FANDOM


  • Blog Policies do not do enough to clean up bad blogs, so I would like to propose that they be amended to add the following requirements for blogs:

    • Blogs must not be low-effort.
    • Low effort blogs are any blogs that:
      1. have less than three paragraphs / sections that are four sentences each
      2. have less than 250 words.
      3. have less than 2 links &/or one image.
      4. are difficult for readers to digest.
      5. have the majority of its focus be Off-Topic (as defined by Blog Policies).

    —Made into a full Community vote by Ursuul.Vote ends Sunday, December 10th

    Users must have either the Verified Tag[1] or a Medal to vote. Please vote using replies, since Kudos are currently not working properly.

    Footnotes

    1. Users with Staff-related Tags such as Former Staff are considered Verified.
      Loading editor
    • Kudos this reply to approve this proposal

        Loading editor
    • Kudos this reply to reject this proposal

        Loading editor
    • We want high-quality blogs our readers want to read, not walls of text!

        Loading editor
    • My computer for some reason is having a technical glitch so here is my vote: Yes I approve of this proposal

      I think this is a great step in the process of overall blog cleanup

        Loading editor
    • I approve.

        Loading editor
    • Can you please kudo vote Graviatar?

      @Captain your vote will be counted.

        Loading editor
    • Hey wait a minute, wtf? I REJECT this proposal.

      1. Blogs shouldn't have to have paragraphs....or they should be able to have, like two. It's stupid that someone isn't able to briefly announce something in our blogs anymore, like "Hey I'm leaving for a while here's why have a great day". This is what you call lenient?!

      2. Granted.

      3. Also stupid. Same example as above: not all blogs need pictures and links!! .....I don't even know why y'all think this is a god idea.

      4. Sure!

      5. Yes, exactly.


      Overall, I think these are terribly strict rules because of rules 1 and 3, which are unnecessary and block perfectly good blogs for no reason at all. I hope a bunch of people come to strike this down, and I personally think that rules 2, 4 and 5 are enough to regulate blogs on this wiki. Just consider the example blog:

      "Hello, fellow wikians. I've come here to tell you that I will be gone for three months because I have lots and lots of exams to study for, and I'm going to Cuba where my sick grandma is. I'm sad I have to go, but I'll be back before you know it. Merry Chrysler everybody ;)"

      See, no links or images needed, and briefly tells you what you need to know. I would think this blog is fine (you'd need to make it a little longer but y'know...), but it would be eliminated under these new rules, which I despise. So much for having basic, pretty-lenient rules for our blogs.

        Loading editor
    • Hello, fellow wikians. I've come here to tell you that I will be gone for three months because I have lots and lots of exams to study for, and I'm going to Cuba where my sick grandma is. I'm sad I have to go, but I'll be back before you know it. Merry Chrysler everybody ;)
      Those two rules were included because they A) stop people from making low-effort posts (& to be fair, one paragraph is low-effort & you very well know it), & B) they encourage people to write blogs that are actually pertinent to the Wikia. If you have to link to the Wikia, then you’re more liking to talk about the Wikia &/or game & not something completely random like what I just quoted above.

      In point of fact, even under the current minimalistic Blog Policies, what you just gave as an example wouldn’t be allowed at all because it’s not relevant to the Wikia in any way, shape, or form. Blogs aren’t just random waste bins; the entire Wikia & many outsiders can see them, so naturally they should have a certain minimal amount of standards.

      Also, funny thing I noticed; you said OK to 250 word requirement, yet the example you just gave barely tops 50 words & so would be thrown out xD
        Loading editor
    • Hey FYI everyone, there’s currently a bug with the Kudo voting so two people now have tried to vote in favor but their votes don’t show up. Please be sure to voice your vote as a very clear reply so that we know what you voted for.

        Loading editor
    • My Kudo isn't working due to a bug Ursuul mentions may have occurred, so I'm just gonna say here that I am in favor of the new requirements.

        Loading editor
    • Ursuul wrote:

      Hello, fellow wikians. I've come here to tell you that I will be gone for three months because I have lots and lots of exams to study for, and I'm going to Cuba where my sick grandma is. I'm sad I have to go, but I'll be back before you know it. Merry Chrysler everybody ;)
      Those two rules were included because they A) stop people from making low-effort posts (& to be fair, one paragraph is low-effort & you very well know it), & B) they encourage people to write blogs that are actually pertinent to the Wikia. If you have to link to the Wikia, then you’re more liking to talk about the Wikia &/or game & not something completely random like what I just quoted above.

      In point of fact, even under the current minimalistic Blog Policies, what you just gave as an example wouldn’t be allowed at all because it’s not relevant to the Wikia in any way, shape, or form. Blogs aren’t just random waste bins; the entire Wikia & many outsiders can see them, so naturally they should have a certain minimal amount of standards.

      Also, funny thing I noticed; you said OK to 250 word requirement, yet the example you just gave barely tops 50 words & so would be thrown out xD

      I said (MAKE IT A BIT LONGER), damn it. And that is on topic, because you're saying you'll leave the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • It's too bad you guys said you would have reasonably lenient blog policies, and then came up with all this, which is way too strict.

        Loading editor
    • The only thing about the Wiki that is mentioned is “Wikians,” but even that’s just an address. The content of that blog has literally zero to do with the Wikia or the game, it’s just a personal service announcement & that’s it.
      We did, & we do. This is in addition to that, a change, since several of our Staff found the policies to be lacking. If this gets thrown out, then we can just trim down the proposal (perhaps to remove some of the points you had issues with) & vote on it again.
        Loading editor
    • Here are the votes as of Friday.

      For Against Disqualified Voters
      Ursuul Ozziene Biscuit12345
      The Tidal Wave Grudgeholderr Pichu0927
      Banarama Tungster24 Khitrish Mapping
      Captain Hayden Utkar22
      Graviatar Teamerz
      Zathsu
      Electro7101
      Diepmon
      TheGoldenPatrik1
      Nobellion
      Aufmerksam
      Kurofox zero
      GellyPop
      QUEEN AYSHA
      If any part of this table is inaccurate &/or anyone on this table changes their votes, please let me know so that I can correct it.
        Loading editor
    • I voted against. No blog policies or I will use my wall for such things. I will not make blogs if there are strong blog policies 🙅‍♀️🙅‍♀️

        Loading editor
    • Thanks for reply-voting, I’ll add your vote to the table.

