Forum:Changes to AEAE

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Changes to AEAE
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 20 August 2010 by Liquidhelium.

Please, read everything he is saying before commenting

Anyone who has opposed, please reconsider as I have realized the community does not want the policy gone, but just rewritten. I have proposed a version below, which anyone is free to edit, and propose a name for it.

AEAE has been the building blocks for many arguments as of late. It has been used in ways that it shouldn't have been used. And people have cited it as their excuse for why they did some stupid things. The spirit of AEAE is good, but the policy itself has been rotting for a long time now. This policy causes lots of forum threads and I think it's time to end that. I don't believe all editors truly are equal. Some make useful edits, some don't. One problem is how do you define editor. Is it someone who makes 1 edit, 50 mainspace, enters the clan chat or what? No, I don't think we should slander people, but I don't think AEAE is true, or helping. I've talked to several people about this, and given it a lot of thought. Maybe I'm insane, but don't write me off yet. I see several ways to fix this problem, so onto the ideas. (As always, I'll add other people's ideas up here as well.)

  • Rename AEAE to something that we would agree upon later, I have no ideas, but if I think of any, I will add them here, and you are invited to do the same. In addition to the renaming, the policy would be rewritten basically from scratch to contain the original spirit of AEAE, but to use more common sense in what the policy is used to justify, and what it is not used to justify. The policy would be rewritten, the rough draft is shown below, which anyone may edit.
  • Completely throw the policy out the window. Not my favorite, but it was what spawned this idea, so it needs to be in here.
  • Throw the policy out the window for the most part, but add the true spirit of it into other policies, such as UTP. Somewhat a combination/compromise of the first and second ideas.

Maybe I'm off the rocker, but this is what I see as an essential step forward. As I've said before, I'm open to other ideas (and will add them), but I thought I would put my two cents in and give other people a chance to do the same. HaloTalk 19:49, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

P.S. With this I would ask the closure of the other current open AEAE thread-here.

Policy Suggestion

First of all, feel free to edit it in my sandbox. Also, I'm still working on a good name. I just spent a few minutes drawing this up and I will continue to improve on it as I can. I feel the current stance on editors being treated equally falls under UTP, and thus should not be included in this policy (and thus was not included.) This deals almost entirely with points in a discussion being equal, as well as providing examples, which seemed to be lacking from the current policy.

Note: I have left out parts about users being treated differently as I feel that is completely covered in UTP. I have mainly addressed opinions being counted equally. I have tried to keep the spirit of it, but dumbed it down a little, not because people are stupid, but because it was a hard policy to understand in the first place. I have also added examples, because those are always good for people to understand things. I have also shortened the policy overall, which means it's more likely to be read in full (considering some people didn't even read the policy until they started discussing it on this thread), giving people a greater understanding of what the spirit of it really is. I will hopefully come up with a good name in the future, but nothing has really dawned on me yet, so I'm leaving my options open to not give anyone the wrong idea. Anyone may propose a name here or on my talk page, but don't be offended if they are rejected. HaloTalk 22:38, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - I personally support option 3. I feel that this should be more of a comment though as I'm the proposer of this. HaloTalk 19:49, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Hmm, you bring up some interesting points. While there are obviously some fundamentalists who would disagree with me (and I'm just throwing this idea out there), I think the original intention of AEAE was more of an "All editors are equal when stating an opinion". I don't think AEAE was for everyone to be completely equal and for no one to have highlights, but who knows. The question now becomes, should we try to interpret AEAE as it was supposed to be, or should we adopt our own principle regardless of what those before us thought? We need to decide to what extent we want all editors to be equal. Unfortunately, I'm not thinking of much. ʞooɔ 19:58, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Agree -I agree, it has been beaten and misused far past the point of its origins imnvho. It needs serious clarification somehow, and that will be a fairly long and hard piece of work, but one I also think we need.--Degenret01 20:11, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Agree - Suggestion: All editors are equal, but some are more equal then others. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 20:17, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

