|
Proposal Archive
The following proposal has been discussed and is now marked as resolved. The page has been protected and now serves as an archive. Do not edit this page.
Date Resolved: August 14, 2015
|
|---|
Introduction
This is perhaps long overdue, but we should really be strict with this policy. I think it's self explanitory why I am making this proposal. In short, if a user is nothing but negative and causing trouble, they can be given an immediate 6 month block or more. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 19:30, August 6, 2015 (UTC)
Proposal
Add to definitions:
- Trolling - intentionally causing trouble, in which the user has no positive contribution to any conversation whatsoever.
Add to general policies:
- Trolling
- 1. Trolling is strictly prohibited.
- 2. Anyone caught trolling in chat or on the forums will be given an immediate block of no shorter than six (6) months from both chat and editing.
This discussion ends on Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 3:30 p.m., eastern time. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 19:30, August 6, 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
Support
Support - as proposer. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 19:30, August 6, 2015 (UTC)- Support - PrezDubs messagewall 19:31, August 6, 2015 (UTC)
Support - I think we should prohibit the trolls because they always cause trouble. ClocksNetwork (wall)- Support - I think it's obvious when one is a troll. Tan Ham Man 21:16,8/6/2015
- Support - I really hate dealing with trolls. --Patrick Star (Oh My....) 22:38, August 6, 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Nicko756 (M•C•E) Sign! 22:49, August 6, 2015 (UTC)
- Yes definetely! - I can't stand trolls ItsShehahnbro talk
- Support - ZeoSpark Talk Contribs Edits 03:29,8/7/2015
- Support - Trolling has gotten really out of hands nowadays — Rumpg46691 (talk) 15:37, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Sounds like a good idea
Auron May the odds be ever in your favor! 
07:03,8/13/2015
Oppose
- Oppose - 120d makes a good point. Tominator777 (Wall•Contribs) 19:39, August 9, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - 120d makes a good point. Neutral
- Neutral - While this is a good idea in theory, there is one major concern that this brings up. What if a blocker thinks that someone is trolling when the blockee is not? What if the blockee added their opinion to articles and didn't know it was not allowed? The definition you give is poor. Actually, as I am writing this, it seems like I am learning that this is more about chat or threads than articles, which is not at all self-explanatory. Mainly, my point is that this is somewhat a good idea, it is just that I am not sure that the blockers won't abuse this definition and just block people because they don't like them. 120d Talk Contribs 120d 20:56, August 6, 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral - Per above. -DeviantPooper
- Neutral - I was gonna support, but 120d makes some pretty good points. -BronySpongePenguin
- Neutral - 120d is right... -kittykat151
Neutral - While this is a good idea in theory, there is one major concern that this brings up. What if a blocker thinks that someone is trolling when the blockee is not? What if the blockee added their opinion to articles and didn't know it was not allowed? The definition you give is poor. Actually, as I am writing this, it seems like I am learning that this is more about chat or threads than articles, which is not at all self-explanatory. Mainly, my point is that this is somewhat a good idea, it is just that I am not sure that the blockers won't abuse this definition and just block people because they don't like them. Comments
- Change - Perhaps add that the blocked user may dispute there block on their own message wall. If the user is found abusing the message wall their privileges will be revoked. Auron May the odds be ever in your favor! 06:49,8/13/2015
Change - Perhaps add that the blocked user may dispute there block on their own message wall. If the user is found abusing the message wall their privileges will be revoked.