        Loading editor
    • Yay kudo voting works for me again :D

        Loading editor
    • Voting in favor of stricter policies. I haven't been active much due to irl stuff, sorry.

        Loading editor
    • Voting in favor of stricter policies as well; I want this wiki to be professional and clean.

        Loading editor
    • I think users should have the right to make whatever blogs they want because it is technically in their namespace.

        Loading editor
    • Voting in favor of blog policies as long as the said policy is not used tyrannically.

        Loading editor
    • Grudgeholderr wrote:
      I think users should have the right to make whatever blogs they want because it is technically in their namespace.
      What do you mean by that? Also, just to confirm, you did mean to vote against? Kudos been buggy lately.
      Nobellion wrote:
      Voting in favor of blog policies as long as the said policy is not used tyrannically.
      Define “tyrannically.” The rules are rules, they do what they say they do. Do you mean, “using a strict interpretation”?
        Loading editor
    • i approve because my computer gets 10X laggy due to walls of texts

        Loading editor
    • Even though you do approve, your vote doesn't count because:

      1. you don't have the Verified tag. Please edit articles to get this
      2. you don't have Medals. The easiest was is to get 1000 edits OR by helping extensively in future projects
        Loading editor
    • I like it all but maybe chill it down like jeez ı dont want to upload images to my blogs thats weird

        Loading editor
    • I have some other alternate regulations (just in case people dont like it.) Sorry but I have three lol

      1) Light

      -Must not be spam

      -Must have 40 words

      -Must have 4 sentences

      -Must be easy to digest

      2) Medium

      -Must not be stupid and not have bad grammar (if that's because you cant speak well please note it)

      -Must have 60 words

      -Must have 6 sentences

      -Must not be stupid and not have fancy or non-everyday unicode chars

      -Must be easy to digest

      3) Heavy

      -Must have 90 words

      -Must have 9 sentences

      -Must not have non-everyday unicode chars and not be stupid

      -Must be easy to digest.

      DISCLAIMER:before you decapitate me about how this might not work I must say this,

      THIS IS AN IDEA, DOESNT NEED TO BE APPLIED, if you already responded, go out and drink orange juice with toothpaste

        Loading editor
    • TheGoldenPatrik1
      TheGoldenPatrik1 removed this reply because:
      useless
      19:40, December 4, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • Ursuul wrote:

      Grudgeholderr wrote:
      I think users should have the right to make whatever blogs they want because it is technically in their namespace.
      What do you mean by that? Also, just to confirm, you did mean to vote against? Kudos been buggy lately.

      Yes. I vote against. Blogs should be like user pages, and users should be able to do whatever they want provided it is not offensive.

        Loading editor
    • TheGoldenPatrik1
      TheGoldenPatrik1 removed this reply because:
      spam
      22:43, December 4, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • Grudgeholderr wrote:
      Yes. I vote against. Blogs should be like user pages, and users should be able to do whatever they want provided it is not offensive.
      Thank you for the clarification! That’s a fairly reasonable position & I respect that, although I disagree because blogs have fairly high-visibility, they feed out into several lists than just the user blog tab on your profile, so I regard them as partially belonging to the Community in the same fashion that one’s personal Conceptions do; while they belong to you, you have to meet a certain minimum of quality on them because you aren’t the only one interacting with them.
        Loading editor
    • Grudgeholderr wrote:

      Ursuul wrote:

      Grudgeholderr wrote:
      I think users should have the right to make whatever blogs they want because it is technically in their namespace.
      What do you mean by that? Also, just to confirm, you did mean to vote against? Kudos been buggy lately.

      Yes. I vote against. Blogs should be like user pages, and users should be able to do whatever they want provided it is not offensive.

      Thank you!!!!

        Loading editor
    • -Must have 150 words

      -Must have 15 sentences

      -Must not have non-everyday unicode chars and not be considered stupid/spam eg. "YOU GUYS I FOUND A PURPLE TRIANGLE I'M L337 HAHA BROS"

      -Must be easy to digest

      (I adapted Tung's rules to be even stricter)

      I think this would be good enough, or maybe just a little bit stricter would be acceptable. It sucks that this feels like a staff vs. some other non-staff issue so far though :/

        Loading editor
    • There are three non-Staff (four if you count the disqualified voter) in favor of this, & four against, with a Former Staff on each side. It’s fairly balanced amongst normal users, Staff just tip the scale. That said, Staff are still editors, they aren’t The Oppressive Aristocracy™ :P

        Loading editor
    • TheGoldenPatrik1
      TheGoldenPatrik1 removed this reply because:
      Moving reply.
      00:34, December 5, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • Ursuul wrote: There are three non-Staff (four if you count the disqualified voter) in favor of this, & four against, with a Former Staff on each side. It’s fairly balanced amongst normal users, Staff just tip the scale.

      That's my point.

      That said, Staff are still editors, they aren’t The Oppressive Aristocracy™ :P

      ......I guess.

        Loading editor
    • Is there any convincing reason that Message Walls cannot replace Blogs for personal updates/random junk? They're nearly as visible (at least to the people who care about them—users as opposed to random viewers) and those who comment actually get notifications. Because unless there is a convincing argument that blogs are better for this role than Message Walls, strict blog policies have every reason to be implemented.

        Loading editor
    • QUEEN AYSHA wrote:
      That's my point.
      If that was your point, it wasn’t what you said.
      QUEEN AYSHA wrote:
      ……I guess.
      *sigh*
      TheGoldenPatrik1 wrote:
      Is there any convincing reason that Message Walls cannot replace Blogs for personal updates/random junk? They're nearly as visible (at least to the people who care about them—users as opposed to random viewers) and those who comment actually get notifications. Because unless there is a convincing argument that blogs are better for this role than Message Walls, strict blog policies have every reason to be implemented.
      We’ve had problems in the past with people spamming their message walls so much that they completely flood RecentChanges. But yes, Walls could conceivably be used for this purpose, in moderation.