No Animal Farm please! HaloTalk 20:21, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
You think! AEAEBSOMETO is just an invitation to use the Animal Farm translation... Lets not go there.=D 222 talk 10:23, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
I typed up some rules and made a picture. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VKlum_f9_8c/SnU9KWByi_I/AAAAAAAAGgw/HKKzGgsA04s/s400/AnimalFarmCommandments.jpg

xScoobsx Talk Contribs 23:11, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Agree - Although I wasn't really around to help set the wiki up like some of you, i believe aeae is just silly. So, for what it's worth I agree. --Ranged Synkk Talk Slayer 20:31, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Interesting points, and I personally lean towards the first option. I'll wait till some more discussion points are brought up before making a final decision. Star FindTalk 21:35, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In Forum:AEAE, a proposal was made to make everybody equal in every way except those ways determined by consensus. Ways determined by consensus include sysop powers and highlighted names. While I personally don't understand why the community doesn't want everybody equal in every way except where determined by consensus, they don't, and it doesn't seem like I and others did a good enough job in arguing the point since it wasn't implemented as a policy reform.

As I've been active in many AEAE discussions, I think I've got a decent idea of what people expect AEAE to mean: everybody has the right to voice their opinion, and nobody's opinion means more than anyone else's for any reason except for facts. That said, there's a discussion about this going on at Forum:RuneScape:Respect_all_opinions. Personally, I think there's room for misinterpretation of the word respect, as shown by Degen's comments on that thread, which I agree with.

I do believe that AEAE should be trashed and replaced with what I bolded in the above paragraph. All editors are not equal, and everybody knows it. The meaning that everybody gets out of it is well phrased in the nutshell section, but the name AEAE is a travesty. Leftiness 22:55, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Agree - I would like to see the first option take place, and I would be happy to propose the rewritten policy if there is consensus to do such a thing. Glad to see we are finally having this discussion. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:58, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I don't really like having two threads about the same thing... In Forum:RuneScape:Respect_all_opinions, I said the following:

