From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Poll/Vote
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 28 November 2008 by Azaz129.

Recently there was a Grammar vote on the forum. It got locked as it really got out of hand.

  1. Yes, we need strict grammar rules 8% 5 Votes
  2. Yes, there should be some grammar rules. 34% 20 Votes
  3. Yes, but it should only forbid the use of 1337 20% 12 Votes
  4. No, the forums are fine as it is. 36% 21 Votes

It seems that the "yes" votes were added together to have the majority rule. So now the grammar rule in now in place. I really do not understand this. You cant add votes together to make a majority.

Greywolf1947 22:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as if a cabal has taken over the forums and pushing some "politically correct" attitudes somehow. This certainly doesn't show any sort of consensus but rather is attempting to push a viewpoint. Don't get me started about polling on forums/wikis, but this isn't a good thing. 21 votes against is a huge group of opposition, BTW. Certainly something of note in terms of a massive failure of consensus. --Robert Horning 00:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, as I said in the forums, it seems crazy to me to add votes together to get a result that, quite frankly, is not correct. There is one "No" option, and three "Yes" options of varying degrees -- You cannot combine all three Yes options and then say that more people voted for the rules, because they didn't. It's clear that the option with the most votes is "No", and that's the way it is. That would be like people combining votes in a presidential election: "Oh well this one guy got the most votes, but these other three candidates are really similar, so we'll just combine all of their votes together, and then the one guy out of those three with the most votes will be president." It sounds crazy, but that is just what is happening on the forums. Dark cavalier.png Regabuh (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I feel that I need to address a few issues here before this goes much further:
* I locked the thread because of heavy flaming. Users who opposed the grammar rules got out of hand. They started trolling and making personal attacks. This concluded with an extremely aggessive post by Sernions demanding that the thread be locked. At the time of locking, most users wanted the grammar rules to be changed. I simply tried to do what would please the most users. This is not an election for president. I don't recall any presidential election with a "no president" option on the ballot.
* The discussion is not over yet. I have asked for feedback about the grammar rules [ here]. I would like to work with users to develop a consensus as to which rules would work for everyone.
* I think that the actions of a few users should not punish the entire wiki. I would like to start the thread again in the near future if users can behave maturely.
* There is no cabal. I do not want to come across as a dictator, but there are very few administrators who actually moderate the forums.
* There are no policies or standards anywhere on the wiki as to what an acceptable consensus is for discussions on the forums. I think that this is the real issue that needs to be fixed before anything else can be done. Dtm142 02:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Community decisions are based upon consensus, not polling. This is clearly stated in here, which even leads this to breaking the rules of RsWiki. But then again, adding the votes altogether was not acceptable in the first place. Either way, there is something is definitely wrong in the poll results. SummoningSernions 01:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry the question is still not answered. Why was 3 yes's added together?. Also if you have to add votes together surely 1 and 2 yes votes equals 25 votes in total. 3 and 4 which in it self says NO 33 Votes. So how can this be. Why on earth would anyone give feed back to the rules that are now implemented when the outcome of the vote is rigged . Greywolf1947 03:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Grey, I have to wonder how you get "no" out of option 3, considering it even says yes...
Secondly, Rega, yes, they did, in fact, vote for a rule. It was all a matter of the severity of said rule, which also counters the point of not putting all 3 together.
However, in order to help curb the contraversialness of this, I'd like to forward a motion:
Let's take a second vote, a simple "Yes" and "No" vote. If we gain consensus on a rule, we take another vote to determine the severity. --Pikaandpi 18:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we do need a second vote with a balanced number of options for both yes and no. But I also think we need a lot more of administrators to moderate the forums. Recently it seems that threads are being locked just because someone disagrees with them. Then they say they locked it due to flaming and personal attacks even when there weren't any. We need more than one administrator on the forums. Prayer-icon.png Sir Lenehan File:Smite old.png|25px19:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It's time I spoke my mind here. First off, if we are going to have ANY fourms on this wikia, then we need to set clear policies as to who runs the fourms, the description of each power on the fourms, and what the general rules are. I am aware that there are fourm rules on here, but who is allowed to set and enforce the rules? I don't see how there is going to be a succeeding fourm on this wiki without creating the policies as to the chain of command on this fourm, general rules, punishments, power descriptions, and other features.
Second, regarding this "grammar rule" policy, honestly, is it really this hard to decide as to implement grammar rules on here? Yes, I know, people are sick and tired of reading fourms that have illegible meanings, but common sense should eliminate most of the problems we have with reading what other people want to say on here! If you cannot read what the person is saying, either ask for a clarification, ignore it, or, if several attempts to clarify the situation has failed, lock it if you can. Its just that simple. If someone on this fourm says something that you cannot understand, ask with respect to the author, and you may know what they are really saying!
Besides, none of us have the 'perfect' grammar, and from what I have seen on this fourm, there is really no need to introduce a 'grammar' rule simply because 90% or more of what I see on the fourms can easily be read, even without a clarification. And when I ask for a clarification, I rarely, if ever, have not understood what they were trying to say.
Third, as mentioned above, I have recently noticed that people are complaining about being 'banned' because they are making 'personal attacks'. And I have noticed that there are few, if any, pieces of evidence that indicate a personal attack. Don't take me the wrong way, I know what a personal attack is, but if you ban someone, you better have GOOD evidence to support your claim, because I have NOT found much in the way of evidence that directly links someone to a personal attack. Heres some advice for those who have fourm powers on this wiki:
"Fact before opinion. Use your disipline powers only if you have understandable facts, and state your opinions as if you were a regular user."
I am not trying to antagonize the fourms, nor anyone else on this wiki. What I am trying to say is that we must organize ourselves to be a better community, and we must also use our powers with responsibility. Yeah, I do believe that higher powers in this wiki are misusing their powers, but this topic is focused on the grammar rules, not on how administrators are misusing their powers. If you want to continue about this subject, either discuss it to me on my talk page, or create a new Yew Grove topic about it. It would be unwise to continue discussion about my third point on here.
Oh, and as for my vote on these 'grammar' rules? I vote no.--Pkthis 20:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If I could lock or delete posts/threads that contain incomprehensible grammar after asking the user to improve it several times, that would in essence be a grammar rule... Dtm142 21:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh, I see your point. HOWEVER, by the time the fourm is locked, it COULD be classified as spam, or the author of the fourm is just clueless. Here, I'll list an example to clarify:

Pkthis: lol that nub jsut died.