      At the end of the day though, if you want to post random stuff, that’s what the User namespace is, & always will, be for.
        Loading editor
    • TheGoldenPatrik1 wrote: Is there any convincing reason that Message Walls cannot replace Blogs for personal updates/random junk? They're nearly as visible (at least to the people who care about them—users as opposed to random viewers) and those who comment actually get notifications. Because unless there is a convincing argument that blogs are better for this role than Message Walls, strict blog policies have every reason to be implemented.

      Yes, and I wish I knew how to explain this with the proper terminology. They are though.

      EDIT: besides, that last sentence isn't true. If you're to operate entirely and only around that logic, this basically becomes a thing where y'all said "here's blogs make em good and not super short or stupid and make em on topic too but otherwise write what you want" then "JUST KIDDING we're gonna make you do all this extremely strict stuff and if you don't we're trapping you on your message wall rip you".

      That's obviously an exaggeration, but you get my point.

        Loading editor
    • It doesn't have to be eloquent, I just want some reasons. :)

        Loading editor
    • TheGoldenPatrik1 wrote: It doesn't have to be eloquent, I just want some reasons. :)

      Okay fine, I'll try my best (I guess????) here.

      1) It's just not the same in terms of visibility or general use. Even on Ursuul (THE MOST INTERACTIVE LEADER OF THE WIKI)'s wall, you can't really expect people to pay attention to stuff there and read it consistently, but you absolutely can with blogs. You just can't use walls as an announcement-y place like blogs; they're message walls full of spam and totally off-topic stuff and junk, and you can't moderate those at all without causing a public outcry. Trying to replace the idea of blogs with message walls seems absolutely preposterous to me.

      2) As I've said many times here, it's not really fair......crap, uh....it's not fair that this is the way you're implementing these?? I just can't focus enough to say this right, but like.......it's mean kind of to have rules that are too strict in my opinion like this. They're bad. Even if you have actually alright rules (like one that wouldn't include adding pictures and links), this is kind of an area that should be treaded carefully. After the complete elimination of article comments, the slow demise of forums, the quick increase in sudden and unexpected change after the merge (I can give examples???), and more it's fair that people might feel a bit trapped lately, especially the younger ones? I know we're trying to be professional, this just crosses the line of being too strict imo.

      3) A very weak point that I'm not even sure of myself but.....isn't it kind of good to have just ONE big, outward-facing place that isn't completely buried by heavy duty rules??? In layman's terms, here's a crazy idea: maybe there should be a little bit of quite visible slightly crappy stuff? Kind of going back to point 1, it's just....nice to....I dunno, have a place that isn't as strict as literally every other slightly visible part of the wiki, excluding message walls? Idk.....

        Loading editor
    • Discord

        Loading editor
    • I beg your pardon?

        Loading editor
    • The Discord

        Loading editor
    • What about it?

        Loading editor
    • It's just not the same in general visibility or use.

      Exactly. That's the whole point. Remember the article comment debate? It was proven that the early 20s age bracket didn't like the immature article comments; why would highly visible blogs be any different? And also, we want our more visible comments (like blogs) to be as professional as possible—message walls, which are less visible, not so much.

      As I've said many times here, it's not really fair......crap, uh....it's not fair that this is the way you're implementing these?? I just can't focus enough to say this right, but like.......it's mean kind of to have rules that are too strict in my opinion like this. They're bad. Even if you have actually alright rules (like one that wouldn't include adding pictures and links), this is kind of an area that should be treaded carefully. After the complete elimination of article comments, the slow demise of forums, the quick increase in sudden and unexpected change after the merge (I can give examples???), and more it's fair that people might feel a bit trapped lately, especially the younger ones? I know we're trying to be professional, this just crosses the line of being too strict imo.

      I agree with most of that. Too many rules are bad. But where do you draw the line? Should we not have policies about a highly visible part of the wiki? And shouldn't they be fairly strict?

      A very weak point that I'm not even sure of myself but.....isn't it kind of good to have just ONE big, outward-facing place that isn't completely buried by heavy duty rules??? In layman's terms, here's a crazy idea: maybe there should be a little bit of quite visible slightly crappy stuff?

      Again, something like this could drive off that early 20s age bracket, as well as other prospective users.

        Loading editor
    • Nobellion
      Nobellion removed this reply because:
      Double
      15:21, December 5, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • Ursuul wrote:

      Nobellion wrote:
      Voting in favor of blog policies as long as the said policy is not used tyrannically.
      Define “tyrannically.” The rules are rules, they do what they say they do. Do you mean, “using a strict interpretation”?

      I'm in favor unless the rules are used wayyyyy too orthodoxically

        Loading editor
    • Reject

        Loading editor
    • i disaprove we should allow people to do as they please and truely help pages i can get anti-vandalism rules but this is to strict if we do this then others cant hep the page grow better and we'ld be spaming block

        Loading editor
    • Hey Pichu, while we value your opinion, your vote cannot count because as stated above, you must have either the "Verified" tag or a Medal to vote.

        Loading editor
    • oh.. I'm sorry I've used Wikia for a long time but only recently got an account so sorry for interupting this

        Loading editor
    • You're fine; by all means, state your opinion, even if it won't be in the official vote.

        Loading editor
    • WHAT? Blogs are the people's pages, not yours, they can do whatever they should be able to, thats like forcing someone to make a godly user page, or forcing someone to have a ceirtan name. I disagree.

      I swear I'm gonna speak as polite and elegant as possible or IMPOSSIBLE if this happens. Just to mock those. Sir.

        Loading editor
    • You can't vote for this unless you edit articles

        Loading editor
    • TheGoldenPatrik1 wrote:

      It's just not the same in general visibility or use.

      Exactly. That's the whole point. Remember the article comment debate? It was proven that the early 20s age bracket didn't like the immature article comments; why would highly visible blogs be any different? And also, we want our more visible comments (like blogs) to be as professional as possible—message walls, which are less visible, not so much.

      As I've said many times here, it's not really fair......crap, uh....it's not fair that this is the way you're implementing these?? I just can't focus enough to say this right, but like.......it's mean kind of to have rules that are too strict in my opinion like this. They're bad. Even if you have actually alright rules (like one that wouldn't include adding pictures and links), this is kind of an area that should be treaded carefully. After the complete elimination of article comments, the slow demise of forums, the quick increase in sudden and unexpected change after the merge (I can give examples???), and more it's fair that people might feel a bit trapped lately, especially the younger ones? I know we're trying to be professional, this just crosses the line of being too strict imo.