"Would it be too much trouble to replace the name "Respect All Opinions" with the name "Respect the Right to an Opinion" (RS:RRO)? I believe it maintains the spirit of this idea, that nobody should say "Shut up; you don't matter!" It also prevents misinterpretation. I think it's obvious that there wouldn't have been so many AEAE arguments if the name "All editors are equal" weren't so poorly phrased, and I expect that including the word "respect" in the name of this policy will lead to more misinterpretation. I also believe that the spirit of AEAE is the same as the spirit of this idea; they should be merged into one policy and phrased better, in my opinion." Leftiness 23:52, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I have read over the entire proposal, but I have not seen anyone identify what is actually wrong with the policy itself (that is An editor's status, popularity, or in-game experience does not affect how they are treated and how their opinion is "weighed" in a discussion.) Some users may be lacking in common sense, but the policy is not wrong. I also think that AEAE is fundamental enough to deserve its own page. The only thing that may be beneficial would be the addition of a new section, to clarify what the policy means and some common misconceptions. Starting from scratch isn't necessary to accomplish this objective. Dtm142 02:07, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I suppose I shouldn't have presented an opinion that's already received so much opposition, but what do you think of the part about the phrase "All Editors Are Equal" being a travesty? Honestly, do you think that we should use something so open to misrepresentation as it is? It's been said before that the scope of this policy is limited to edits and importance in discussions, but the policy doesn't say that. It says all editors are equal, and that's not true. Should we not say that the scope is limited? Why shouldn't it be re-phrased to something along the lines of what's being discussed in Forum:RuneScape:Respect_all_opinions when what's being discussed there is what the spirit of AEAE means? Leftiness 02:52, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
In my mind I always agree with Aburnett. I took AEAE to mean:
  1. No user's edits are superior to the edits of another.
  2. No user has a greater voice in any discussion than another.
But when I think about it I realize I disagree with those things. I believe that certain people's edits do amazing things that a lot of people can't accomplish, while others can be done by anyone. You can't tell me that making the penguin boxes turn green when you click on them (thanks Q) is worth the same as someone fixing a minor spelling error. At least not honestly. Also, you may say that no one has a greater voice, but I believe people listen more to people who are serious most of the time. That may just be perception however. I would be okay with a rewrite, as long as it gets renamed, because I agree with Aburnett on that as well. All editors are not equal. HaloTalk 05:07, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
No user's edits are superior to the edits of another is not comparing different types of edits to pages; it is saying that no user's edits are above others. If I edit a page then everyone else can edit the page, change what I wrote, or even remove what I wrote and replace it with something else. I can't decide that I own the page and my edits are superior so I will revert back to my version all the time. No user has a greater voice is not referring to people following others' opinions; it is saying that if I oppose or support a discussion, my voice isn't going to take priority or carry more weight in the end. People do of course look up to others and agree with them sometimes and that is only natural and perfectly fine; we all do it, even me sometimes, but there is a difference between having a greater voice and leading by example. Andrew talk 05:13, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
That I could go for. Just a name change+rewrite/trim down would keep me (and hopefully others) happy. HaloTalk 05:16, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I agree. We shouldn't keep the policy the same and list what it doesn't mean; that leaves it open to misinterpretation, and misinterpretation has been the problem with each and every AEAE thread we've had. We shouldn't be depending on people knowing that we interpret it differently. All editors are apparently not equal, so I think we should drop that cliche and word the policy how it actually is; we should keep what's in the nutshell section and rename the policy to reflect what's in the nutshell section, as that's apparently what it means. Leftiness 05:32, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
The proposed policy [[RuneScape:Respect all opinions|respect all opinions]], while not a bad idea, is not similar to AEAE. "Respect all opinions" means that every editor is entitled to voice their opinion, and that one should respond to differing opinions in a civil manner. It does not suggest that everyone will have their own opinions weighed equally. That's where AEAE comes in: an editor's opinion will not have more or less value based on their ingame status or wiki experience. If you read the policy, you will see that this is really all it is saying. Though the scope is limited, I think that the current title conveys the overall message better than anything. Nothing really needs to be changed, other than the addition of a new section. If the section is written properly, and we can get editors to actually read the updated policy page, I am sure that the issues will be resolved once and for all. Dtm142 18:01, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I've read the policy. It's title is "All editors are equal." The policy starts rambling about shapes and sizes of editors, Jagex staff members, and players with high skill levels, and it says in bold that all editors are equal. It goes on to make examples of different shapes and sizes of editors, mentioning how we don't appeal to higher authority, etc. It ends by again stating in bold that all editors are equal.
I understand that I only pointed out the bad in the policy; the nutshell section words the spirit of the policy perfectly. The words of the nutshell section are again used in the first paragraph. The problem is that the nutshell sentence is only written twice. Why do we have all the rest of the policy when the rest of the policy is not true to the meaning? Why do we contradict ourselves? Why do we expect people to read that page and a half and only take the nutshell section seriously? Why have we bolded "all editors are equal" twice? Why have we named the policy something that has nothing to do with the meaning? Leftiness 21:33, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Where's the contradiction? The first section (after the introduction) describes common prejudices, illustrating why the policy is necessary. This belongs on the page. The final section and the title make sense, given the context. I would not be opposed to renaming the policy to something along the lines of All editors have equal authority if this would settle the frequent disputes. Dtm142 03:45, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - The contradiction is that it says in bold print that all editors are equal, then it says in the nutshell that we're only equal in authority. In fact, I personally think the phrase "all editors have equal authority" (RS:AEEA... RS:AEAE could be a redirect) is much more befitting to the spirit of the policy; if we remove "all editors are equal" and "we're all equal" and replace them with "all editors have equal authority," I think it would be much more befitting, and I think any misrepresentation or misunderstanding could be avoided. I don't even think we'll need a misconceptions section. Leftiness 06:27, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Authority is a dangerous word here. People will automatically associate sysop to that and then we have the same problem that we do now. I think when I get a chance sometime this weekend I'll work on drawing up a basic policy version and see what people think. HaloTalk 18:45, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Authority is a dangerous word here. People will automatically associate sysop to that and then we have the same problem that we do now. Huh? Dtm142 23:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I second that huh. Are you likening "authority" to "power?" By definition, authority is the right to give orders or make decisions. An authority is an expert whose views are taken as definitive. (source) Personally, I would say that authority is gained by such things as status, popularity, and experience. If we state that all editors have equal authority, then we remove the opportunities for status, popularity, and experience to affect decisions. If nobody's status, popularity, or experience matters, then facts and logic are all that's left, and opinions are only considered inferior after being proven wrong with the facts and logic - that's the ideal, at least... Because of this, I believe "all editors have equal authority" is a better phrase than "all editors are equal;" I think it fits better with the nutshell section of RS:AEAE, which seems to be the spirit of the policy. Leftiness 01:17, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - per Dtm. Throwing AEAE out the window is not in the wiki's best interest, but clarification for the current policy is fine.. Andrew talk 02:09, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is not to throw out AEAE, even though it is an option. At the least, we need to rename the policy to match the content. The current title does not completely relate to what it is about and should be changed to do such. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 09:38, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Notice how I didn't just mention being against throwing it out. ..but clarification for the current policy is fine.. Andrew talk 16:50, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Some users have used it in situations it does not apply to, using only the name of the policy but none of the content to back up their positions. Changing the name would fix this, or at least remove any leverage it has in discussions when used incorrectly. The title is not clear. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 16:57, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Actually, I'd say the problem is that it says "all editors are equal" twice in bold and in the title. It only says that popularity, experience, etc don't affect the weight of opinions once in the nutshell section and once in the first paragraph (not in bold). People read the title and bolded statements and decided that those were the spirit of the policy; after all, if everybody were equal in every way, of course our popularity, experience, etc would not affect the weight of our opinions. Because of this opportunity for a logical interpretation that does fit the wording of the policy but does not fit what the community considers the spirit, I'd like to scrap the phrases "all editors are equal" and "we're all equal" and replace them with something that fits with the nutshell section, which is considered by many to be the actual meaning of the policy. Personally, I think "all editors have equal authority" would work for reasons I've already stated. Leftiness 18:00, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The policy doesn't really need to change, more some users idea of what it means need to change.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:58, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

