Talk: Administrators

This article is in a Phalanx. Good luck reaching it. This is an admins-only area. Only those with administrative powers can edit/leave a message here.

Socializing is Key, Make Sure You Do it Right! This is a talk page, please press "Add Topic" instead of "Edit this Page" when communicating. If you wish to reply to a user use the "Edit" option, but please leave your signature behind your response

• To support some thing use this:
  • {{Support}} - Support
  • {{Support|Strong}} - Strong Support
  • {{Support|weak}} - Weak Support
• To refuse to support something use this:
  • {{Oppose}} - Oppose
  • {{Oppose|strong}} - Strong Oppose
  • {{Oppose|weak}} - Weak Oppose
• If you have a neutral standpoint use this:
  • {{Neutral}} - Neutral
  • {{Neutral|strong}} - Strong Neutral
• To offer a comment:
  • {{Comment}} -

Talk:Administrators/Archive 1: Founding --> 8/12/2012

Bringing back the Advertisement Hub

This may seem like an arbitrary idea especially since many battles are simply advertised on chat and such, and the Ad hub was done away with for valid reasons.

But I would like to propose a new ad hub with some new rules and features that may help it be a useful tool on the wiki. First off the reason for Bringing it back.

• It seems that with the increased number of newer members that have come on (and I'm fairly new myself so that is saying something), many who either, can't come on chat, or choose not to, often have their battles buried in the wiki. Which is something no one really like but, with newer members it may detract from their experiences here.
• It would help keep track of some of the battles happening on the wiki at any one time (and with my proposed changes would also allow to see which battles are open and which have been written)

As for some of the basic ideas behind it-

• First, every battle starts off with a heading clearly, and this would be a fairly easy mistake to correct if someone fails to do so. and a link to the battle.
• Entreats on the add hub may add one or two pictures (i.e. a title card or images of the warriors ect.)
• Use of the new message buttons (see below)

In addition with this idea I have added two buttons to the wiki's source mode that might help.

The first, (the X) is used when the voting period is over, the author of the battle or an admin can visit that ad on the hub and use that button which simply displays the {{Closed}} template and displays this message

Voting is closed

The Second (the Check mark) can be added when the battle simulation is written (and when used in conjunction with a signature, can add a date to simulations and make finding BotM nominees a little easier.) This button uses the {{Written}} template and displays this message

Battle has been written

This basic format would allow users of the wiki to browse the add hub and see which battles are open for voting, which are closed and awaiting a simulation, and what battles have been written.

This proposal would be easy to maintain, and I believe has very little if any negative connotations. And For those that feel with Chat the Ad Hub is unnecessary, I will say that it allows a back up for advertisement so no one has to worry about their battle being forgotten. It would also help listing battles for BotM at the end of every month.

I understand this proposal isn't well organized but here it is. —Arrow^(talk)→ 22:16, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

- I find the beneficial for users and it provides a new form of organized advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Las Moore (talk • contribs)

Leolab - : TALK Strong Neutral. It failed miserably before, but I really don't care. Go ahead; it can't hurt.

- Like Leo said, it went to waste before, and there are other, easier alternatives, but it can't hurt in any way, so why the hell not. --Drayco90 (talk) 04:39, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

About teh User Tournaments...

Dr. Las Moore - "One does not simply walk into Mordor..." ― Boromir: TALK Problems have been developing with of course User Tournaments, more and more user tournaments are being made, and while they cannot start until one of the three currently running tournaments are closed, they have still been entry blogs that blog up the wikia activity. I propose a new sub-header on the Article Policy, so we can go into detail about what's allowed and not allowed involving User Tournaments. I also propose two new rules regarding them. Firstly, NO Entry blogs! Entry blogs should NOT be allowed if there are three currently running user tournies, if there is an open user tourney spot, an entry blog is allowed. Secondly, If a tournament which holds a spot is dead, it will be knocked off it's spot and can be replaced. What should qualify as a dead tournament is up for you to decide. Okay admins, thoughts on this? ﾚ∆ㄅ Mother 00:56, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Support We do need a limit on the user tourneys. However I think you need to work on your wording there about the "entry blogs". From what I can tell you are suggesting not allowing even the initial blog to be put up if the 3 spots are filled, as for that I'm Neutral —Arrow^(talk)→ 01:01, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Strong Neutral Way I sees it, we have a hard max limit- three user tournaments. I think we should have a page or somewhere easy for users to look for reference to see those three tournaments or to see if a spot is open. If there's no spot open, and someone tries something, the blog should have a warning left on it and be immediately locked, to allow the user time to place it on their page/sandbox to preserve the work, followed by deletion. What qualifies as a dead tournament should be what qualifies as a dead blog- if the blog for the last battle in the tournament is dead, and that user has appeared to stop working on it, we should consider it dead and close its spot. There should be a system in place where the user who lost his/her spot should be able to start it back up from where it was dropped if they simply lost track of time and want to continue it again when another spot opens up. --Drayco90 (talk) 01:38, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Leolab - : TALK :Entry Blogs: Strong Oppose. It's a nice way to create a que. Dead Blogs: Strong Support. Dead tourneys have to be brushed aside for new ones. If the author decides to reopen it - of if they just went on hiatus - their tourney should be moved to the top of the que. A Dead Tourney should be one where the blog for teh most recent battle has seen no activity for over a month, or for which there has been no further blog published for that amount of time.