      I agree with most of that. Too many rules are bad. But where do you draw the line? Should we not have policies about a highly visible part of the wiki? And shouldn't they be fairly strict?

      A very weak point that I'm not even sure of myself but.....isn't it kind of good to have just ONE big, outward-facing place that isn't completely buried by heavy duty rules??? In layman's terms, here's a crazy idea: maybe there should be a little bit of quite visible slightly crappy stuff?

      Again, something like this could drive off that early 20s age bracket, as well as other prospective users.

      I'm more focused now, lol.

      Your points are good, but I think overall user-satisfaction is a little bit more important than trying to reach those 20 year olds. We tend to forget that that's not our entire point of this wiki, and we're still just an info website about a game about shapes and shooting and tanks n stuff. The rules should be fairly strict, and I've specified exactly why I think these rules are too strict.

      @Banana: Some people just can't use Discord really well. I could explain in detail, but yeah, that happens.

        Loading editor
    • QUEEN AYSHA
      QUEEN AYSHA removed this reply because:
      people are just gonna attack me for saying this :/
      14:16, December 6, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • I think overall user-satisfaction is a little bit more important than trying to reach those 20 year olds.

      So it's better to have slightly more happy users (assuming free blogs make users more happy) than to attract new contributors and users?

      We tend to forget that that's not our entire point of this wiki, and we're still just an info website about a game about shapes and shooting and tanks n stuff.

      I really don't see how this has anything to do with what we're talking about. Could you elaborate?

        Loading editor
    • TheGoldenPatrik1 wrote:

      So it's better to have slightly more happy users (assuming free blogs make users more happy) than to attract new contributors and users?

      No Patrik, that's not what I meant. It's better we have all our users be a LOT more happy and not try to attract those contributors with these exact rules, than for our users to be thoroughly dissatisfied and maybe have a few extra contributors.

      I really don't see how this has anything to do with what we're talking about. Could you elaborate?

      That is why sometimes we make rules too strict, like this. Because we forget that.

        Loading editor
    • Khitrish Mapping wrote: WHAT? Blogs are the people's pages, not yours, they can do whatever they should be able to, thats like forcing someone to make a godly user page, or forcing someone to have a ceirtan name. I disagree.

      I swear I'm gonna speak as polite and elegant as possible or IMPOSSIBLE if this happens. Just to mock those. Sir.

      Mocking people won't help our cause, KM.

        Loading editor
    • I kinda feel though that new policies need to be implemented. I see a lot of blogs that need to be purged (Including some of mine) as they are really kind of spammy. I think that if we have these guidlines, people will still manage to act under this criteria and help move this wiki forward. I really don't see it as a problem but rather just a reinterpretation of what to say. And if you really want to convey your own ideas or personal opinions, then Discussions and Message Walls are good for creating topics while the chat and the Discord are useful for making live conversations about your personal feelings that may be unrelated about Diep. (Discord you can even create a private DM group which is insanely useful)

        Loading editor
    • We can't really give away something that the community uses, in a bid to attract new users, which may or may not work even

        Loading editor
    • QUEEN AYSHA wrote: No Patrik, that's not what I meant. It's better we have all our users be a LOT more happy and not try to attract those contributors with these exact rules, than for our users to be thoroughly dissatisfied and maybe have a few extra contributors.

      Does less strict blogs = more happiness?

      QUEEN AYSHA wrote: That is why sometimes we make rules too strict, like this. Because we forget that.

      Erm, could you restate this argument?

      Utkar22 wrote: We can't really give away something that the community uses, in a bid to attract new users, which may or may not work even

      We aren't giving away blogs, we're making them better.

        Loading editor
    • QUEEN AYSHA wrote:

      Your points are good, but I think overall user-satisfaction is a little bit more important than trying to reach those 20 year olds. We tend to forget that that's not our entire point of this wiki, and we're still just an info website about a game about shapes and shooting and tanks n stuff. The rules should be fairly strict, and I've specified exactly why I think these rules are too strict.

      I have to agree with that. This shouldn't be some fancy as fuck wiki where you have to be perfect just to be able to make a blog, when this was originally a place where we would give information about shapes shooting other shapes. "Oh yeah we have to attract new people" well maybe its gonna be easier to attract people if they dont have to follow two thousand rules that restrict 75% of the things you can do, sherlock.

      I'm not seeking for replies, thank you.

        Loading editor
    • I vote approve.Who knows, this might help me in the future.

        Loading editor
    • This shouldn't be some fancy as fuck wiki where you have to be perfect just to be able to make a blog…
      People, please take the time to actually read what has been proposed, thank you. These policies are not hard to meet at all, all they ask is that you put forth a modicum of effort, that’s it. Perfection is an extreme exaggeration.
      …when this was originally a place where we would give information about shapes shooting other shapes…
      We still are that place, but if that’s the only thing we should be, then perhaps we should disable all social features entirely & just have articles eh? Or maybe we could stop with the “we used to be about shapes” argument which doesn’t mean what Teamerz or Aysha think it means.
        Loading editor
    • Thanks Temz.


      Patrik

      1) Slightly less strict than this, yes. Lots of it.

      2) .......ok? As Temz said the wiki is centered around diep.io, an almost dead tank game that's very rudementary, and we keep forgetting that when we do...things in general on this wiki. I don't mean that just because of the way the game is we shouldn't be professional, I'm saying that these rules are stricter than the other ones, TOO strict, and quoting Temz "this shouldn't be some fancy as fuck wiki".

      3) He obviously meant giving away any and all freedom to make the blogs we want to make, not blogs themselves.

        Loading editor
    • Told ya there's a near unanimous hate for these polices by normal users, Ursuul. You just couldn't see people's opinions before.

        Loading editor
    • To prevent ozzieness blogs? (Xd)

        Loading editor
    • Slightly less strict than this, yes. Lots of it.

      While that may be the case for you, I would be much happier with better blogs.