What do you want to do. Go through and educate each of them on what it means? The best way to accomplish changing user's understanding of it is to rewrite the policy. HaloTalk 15:32, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support Rewname/Rewrite - There is definitely a need for a rename, and to a lesser extent a rewrite. ajr 16:56, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It's not our fault if some users have problems in understanding, the policy is perfectly well written. Per dtm. bad_fetustalk 11:49, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If enough people have trouble understanding the nature of the policy (which it seems to me, is true), then I think it is the fault of the so-called

"framers", and it's our duty to make it more...obvious. ʞooɔ 20:25, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, enough people don't have trouble understanding the policy. Does anyone that edited this page have problems understanding the policy? NO. Then it's not the policy's fault, it's the people's fault for not understanding the policy. bad_fetustalk 22:08, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
And it's our job to fix that. Surely you wouldn't let a confusing statement be put on an article than might mislead players? That's why we have the clarify template. HaloTalk 22:22, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you get my point. People can get confused by simply anything. Did anyone here ever got confused by that policy? No. Then it's not confusing. bad_fetustalk 10:19, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - As I said above, "Because of this opportunity for a logical interpretation that does fit the wording of the policy but does not fit what the community considers the spirit, I'd like to scrap the phrases "all editors are equal" and "we're all equal" and replace them with something that fits with the nutshell section, which is considered by many to be the actual meaning of the policy. Personally, I think "all editors have equal authority" would work for reasons I've already stated." Leftiness 18:00, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
That already is the spirit of AEAE, there is no need to treat our users as if they have no brain, they can understand it from the current version. bad_fetustalk 19:20, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - It isn't treating them as if they don't have a brain. It isn't that people read the policy and say it means something it doesn't say; it's that the policy says two different things, and we should remove the second to prevent any debate. The first version of the policy was basically just the nutshell section, and I honestly think the phrase "all editors are equal" was tacked on to give it a catchy name. In the current version, the phrase "all editors are equal" has been used more, but, as catchy as the phrase is, it's not true. In a policy, we should not use the end-all statement "all editors are equal" after carefully defining that it only applies to how an opinion is weighed in regards popularity, experience, and so on. The phrase "all editors are equal" should be scrapped and replaced with something that's true, and I think "all editors have equal authority" fits. Leftiness 20:23, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Unless you are a complete idiot, you can always see that all editors can not be equal, as nothing in the universe is perfect, and humans are certainly not. I never read what AEAE said before this thread was created, and I knew perfectly well what the point of that policy was. Seriously, nobody here is confused about that policy. That pretty much shows that it's not confusing at all.