We need to limit entry blogs we need to get rid of dead user tourneys, to make room for new ones

Neutral I really don't have strong feeling on this one way or another. Dead Tournaments should be dropped, and really don't think it needs to be explained why.--User:Swg66-Cambria ne'er can yield! (talk) 02:58, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Democracy

Dr. Las Moore - "A man chooses. A slave obeys." ― Andrew Ryan : TALK I have felt that regular users need more say in things around here, rather than letting just us, the admins, decide whether someone gets promoted or demoted, or we add a new rule. Many people feel the need to ask permission to try and start something new. So how do we, the admins and bureaucrats, feel about a democratic change for the wiki? It's clear there are two parties on this, so, how bout a change?--ﾚ∆ㄅ Mother 22:11, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

How is this a topic if you made no suggestion other than "more democracies!". there is no viable discussion here until you give us a specific suggestion such as what you feel needs to be more democratic.

Strong Neutral —Arrow^(talk)→ 00:13, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Adendum: We are not MLP, Cod, or Halo wiki. We are not that large. We already elect chatmods through elections (and normaly administration), but we are a small wiki so not much else can be democratized and work. In the end B-crats still have the final say. —Arrow^(talk)→ 00:19, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

We may not be that large but our userbase is growing, large and fast. Users need more say in the matter about what goes on. --ﾚ∆ㄅ Mother 00:29, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

You only adressed the adendum. "More democracy" is not a suggestion that anyone can discuss. Just state what you mean before any actual discussion can occur. Until then this whole topic is moot. —Arrow^(talk)→ 00:36, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

User Tourneys 2: This Time It's Personal

Leolab - : TALK So, since the previous talking got jack shit done, I'm laying out a plan for what we do about the situation of User Tourneys. 1) We organize a User Tourney Hub (lots of hubs for shit recently, eh?). It will have the following: a) A list in BIG ALL-CAPS listing which three tourneys are currently happening b) A que listing which tourneys have signed up for the next open spots 2) We have Clear and defined guidelines on User Tourneys. These include: a) One of Arrow's famous How To thingies; the previous ones need to be collected and put up at the top under the "policies" tab as a drop-down labelled "Tutorials" b) An easily enforced "Dead Tourney" policy. Proposed is as follows: A Dead Tourney should be one where the blog for the most recent battle has seen no activity for over a month, or for which there has been no further blog published for that amount of time. So... that's what I've got for now. Comments?

1.) a.) Strong Support, and as an additional note- it should be linked on the main page, possibly on the slider, so it's hard to miss and easy for anyone to get to for reference.

b.) Strong Support

2.) Strong Neutral, I don't really like the idea of standardizing the user tourney too much- just like I don't like the idea of standardizing battles.

a.) Strong Neutral on the idea of a tutorial for user tourneys- Like I said above, I don't like the idea of making a more defined guideline for them, and creating a tutorial would only advance that- we've seen completely new members make effective enough tourneys in the past, even without much formatting. I'm not against a guide to help with formatting stuff like a tourney, but a straight tourney guide would only standardize them as a whole. Strong Support on the idea of collecting those that we do have under a tutorials listing, because it would make it easy to access.