      See Ursuul's post. ;)


      Again, see Ursuul's post. We aren't giving away any and all freedom.

        Loading editor
    • Kurofox zero wrote: To prevent ozzieness blogs? (Xd)

      😩 WHY?

        Loading editor
    • QUEEN AYSHA wrote:
      3) He obviously meant giving away any and all freedom to make the blogs we want to make, not blogs themselves.
      Exactly. I know that’s what you both mean, but it’s not what the logic of your argument implies, that’s why I said stop using that argument; it isn’t representing what you actually are trying to say.
      QUEEN AYSHA wrote:
      Told ya there's a near unanimous hate for these polices by normal users, Ursuul. You just couldn't see people's opinions before.
      There are four normal users for & five against. That is almost as far from unanimous as you can possibly go.

      At the end of the day though, even though that sentiment is literally counter to reality, even if it was true it wouldn’t matter. You have outright stated you are “uncomfortable” with Staff voting as equal members of this community, you who were a Staff member yourself. It seems to me that you’re implying we shouldn’t be voting so that a minority of the overall users on this Wikia can get their way.

      I don’t need to explain the issue with that reaction. I shouldn’t need to address someone who thinks that a large group of people to which I belong shouldn’t have a voice, but I do it anyway because I am expected to be fair & balanced to everyone, even to those who are uncomfortable with me having the same rights as everyone else.
        Loading editor
    • A minor addendum -- Discord is a great place for casual announcements that are preferably not in Blogs anymore

        Loading editor
    • There are four normal users for & five against. That is almost as far from unanimous as you can possibly go.

      At the end of the day though, even though that sentiment is literally counter to reality, even if it was true it wouldn’t matter. You have outright stated you are “uncomfortable” with Staff voting as equal members of this community, you who were a Staff member yourself. It seems to me that you’re implying we shouldn’t be voting so that a minority of the overall users on this Wikia can get their way.

      I don’t need to explain the issue with that reaction. I shouldn’t need to address someone who thinks that a large group of people to which I belong shouldn’t have a voice, but I do it anyway because I am expected to be fair & balanced to everyone, even to those who are uncomfortable with me having the same rights as everyone else.

      1. What are you counting?? I'm counting people who's votes are invalidated because they're not verified yet or whatever, because ya'know opinions, and I count me and Hayden and Uktar as not necessarily normal users because we were staff at some point which makes it 6 or 7 to 2? I can't tell what Biscuit-whatever-his-name-is said, there's lots of replies. That would be almost unanimous.

      2. Hey hey hey hey wait a minute, I'm not saying staff shouldn't vote, @ all you staff! I'm saying it's too bad that we're split on this in this way, and actually no I was just planning on telling you that if the staff do win, we should work a little bit (as always) at trying to reach a compromise here instead of just saying "here's the rules shut up about them", since the minority is large and very upset. I'm not implying anything of the sort, I'm tryna say you should just y'know, mentally acknowledge that "woah, the staff really like strict stuff and normal users not really". That's why it matters, and that's the only thing I'm implying.

      That last paragraph is scalding and now you're acting like you hate me, you're kind of putting words in my mouth. Show me where I said "Ursuul, you don't deserve your rights and you don't deserve to vote", show me. Because that's not what I was implying at all. And you should think that's not what I was implying, because that's actually really mean and not how I think at all. Sorry you thought that, Ursuul.

      (and so far this isn't derailed quite yet, because I'm talking about the importance of not overusing these rules if they do get put through, like Nobel offered)

        Loading editor
    • TheGoldenPatrik1
      TheGoldenPatrik1 removed this reply because:
      User request.
      14:47, December 6, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • TheGoldenPatrik1
      TheGoldenPatrik1 removed this reply because:
      User request.
      14:47, December 6, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • Yikes, no more debating. What I said is what I think, look at my comments above if you wanna know why I said what I said.

        Loading editor
    • QUEEN AYSHA wrote:
      What are you counting?? I'm counting people who's votes are invalidated because they're not verified yet or whatever, because ya'know opinions, and I count me and Hayden and Uktar as not necessarily normal users because we were staff at some point which makes it 6 or 7 to 2? I can't tell what Biscuit-whatever-his-name-is said, there's lots of replies. That would be almost unanimous.
      That’s a weird way to count. Also, Utkar is on Staff! If they agree with you, they suddenly are not Staff & are normal users, but if they disagree with you, then they are The Staff™ who are against the will of the normal users.

      But to answer your question, I was counting any non-Staff that were eligible to vote. Utkar is Staff, so that leaves 5 eligible non-Staff voting against, two of which are Former Staff. If you remove Staff from those voting for, you have Hayden, Kuro, Auf, & Electro, two of whom are Former Staff. There’s only a 1 person loss, & the number of Former Staff on each side is equivalent.

      If you include disqualified votes, then it becomes 5 in favor & 7 against, still far from unanimous. The only way it would look unanimous is when you deliberately apply different logic to each group.
      QUEEN AYSHA wrote:
      Hey hey hey hey wait a minute, I'm not saying staff shouldn't vote, @ all you staff! I'm saying it's too bad that we're split on this in this way, and actually no I was just planning on telling you that if the staff do win, we should work a little bit (as always) at trying to reach a compromise here instead of just saying "here's the rules shut up about them", since the minority is large and very upset. I'm not implying anything of the sort, I'm tryna say you should just y'know, mentally acknowledge that "woah, the staff really like strict stuff and normal users not really". That's why it matters, and that's the only thing I'm implying.
      I will not acknowledge that because that is not representative of reality, like I showed you with the numbers. It’s one (or two depending how you count) more non-Staff voting against than for, & overall it is a small minority.

      However, even though it is a small minority, I am always open to compromise & I am open to hearing those you suggest. Here’s a compromise I would be fine with; a grace period, we can give you until January, longer if you wanted, to clean up your blogs to make the transition easier. That’s just one concession I would be happy to make, & if you have others I would love to hear & consider them.
      QUEEN AYSHA wrote:
      That last paragraph is scalding and now you're acting like you hate me, you're kind of putting words in my mouth.
      For the record, I don’t hate you. There is no malice in what I’m saying, this is just open debate.