bad_fetustalk 21:49, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It isn't that I'm a complete idiot, either. I personally agree with Endasil; I honestly think that all editors should be equal in every way possible, and I felt that the policy was worded in such a way as to support that. Meeting such strong opposition in direct contrast to what the policy says in bold and in the title bothered me, and it still bothers me. If we're going to say "This is what a policy means," then we need to say it in the policy, and we shouldn't contradict ourselves with the end-all statement "all editors are equal" when it isn't true. If the purpose isn't to avoid confusion or misrepresentation, then the reason is to avoid infuriating people like me with hypocrisy, stating that the policy is perfect as it is and then denying that all editors are equal with a statement like "it's obvious" and "nothing is perfect." Leftiness 02:11, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
Then why this morning did you tell me you agreed with the statement that "all editors are equal"? People disucssing this thread were none of the people using it for...the wrong reasons. I will work on some examples (taking you to the exact page) where it was used for the wrong reason and I will put them here. Hopefully then you can see why many of us see a problem with AEAE. HaloTalk 22:16, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Because I do agree with the statement that all editors are equal. The thing I understand from that name is what I just stated. bad_fetustalk 22:26, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Am I on crack or are the statements "all editors are equal" and "all editors can not be equal", both coming from your typing, in direct opposition to each other? HaloTalk 22:29, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that all editors can not literally be equal, but they should be treated equally, and AEAE expresses that very well. bad_fetustalk 22:45, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I can agree with that. Would you at least read my proposal and tell me what you think? (If you haven't already). HaloTalk 22:52, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Meh, it basically has no different from the current version, except that it's shorter, so I guess it's better. bad_fetustalk 23:01, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Agree - The First option is the best choice in my honest opinion, Its better to rewrite the policy with it's original intent and even better it.Dragon helm.pngSupergrunt8Dragon 2h sword old.png 14:10, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Would you take a look at what I've written up so far (look at the first section and click the button that says "(show)") and tell me what you think please? HaloTalk 14:21, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I like what you wrote there, though you seemed to simplify the policy which might be a good thing. I hope you have more to put in it.Dragon helm.pngSupergrunt8Dragon 2h sword old.png 14:39, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm mainly trying to keep it simple as people like to over-complicate things. HaloTalk 22:16, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Agree - --Jeffwang16 04:14, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Something in there doesn't make much sense to me - All legitimate points will have equal weight in a discussion. While that's a nice gesture, it's not true. Some legitimate points are...more legitimate than others. ʞooɔ 22:57, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Name Idea

Since no one else has come up with anything I just thought of something and I figure mine as well do it. Either just "Opinion Policy" (RS:OP) or "Legitimate Opinion Policy" (RS:LOP). Discuss these and/or other options below. HaloTalk 17:19, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Personally, I think "All Editors have Equal Authority" (RS:AEEA) would fit the bill, but I like "Opinion Policy," too. The title is so generic that it forces you to read the policy, and it avoids misinterpretation/misrepresentation that way. A link to or a mention of RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY should probably be included. Still, the same opposition of "It's perfect how it is" will likely apply to "Opinion Policy," as well... Leftiness 18:46, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