b.) Strong Support- but if the user running the tournament gives a heads up for some reason out of their control- like when my computer crashed earlier this year and I was without access to DF for a month, I think they should be given some mercy time or moved back into the que somewhere so they can continue the tourney at a later date. --Drayco90 (talk) 19:21, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, one important note I forgot- I was under the impression that "tournaments" featuring regular wiki warriors weren't effected by this- only ones run by user warriors. So, for example, the Nostalgia Tournaments and Video Game Tournaments would be fine because they were really just regular battles on the wiki. I thought these policies were in place to prevent flooding with fan-fiction glorification of ourselves beating each other to death. Is that not the case?--Drayco90 (talk) 19:26, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Leolab - : TALK That's why I want guidelines - something that easily deliniates what are user tourneys and what aren't. I would consider those User Tourneys because they are teams run by users - you obviously wouldn't. And as for 2 - I don't want to standardize user tourneys, either. I just want to give first-time users a guide to set it up so that don't have stupid setups like Ethank's

Strong Support My thoughts are the same as Drayco's to the letter. Though I don't think a how to page is really needed, nor would it work like the others.

In addition I would like to mention this scenario -if a user goes MIA while a tourney is in process and can't get a heads up before hand (such as internet going out), I think when they come back and a tourney has taken it's place it can go to the top of the "waiting" list for continuation. —Arrow^(talk)→ 22:27, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

The War Against Unfair Battles

Okay so I've been getting complaints about all the unfair battles going around the site for both real and fictional warriors, but mostly real warrios. So I've decided to set up a new rule on how real warrior battles should be played out

Real

1. All tribal warriors (pre-gunpowder) can only fight other tribal warriors.
2. Ancient warriors from the Mesopatamian era from before the rise of pre-gunpowder weapons such as pistols can only fight other warriors from that time space, should the battle be even on both fields (i.e. warriors with lesser or no armor should have weapons that are able to pierce heavily armored warriors.)
3. Warriors from the pre-gunpowder era to the early 19th century can only fight warrriors from that time space, should the battle field be even on both playing fields.
4. Warriors from the mid 19th century to the end of the Old West can only fight warriors from that time space. The Prohibition era warriors from the 1910's-20's can be counted as the end of the old west, so people can do cowboys vs. gangsters should the battle field be even on both sides (i.e. 19th century warriors should have automatic, sem-automatic, and bolt action weaponry. so no Al capone vs. General Lee)
5. Criminal Warriors from the 1930's to the modern time should only fight other criminal warriors an/or terrorists from that time space.
6. Terrorist warriors from the 1930s to modern times can only fight other terrorist warriors, criminal warriors, and guerilla fighters from that time space.
7. Military warriors from WW I to WW II can only fight other military warriors from that time space, so no WW II vs. Vietnam.
8. Standard infantry warriors from the 1950's to modern times can only fight other standard infantry warriors from that time space. They cannot fight Special Ops or Specialized Infantry
9. Special Ops can only go against other Special Ops and Special Infantry only.

Honestly when it comes to fictional warriors everything is pretty much debatable, but my rule still stands about God Warriors can only fight God Warriors and Normal Warriors can only fight Normal Warriors, however if we are able to start up the Demi-God Category this is how fictional battles are going to go

God Warriors vs. God Warriors, should the battleb befair on both sides.

God Warriors vs. Demi-God Warriors, should the battle be fair on both sides

Demi-God Warriors vs, Demi-God Warriors, should the battle be fair on both sides

Demi-God Warriors vs. Normal Warriors, should the battle be fair on both sides

Normal Warriors vs. Normal Warriors, should the battle be fair on both sides

okay now it's time for the Unfair Battle Rebuttle

Unfair Battle Rebuttle

Unfair Battle Rebuttle is a new method in removing really REALLY unfair battles from the wiki where three people can veto a battle to be deleted and have an admin delete the battle due to unfairness. and these are how the rules of this are set.

1. One person brings up the idea of the battle being unfair and must provide a valid reason why said battle is unfair, then they must get two other supporters who must clearly state that they agree to the protestors term and want the battle to be deleted.
2. The protestor cannot use old comments to support the deletion of the blog. If the claim goes without any support within one week then it is invalid.
3. If a user who thinks the battle is fair , provides a reason why, and also gets two other supporters, then rebuttle from before is invalid; however if there is no one to support it then it is also invalid.
4. If it comes a time for an outstanding challenge, then it will be decided via voting poll.