      Now, you complain I am putting words in your mouth, yet you say this:
      QUEEN AYSHA wrote:
      Show me where I said "Ursuul, you don't deserve your rights and you don't deserve to vote", show me.
      I never said you said this. I said…
      Ursuul wrote:
      …even to those who are uncomfortable with me having the same rights as everyone else.
      …which is backed up by this reply…
      QUEEN AYSHA wrote:
      See now! If there was no staff voting, there would be more people hating this than supporting it. I know that's off topic and I'm sorry, just makes me upset.
      Which, conveniently, was deleted very recently, although perhaps I should’ve said “upset” & not “uncomfortable”.
      QUEEN AYSHA wrote:
      Because that's not what I was implying at all. And you should think that's not what I was implying, because that's actually really mean and not how I think at all. Sorry you thought that, Ursuul.
      Water -> under bridge. Let us move back to the topic at hand, this back-&-forth over who-said-what is just going to hurt everyone’s feelings. Please, by all means lay out your compromise so that we can get a solution that works for everyone.
        Loading editor
    • Alright, what is going on?

        Loading editor
    • We were discussing the intent of those in this thread, their reasons for why they want or do not want these Policies. Now, we are talking about compromises that we can make in order to appease the minority who do not like these policies.

        Loading editor
    • Compromise Time™

      We talked amongst ourselves in Chat (log) & several of us agree that the requirement for links/images (as Aysh pointed out) are not really necessary, & we would be open to removing that clause.

      Aysh, would you vote in favor if that was removed? You liked everything about these Policies except the Links/Images & the length requirement. This would remove one, & leave you with only a single clause you don’t like; the rest you said you did like. Would you be willing to vote in favor if we made this change, or not? If yes, then I think we can have a mini-vote in this thread to have that change added to the petition, wherein if the majority of the eligible voters agree to the change we can amend the amendment (lol).

      If no one here is willing to change their vote for this compromise, then we won’t even bother with it & we’ll just let the Policies pass as they are; we have votes enough that we won’t need to compromise, so to everyone who is voting against; changing your vote to align with this compromise might be the only way you can get some of what you want.
        Loading editor
    • Ursuul wrote:
      We were discussing the intent of those in this thread, their reasons for why they want or do not want these Policies. Now, we are talking about compromises that we can make in order to appease the minority who do not like these policies.

      Its not really a true minority just a small group.

      Blog Policies seen unnesacary to me as a User blog could be anywhere from a Strategy to a message to the community,

      You don't have to read User Blogs. My Solution
      Simple Categories: Diep, News, Offtopic
      -Pi

        Loading editor
    • Also image requirments are unnescary. As even Staff Blogs only have one image usually.

        Loading editor
    • Will respond to compromise stuff later, at least a day before voting ends. Sorreh, I'm pretty busy rn. Oh, and if the suspense of my position now that there is a compromise is killing you....let's just say I'm a lot closer to changing sides now ;)

      Ursuul wrote:

      That’s a weird way to count. ....If [staff] disagree with you, then they are The Staff™ who are against the will of the normal users.

      Huh, now I realize it kind of is. Idk, at first I thought your way of counting was the weird way...But no, that last sentence isn't what I think.

      I will not acknowledge that because that is not representative of reality, like I showed you with the numbers. Even though it is a small minority, I am always open to compromise & I am open to hearing those you suggest. Here’s a compromise I would be fine with; a grace period, we can give you until January, longer if you wanted, to clean up your blogs to make the transition easier.

      I wouldn't care about a grace period, sorry. I think that might actually be counterproductive. This actually confuses me though, because I didn't think the blog policies would become retroactive?? You'd only have to clean up existing blogs if y'all were planning on deleting blogs???

      For the record, I don’t hate you. There is no malice in what I’m saying, this is just open debate. "blah blah stuff about what I said and yes Ursuul I completely get your point now"

      Alright, there was a misunderstanding.

      Water -> under bridge. Let us move back to the topic at hand, this back-&-forth over who-said-what is just going to hurt everyone’s feelings. Please, by all means lay out your compromise so that we can get a solution that works for everyone.

      👌🏽👌🏽!!

        Loading editor
    • Ursuul wrote: Compromise Time™

      We talked amongst ourselves in Chat & several of us agree that the requirement for links/images (as Aysh pointed out) are not really necessary, & we would be open to removing that clause.

      HELLLLLL YEA

      Aysh, would you vote in favor if that was removed?

      Short answer: I don't think so quiiiiiiiiite yet.

      (Slightly)Long(er) answer: It depends on tons and tons of things, but mayhaps I will. You asked for my version of a compromise though, so BOI YOU'RE GETTIN ONE

      ....;)

      You liked everything about these Policies except the Links/Images & the length requirement. This would remove one, & leave you with only a single clause you don’t like; the rest you said you did like. If [you change your vote to be in favor of this stuff], then I think we can have a mini-vote in this thread to have that change added to the petition, wherein if the majority of the eligible voters agree to the change we can amend the amendment (lol).

      That sounds awesome! :D

      If no one here is willing to change their vote for this compromise, then we won’t even bother with it & we’ll just let the Policies pass as they are; we have votes enough that we won’t need to compromise, so to everyone who is voting against; changing your vote to align with this compromise might be the only way you can get some of what you want.

      Well ok, that could've been worded a little better, XD. There's still a chance some people might flock here and tip the scales against this proposal. Anyways yeah, as I said that sounds fine.


      I've got somethin' up my sleeve, mates. This reminds me of back when Zathsu called me "a literal goddess" (=D) and said something along the lines of it was partially because I was good at convincing peeps to change their minds about stuff with my walls of text (lmao). Aysha's Counter-Compromise™ is gonna come soon :)

        Loading editor
    • 71.114.49.65 wrote:
      Blog Policies seen unnesacary to me as a User blog could be anywhere from a Strategy to a message to the community…
      You could do both under the proposed policies.
      71.114.49.65 wrote:
      Also image requirments are unnescary. As even Staff Blogs only have one image usually.
      Agree.
      QUEEN AYSHA wrote:
      I wouldn’t care about a grace period, sorry. I think that might actually be counterproductive. This actually confuses me though, because I didn’t think the blog policies would become retroactive?? You’d only have to clean up existing blogs if y’all were planning on deleting blogs???
      Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all policies are retroactive. We have already begun cleaning up bad blogs that do not meet even the current, lax Blog Policies.