I just don't like the word equal in this policy. I don't think that's enough of a change to really stop the illegitimate uses of it. It would be better than AEAE, but I'd really like something without equal in it. HaloTalk 04:58, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
AEEA would not work because the name itself is incorrect. I do not have as much authority as Whiplash does to decide if Halo's RfA succeeds or not, for example. But on the other side I think that Opinion Policy is a good idea. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 08:00, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Whiplash will be deciding anything Lol I haven't seen him in quite a while lol. He means opinion authority, but you probably already knew that. I do like your point. Because basically it shows that this would lead to the same misconceptions as AEAE, which was my whole point in making this thread. I'd love to think of some brilliant title that everyone would love. UCS was a great one. But I've been sitting on it for weeks now and just can't think of anything. If no one else has any ideas I propose we change it to opinion policy in the next few days. HaloTalk 08:04, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Opinion Policy is a good name. It definitely counts as thinking of something, especially since the "brilliant" person who came up with the catchy title "All editors are equal" isn't looking so brilliant right now - at least in my opinion. Leftiness 11:08, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

I'm making it, we can always change it later. HaloTalk 16:46, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - No one else is commenting, has been left open for several more days. HaloTalk 17:56, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you want this to be closed now instead of waiting until we can agree upon any changes? That would mean leaving AEAE just as it is right now. Andrew talk 20:09, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is above. It's obvious people don't want AEAE, and no one has yet to object to what I have proposed. Which I put up like...a week or two ago. The name was the only thing left to agree upon. HaloTalk 20:14, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
Just because nobody's objected doesn't mean we've reached a consensus. There isn't enough support either. We need more discussion before this can be closed, or none of the changes can be put into effect. Andrew talk 22:03, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I just think that the current version is clearer and better written than what is being proposed. Dtm142 19:38, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Well the current version is being used to justify a bunch of crap. So come up with a fix instead of just criticizing. I think my version is much simpler and easier to understand. And I changed it to oppose, because "objection" sounds like you get some kind of veto-power. HaloTalk 04:21, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I really can't understand your view on this policy, Dtm. The proposed Opinion Policy makes few changes: it removes the phrase "All editors are equal," it removes the introductory paragraph, and it adds examples. I suppose I'm just frustrated; I would support carrying the entire "Appealing to a higher authority" section of AEAE over to RS:OP since it is better worded, and I would be fine with putting the introductory paragraph back into place even though it just repeats the nutshell section. While I personally think that RS:OP's wording is currently clear enough to get the point across, I understand that more eloquent language could be beneficial. My main point - the reason I was willing to overlook the simpler wording of RS:OP's current version is that the phrase "All editors are equal" is ridiculous, and I despise it. Leftiness 05:30, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Meh. I was going for simple, but that works too. Pretty much it takes out the equal parts...which is the parts most people had problems with. HaloTalk 05:37, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I disagree that one's experience etc. should not change how an opinion is weighed. For example, say in a discussion about reopening CC Rfrs (just using this as an example, I'm not quite sure how the wiki stands on this now) an admin Opposes saying "We have quite enough ranked users in the chat and people needing to be kicked isn't a big problem" and then an account barely 4 days old Supports saying "yaaa i wanna b able 2 kick ppl and stuff lol but i promis i wouldnt abuse it" Whose opinion do you value more? The admin's obviously, I think that it should be legitimate opinions to be equally weighed, however a "legitimate" opinion is not currently defined on this wiki to my knowledge. I agree with Dtm that the current policy is a lot clearer, and it should be kept that way. — Enigma 05:06, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

My version is almost exactly like AEAE minus the equal parts. The equal parts are what are causing the problems. My version gives examples, and I trust sysops can distinguish easily enough. Who cares if something's clear if it's a lie? HaloTalk 05:14, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
Meh, whatever. I'm changing to Neutral for the sake of it all. If this wiki needs to be fool-proofed, so be it. — Enigma 05:17, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
That's basically how I feel. The policy would be fine if we could all be mature about it. But some people don't have that ability or don't wish to use it. That combined with the fact that most people don't believe all editors are equal (including me) and the amount of times I've heard the phrase "AEAE aside" or something similar is what drove me to make this. HaloTalk 05:20, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus. --LiquidTalk 19:49, August 20, 2010 (UTC)