​

Now I usually don't get involved with matters like these most of the time, however this is a subject that must be delt with and I assure you, these rules were made for the DF wiki in mind,

So what do you guys think?

Leolab - : TALK So, let's split this up: Real: Weak Oppose. Example - Deadliest Warrior's Pilot Episode: Apache vs Gladiator. It CAN be fair, but it also can easily be unfair. Needs a little more thought. Support. Support. Support. Support. Support. Oppose. Again, can be fair given a competent writer. Oppose. Define "Special Infantry". Oppose. See above. Overall: Neutral by average. Fictional: Need better guidlines on a Demi-God and God warrior category, but overall Strong Support. Rebuttal: All in all, Strong Support. One tweak, though: There should be a rule saying that the battle CAN NOT be closed during an unfairness challenge - it prevents them from sneaking something under the radar.

We can remove The Native Americans from the tribal warrior section if needed.

Specialized infantry, such as The US Army Rangers and The French Foreign Legion.

Real

• 1.) Oppose. Sweeping generalities are never a good thing in a concept like this- there could easily be plenty of cases where a "tribal" warrior could still defeat a gunpowder-era warrior, it's all subjective. Obviously something like Apache vs. Green Beret would be ridiculous, but Apache vs. Pirate or something would be a much closer battle.
• 2.) Weak Support. It's still something of a generality, but I do think that in most cases the technology difference can and should be made up with tools that can help exploit the enemy's weakness.
• 3.) Oppose. Case-by-case basis, making a rule like this could lose some potentially interesting battles.
• 4.) Oppose. See above.
• 5.) Strong Oppose. Why? What does that even have to do with a fight being fair? I can't understand the logic behind this one.
• 6.) Strong Oppose. See above.
• 7.) Strong Oppose. Again, I still can see the case for a decent battle here, and I think rules like these would do more harm than good.
• 8.) Oppose.
• 9.) Oppose.

Fictional

• Weak Support. I think there could be a case for some battles that may not fall under these guidelines, but overall I think they'd work. We also need different names for God and Demi-God warriors- your usage of them is that characters like Superman qualify for Demi-God, while the name makes more sense as a group of warriors like Heracles. I think a new name and stronger guidelines on what those categories pertain to is vital before implementing a rule.

Rebuttals

• Strong Support.

--Drayco90 (talk) 15:32, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

My feeling are similair to Leo's on this, with some minor tweeks

1. Oppose. This I think needs to be tweeked, Tribal warrior can put up a good fight against gunpowder era warriors, depending of the level of developemnt of the tech of the gunpowder era warrior, early gunpowder weapons I think should be allowed against tribal warriors.
2. Support.
3. Support.
4. Support.
5. Support.
6. Support.
7. Oppose. Can can be done
8. Weak Support. Depends on the situation, specail forces can be a flexable term needs to tweeked a little, but overall you should have eilte warriors fighting fidder
9. Weak Support. Same reasons as above

Fictional: I pretty much agree here Support.

Rebuttal: Support

Swg66 --User:Swg66-Cambria ne'er can yield! (talk) 23:47, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Enforcing Unfair Battle Policy for past battles

Leolab - : TALK So we have our new unfair battle policies. However, there is still the problem of existing unfair battles. Inital step: I propose there be a short period of time in which users can bring unfair battles to admin attention. Unfairness will be counted in the same way as the Unfair Battle Rebuttal, with one caveat: if the problem is the weapons loadout, the battle should be rematched rather than declared unfair. I can come up with two ways to proceed from there; if there's more, let me know and I'll put it in as well. Battle is deleted entirely. Battle is kept, but declared unfair and removed from the battle status. For my personal opinion, I Strong Oppose #1, since it would nullify the author's work entirely, and Strong Support #2, since it lets a warrior have a proper record while respecting the original author's work. So... thoughts?

I concur with your own thoughts on the matter, Leo. Strong Oppose and Strong Support respectively. --Drayco90 (talk) 02:34, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

Strong Support for #2. I think that the process would be rather simple, 3 or so users could simply propose that the battle be declared unfair and at least two admins to agree for it to be removed. Also The blog should be left, but I'm in favor of not having it ont he warrior page at all. —Arrow^(talk)→ 04:55, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with this.

1. Oppose 2. Support

Swg66 --User:Swg66-Cambria ne'er can yield! (talk) 23:46, November 21, 2012 (UTC)