      In point of fact, it was when me & The Tidal Wave were in the process of marking several of Ozziene’s blogs for deletion that we discovered that several of his blogs could not be removed under the current policies, even though almost all of them reasonably should be, that we realized the current blog policies were not nearly strict enough & thus needed to be changed (hence this petition). Ironically, Tidal used to be against strict blog policies/neutral on policies in general until he saw just how serious the problem was.
        Loading editor
    • Ursuul wrote: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all policies are retroactive....

      Well shit, I had no idea! That's a little odd in and of itself......meh, another conversation.

      In point of fact, it was when me & The Tidal Wave were in the process of marking several of Ozziene’s blogs for deletion that we discovered that several of his blogs could not be removed under the current policies....

      Are ya crazy?????? The "majority of focus can't be off-topic" rule singlhandedly eliminates this problem.

      ....even though almost all of them reasonably should be, that we realized the current blog policies were not nearly strict enough & thus needed to be changed (hence this petition). Ironically, Tidal used to be against strict blog policies/neutral on policies in general until he saw just how serious the problem was.

      Okay, but I and a bunch of others think they're too strict now, even though they're really close to being perfect with the compromise™.

        Loading editor
    • “majority of focus can’t be off-topic” isn’t in the main Policies, plus Ozziene was just the start. We want to be thorough, & not have to update the Policies every five minutes XD

        Loading editor
    • Welp, I am for this.

      • sees most of my old blogs not following the stricter policies

      Oh geez...

        Loading editor
    • Honestly, it makes no sense to me to have all these strict policies be fully retroactive, especially when some of our older blogs are part of history! Should we hide our despair in the days of the Gamepedia behind a userpage, or delete our cries for leadership of the Dawn Era? Those blogs aren't even visible anyway! Therefore, I propose to only apply these policies to blogs made on or after the twelfth stroke of midnight upon the 150th anniversary of the Canada Confederation in Ottawa (ie 1 July 2017, Eastern Standard Time)

        Loading editor
    • If they aren’t retroactive, then that kills basically the entire point of the policies; to clean up the eyesores. If we cannot clean up the vast majority of them, then sure, while new blogs might be acceptable, we’d still have a heaping pile of garbage as the foundation. I want the foundation to be solid, not spam.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I would like to preserve our past.

      If they're from a year ago, they won't even be visible and aren't eyesores in the slightest.

        Loading editor
    • I kinda agree, except for utter spam blogs.

        Loading editor
    • They are plenty visible. However, if we assume that they are invisible, then it won’t matter at all if we move them to user space. It makes no difference in visibility so who cares? Past = preserved, spam = removed.

        Loading editor
    • No, past = obfuscated — it will be harder to find for users who are actually looking, and have no difference for casual readers who stray away from highly outdated blogs regardless

        Loading editor
    • Ah, so you are admitting tacidly that the blogs do have high visibility & thus would cause the eyesore problem, since moving them to user space would indeed change the level of visibility. Thank you for your admission.
      Bottom line; History pages should hold history. I would rather see our history in a clean document than in a million scattered, low-effort, spam blogs.
        Loading editor
    • Ursuul, they do not have high visibility. Thank you for blatantly misrepresenting my position, giving away your low standards.

      My point is that they are not visible to average readers in either case, but moving them would hide them from editors who make a conscious effort to search for them.

        Loading editor
    • It is this simple; either they have visibility or they don’t. that’s it. & you know it won’t hide it from editors because search covers all namespaces. Therefore there is no loss in editor’s ability to find them, but removing them from the public blog feeds will make it harder for readers to find eyesores, since those feeds are easy to “browse,” but you have to know what you’re looking for for Search.

      Therefore, there is no loss beyond what is intended, & you know this.

        Loading editor

    • -Must have 150 words

      -Must have 15 sentences

      -Must not have non-everyday unicode chars and not be considered stupid/spam eg. "YOU GUYS I FOUND A PURPLE TRIANGLE I'M L337 HAHA BROS"

      -Must be easy to digest

      (I adapted Tung's rules to be even stricter)

      HEY WHO ADAPTED GO AWAES

      i want less strict :c

        Loading editor
    • yknow. I think next time we propose something, we should leave it open for a week to allow the proposer to incorporate compromises, & then vote. Would make it a lot easier to tweak the proposal itself without having to vote on the vote lol.

        Loading editor
    • Can we have old blogs stay, and new blogs follow this rule?

        Loading editor
    • I think just like article comments, we need to clean up and purge the blogs that really do not follow these rules in the slightest

        Loading editor
    • Captain Hayden wrote: I think just like article comments, we need to clean up and purge the blogs that really do not follow these rules in the slightest

      NO 🤬' KUDOS POLSE!

        Loading editor
    • @Ozziene, it's just what people agree with. Let's face it, many blogs are so spammy and inconsistent (Including some of my blogs I admit). It's just a way for us to clean up many of the mistakes that we left run rampant. It's a bush that we have left growing and unpruned that has created a canopy over our community we can't ignore, just like comments did. It's time in this new era, especially with Diep2.io coming out to bust out the shears and trim things down as a flood of new content is appearing here.

        Loading editor
    • Yay!

      Now that Diiep may eventually become an MMO the wiki activity will Spike.

      -Pi

        Loading editor
    • History has to stay though only blogs created afterwards should have to adhere

      Clean up is just unnessacary

      delete sheer spam and leave it alone after that!

      -P̴̨̗͎̭ͤ͒ͯ̐͊ͫͪͤI̝͉̙̩̪͓ͫ

        Loading editor
    • To summarise, my position is that only blogs created in the past few months should be purged to the full extent of the current rules, since few readers would dig deep enough to find blogs older than that while some editors would and would be hindered by blogs being moved to userspaces. Older blogs wouldn't be seen except by historians looking for them intentionally, so I believe only spam should be cleared out.

      Ursuul believes that we should go through and review all blogs regardless of how deep they are, as just being in the feed means they are somewhat visible to readers and must be cleaned up.

        Loading editor
    • Also, going through nearly 600 blogs is no joke.

