinions that "count for double" or anything to that effect.
    • Experienced in-game players - In a factual dispute regarding an area of one player's expertise, the player cannot say "I have 99 in this skill, therefore, I am right and you are wrong." Their own experience does not mean that anything they say is correct, even though it does increase the chance that they are.
  • New "Misinterpretations of status and opinion-weight" Section - If this proposal fails, it will be because of this section. This section states that the idea that "all editors are equal" is not expressed though this policy. If this particular policy was used to defend the idea that all editors were equal, it would be considered a perversion of the policy and a violation of RS:GTS. It's not saying that all editors are not equal, it's not saying that all editors are equal. It's not talking about the equality of editors at all. It's just saying that an editor's status, popularity, or in-game experience will not affect the validity of their opinions or anything they may say. That's about it.

Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:19, December 23, 2010 (UTC)


Strong Support - For the reasons I've mentioned above. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:19, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - For Steler's version. Maybe we can finally get this done. --Aburnett(Talk) 19:28, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I'm not a big fan of the name, though I strongly support the content, particularly the misinterpretations section. This will lay out in black and white my concerns with AEAE. As for the name, "opinion-weight" sounds too awkward, and if people didn't like OWL, I doubt they'll buy SOW (albeit SAOW is slightly better). However, I'm willing to swallow the bitter pill, and I hope the community is also. --LiquidTalk 23:35, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

In the same way as consensus is RS:CONSENSUS and RS:C, I think it would be fine to make this RS:STATUS and RS:S. Leftiness 07:16, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
So what do we do about the sandbox? --LiquidTalk 16:22, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think the sandbox is worthy of a one-letter redirect. I know that sounds silly, though consider that there are only 26 letters. RS:AEAE and RS:C are among the most important policies (the latter of the two being the most important, as all other policies derive their power from it), thus, the AEAE replacement would be given RS:S. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 21:31, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good. 222 talk 00:04, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - If this passes, can we write a new policy called Everyone Is Equal, which basically says everything the old AEAE didn't say? Real Nub 00:51, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Not without consensus, because a policy stating that all users are equal was never actually passed; we just misnamed a policy "all editors are equal". We've already had bucket loads of problems because the command "everyone is equal" can be interpreted so many ways, it's better not to have a policy about it at all. Just use common sense and treat others the way you would want to be treated, and we are all covered. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:58, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
I think Real was sarcastic, Stelercus. --LiquidTalk 00:59, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
As I've said before, we need to adopt Irony punctuation. I've started using it during various discussions on Facebook and other written works I will not be graded on for punctuation. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:10, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
*Real looks embarassed Actually, I was serious... Real Nub 09:43, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I like it. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 00:56, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Small change - "can't make their opinion "count" for more or less than anyone else" to "shall not affect the weight of their opinion as compared to other users". flows more smoothly.--Degenret01 14:17, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Where did you see that? Anyway, I tried to word the central idea of the policy different ways at different times to make sure everyone understands what it's trying to say. "Weight", "validity", and "count" are all used at one point or another, if I remember correctly. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:47, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
I asked Lefti to make a few small grammar changes, and he agreed. The meaning and intent is entirle the same, it is simple grammar that was altered for clarity. I'm good with it as it stands now.--Degenret01 02:52, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
I like the changes (Thanks, Lefti/Degen). I also noticed I selected "defiantly" instead of "definitely" from the spellchecker yet again. I hate the English language more and more every day. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 03:04, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yea, I wasn't going to mention it to you. Although it always makes me grin as I picture you standing there shaking your fist at the world in a gesture of defiance =D--Degenret01 03:21, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support policy, oppose name - The policy is good but I still don't really like the title, it seems like it is unfinished. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:55, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Does a policy need a fancy name in order to be finished? Considering that the previous fancy name is the reason for so much controversy, I don't think there's a reason to deviate from the simple and straightforward. Leftiness 08:04, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
I still like User Status Policy. 222 talk 10:43, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
No it doesn't need a fancy name but this one seems like something is missing at the end. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 02:31, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
You're right; a period. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 02:33, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
That would be worse. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 02:34, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
You have a point. Cornerstone policies should end in an exclamation point. Am I right in thinking you would like the title more if it ended in "policy"? While that does sound more "complete", I don't think the title needs to be any longer, nor is that a reason to oppose it. (almost) Anything is better than AEAE. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 02:40, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what sounds more complete but it sounds like it stops mid phrase. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 01:12, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
Look, the only other sentence-ending punctuation is the question mark, but the title isn't meant to be interrogative. I understand what you mean by something "ending mid phrase", but I don't see how that's the case here. "Status and opinion weight." You're probably guessing, "What about status and opinion weight?", but if we answer that question in the title, people will enforce the command given by the title as the policy. This is the problem we've had with AEAE that resulted in this thread being created, so it's best not to repeat that mistake. Given all that, the only option to solve your proposed problem is to add a/some word(s) on to the end. Problem with that is, that would make the title too long. Regarding Chess's comment, are you opposing the title and the rewrite, or just the title? Either way, what's your opinion on the rewrite? Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:35, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
Just the title. I don't see anything wrong with the rewrite part, more explanation = better. bad_fetustalk 17:59, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
I agree there doesn't need to be punctuation on the end of it, I just think the title sounds great, the best suggestion I have is "Status and opinion weighting". Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:14, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose name change - I still don't see a problem with AEAE. bad_fetustalk 16:54, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

Opposers, please take note I keep seeing people say they do not see why we need a name change. I kinda wonder where you have been for the last 3 years. We need it because the title "All editors are equal" causes misuse in situations where it does not apply. Even still to this very day we have a well established smart good knowledgeable wikian misusing it, which I bet he would not be doing were the name anything else. Granted the proposed title isn't super awesome or whatever, but it does the job better than AEAE. And that is the point.[1]. --Degenret01 05:08, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Yet another example of AEAE-abuse: [2]. I'd request comment, but I don't think there's anything left to say. Can I request a sysop to determine if there's consensus for Stelercus' version? Leftiness 03:11, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Stelercus's version has near unanimous support. The only objections are over the exact name of the policy. Given that the objections lack any substantive positions, Stelercus's proposed name will be adopted. RuneScape:All editors are equal will be renamed RuneScape:Status and opinion-weight with the new content. --LiquidTalk 03:16, January 7, 2011 (UTC)