Dtm142: Can you clarify please?

Pkthis: lol he was only wearin blk armor

Dtm142: What are you talking about?

Pkthis: I got addy full hlm fro drp.

Dtm142: Ok, I don't know what your talking about, but this is pointless, so its locked.

So as you can see, not only was he using poor grammar, but he was also spamming the screen because he was talking about something that develops little, if any, of a main idea. We can understand what words he is saying, such as:

lol that nub jsut died=Ha ha ha that low-leveled player just died.

But if was something like this:

i wnt cm hom drnk

This would be a good example of poor grammar, because the statement above is illegible, not to mention it is also spam, because it would be a pointless message. If anything, heres what ill say:

"If nobody(and im talking about more than one admin too!) can understand what the person is saying, it is most likily spam, because it is illegible and displays a pointless message, so therefore, the topic should be locked."

Hopfully you understand what im trying to say. If not, ill try giving you another example.--Pkthis 22:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It makes you (in the dialogue) look bad. Nothing else really. I can understand what you say clearly. The grammar will take your post (about the pking drop) down in terms of intelligence, but it IS a legitimate post, not exactly SPAM either. In my year or so on another gaming forum I saw a lot of crap posts coming from users who typed "properly." A bunch of rants, veiled advertising, veiled flaming, you know the drill; and those posters only avoided any sort of block or punishment with verbose garbage people shouldn't be reading anyway...
tl;dr: "i got haxxed, can i haf advice" is much better than "Hey, fellow RuneScape players, what is your favorite adamant weapon?" May be coloured blue in the near

Pikaandpi Ok I feel that I have to explain why the number 3 vote is a No. I assume no one see's it the same as i do. I will try to explain it

::Yes, but it should only forbid the use of 1337. Now this is a computor language all on its own. Spelling and Grammar really dose not apply. The way i see it if the 4th vote was not there, they would of voted for that one. Not sure if it make any sense but thats how i read see it Greywolf1947 04:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"pure" 1337 can be used, imho, but only sparingly. [email protected]_3x4mP13. sometimes the language can be used to prove a point, sometimes it's just a garbage message that no one wants to decipher. if kdMAN22 makes 10 posts in 10 minutes in "pure" 1337, consider warning him. if PUREpk12 uses 1337 for the sake of irony or proving a point, or just an isolated post altogether, let it slide. just my thoughts. Earthere 04:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A huge part of the problem here is that there is a strong dis-connect between the forum community and the "wiki" community. I encountered that strongly when I first started the GEMW pages and sought to get consensus on the forums, only to discover that the wiki admins hardly even read the forums, much less considered any consensus reached there to be of significance to the operation of the wiki side of things.

I don't know why there are two different communities here, and there certainly are "wiki-only" users and "forum-only" users. A further confession: I have pretty much stopped even looking at the forums for anything and it has been months since I made my last post there. When this whole affair did flair up, I jumped over to the forums to see what was going on, but otherwise I never even bothered to see what topics were even being discussed.

I think this is a huge problem, and something that can and should be fixed, or at least bridged in some fashion. As an administrator, I'm not even sure what I'm allowed to do or not do on the forums, or what role I can do there. I do my best to take care of the wiki side of things, and I've done my battles against wiki-spam and blatant vandals, but I haven't even touched the forum admin tools. I checked recently and I have some administration options on the forums, but I'm not even really sure how to use all of the options.

As for the language purity issue... I don't care nor would I even consider that to be an enforcable rule (or at least something I would bother trying to enforce, even if it were an "official" rule). Achieving consensus on an issue like this seems to be futile at best, but I do understand the problems that those pushing for this sort of moderation guideline are facing and are trying to solve with this rule. Sadly, nothing is so clear-cut in real life when dealing with real people who try to push boundaries... which is exactly what is happening here.

That, BTW, is also the definition of a teen-ager, where they are hard-wired naturally to try and push boundaries to see how much they can get away with. Those of us who are slightly older have been burned enough that we no longer bother trying, but then again we get stuck in our ways and don't have as many original thoughts. This is just human nature. I just hope this issue can be resolved peacefully. --Robert Horning 05:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It now offical rules are in place. Just posted

This is official rules thread - not the official flaming thread. 

For those of you who are mathematically impaired enough to still not get it:

For Grammar rules: 64% - WINNER!

Against Grammar rules: 36%

How I got the 64% figure? Well, 100-36 is 64. Also, 8+34+20 = 64.

Why were they added up? If you haven't noticed, The Grammar rules are neither strict, nor just forbidding 1337. They are moderate. That is why the numbers added up so.

The need for the Grammar rules was also shown when people attemted to vandalize the poll with post containing intentionally bad grammar. If you can't have a mature discussion, you get the kindergarden treatment. This is the crap THE FORUM GETS DAILY  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greywolf1947 (talk).