        Loading editor
    • Considering the work ahead of us for Diep2.io & namespace merges, chances are good it would be low priority.

        Loading editor
    • We'd likely clean up the more recent blogs first.

      Also, I decided to allow that the policies be retroactive (meaning old blogs will be cleaned up) as long as the link policy does not apply to blogs created before the policies go into effect, and a category is added to all moved blogs.

        Loading editor
    • A Category to all moved blogs (only old blogs will be moved, newly created blogs will just be deleted outright) can be applied in either case. What should this category be called?
      If anyone agrees to the compromise on removing the link clause entirely, then that would also not apply retroactively & be satisfactory to you right Bana? Those who don’t like the policies get some, you don’t have to worry about that Policy affecting old blogs, you get your category, everyone else gets a decent standard for blogs. What’s not to like?
        Loading editor
    • Ursuul wrote: yknow. I think next time we propose something, we should leave it open for a week to allow the proposer to incorporate compromises, & then vote. Would make it a lot easier to tweak the proposal itself without having to vote on the vote lol.

      YEAH EXACTLY!!!! CAN WE EXTEND THIS A BIT SO I HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIKE TO DRAFT A COMPROMISE THAT I THINK WILL TWEAK THE POLICIES TO BE PERFECT

      AND PEOPLE STILL WANT MORE COMPROMISE!!!

      EXTENSION PLOX

        Loading editor
    • Not this time, most people have already voted. There’s a compromise or two floating out there, & we’ve already spent a lot of time on this (we need to focus on Diep2.io). It’s just a matter of whether this whole thing passes as it is, or if people start changing their votes to make any compromises laid out worthwhile, or if the whole thing is rejected & we revisit this next year. Nevertheless we will try that method next time.

      Everyone

      Since we may have to do a mini-vote just to get a compromise tacked onto this proposal, you lads will need to come to an agreement on what compromise you would be willing to change your votes for, by midnight on Friday at the latest. That way we can have all of Saturday & the majority of Sunday to do the mini-vote if necessary (the vote officially ends on Sunday but if people are voting I’m not gonna be unreasonable, it can end at midnight Sunday if necessary). If there’s no concrete agreement by then, then it isn’t worth it to the majority voters (who as it stands are slotted to get everything they voted for) to compromise with the minority at all, & we’ll just put forth a compromise we like & everyone can take it or leave it (likely Banarama’s partially-retroactive proposal). Btw, if anyone is confused about why we’d need a mini-vote, hover over this.[1]

      Footnotes

      1. Everyone has voted for what they wanted. If we change the proposal, then it isn’t the same thing they voted for (we’d effectively be twisting what they voted for without asking them first which is undemocratic & underhanded). To get around that, we’ll need the basically vote all over again, so we do that by getting the majority of those who already voted to OK this new version in order to have a majority in favor of the new proposal over the old proposal. Since not everyone who voted once may vote the second time, we’ll need some of the no-voters to become yes-voters for the new compromised version in order to achieve a majority.
        Loading editor
    • I'M TRYING OH DEAR I HATE TIME CONSTRAINTS

      CATCH ME HERE TYPING UP A STORM TOMORROW MORNING

        Loading editor
    • Ursuul wrote:
      A Category to all moved blogs (only old blogs will be moved, newly created blogs will just be deleted outright) can be applied in either case. What should this category be called?

      Maybe something like... 'Archived Blogs'.

      Although I don't think most blogs (including some of mine which are just pure trash) kinda sounded like they were.

        Loading editor
    • I will say this for the last time. I have no flexibility for compromise. I understand "But Wait! We should keep blogs so we don't delete our history!" Do you think Germany Kept Nazi Flags up all over the country after Hitler died? No. Blogs are a ravaged, twisted and tangled mess. I've seen everything from single sentence blogs, to blogs that are complete gobbleygook. I think I could tolerate the blogs that are about personal discussion and those can be archived. But the rest should be scrapped

        Loading editor
    • Captain Hayden wrote: I will say this for the last time. I have no flexibility for compromise. I understand "But Wait! We should keep blogs so we don't delete our history!" Do you think Germany Kept Nazi Flags up all over the country after Hitler died? No. Blogs are a ravaged, twisted and tangled mess. I've seen everything from single sentence blogs, to blogs that are complete gobbleygook. I think I could tolerate the blogs that are about personal discussion and those can be archived. But the rest should be scrapped

      Okay Hayden, calm down a bit mate. We think that the images and ;inks aren't necessary and I have a tiny bit more I'm gonna ask for in a few minutes.

        Loading editor
    • Presenting....

      Aysha's Counter-Compromise


      Disclaimer: Before you get mad at me for....well I don't even know, just something I say in this comment I guess, let me say that a) if y'all outright reject this proposal that's fine, but I won't be voting yes and will instead try to petition to get one or two of the clauses changed, and b) I'm open to keep talking about this aka what I want is really flexible and if you hate what I want it's probably because I'm trying to do this quickly because of the time constraint. Okay, so like......please don't yell at me...?


      • Blogs must not be low-effort.
      • Low effort blogs are any blogs that:

      1. (KEEP) Have less than four paragraphs/sections with four sentences each

      (BUT CHANGE) OR

      Have less than 20 sentences

      Reasons for change: Because sometimes really good blogs can be made that aren't split into at least 4 paragraphs. For example, one might make a blog with 3 paragraphs, a list of some sort, and then a two-sentence summary of something. Or a blog with two paragraphs and then a bunch of art for, I dunno, a contest or something. Having twenty sentences would, in my opinion, be enough that the blog isn't low effort. BUT I would totally increase the sentences minimum up to 30+ sentences, or whatever other people think constitutes high effort in terms of sentences. Just change this so that not all blogs need to have 4+ paragraphs, pretty please.

      2. (CHANGE) Have less than 175 words, BUT EXCEPTIONS CAN BE MADE FOR BLOGS THAT EXCEED EXPECTATIONS FOR MOST OR ALL OTHER CLAUSES (AKA VERY GOOD BLOGS)

      Reasons for change: I changed my mind about this clause when I realized how many words 250 words is. I've went and tested out writing random test blogs elsewhere and in my opinion, it's totally possible if you write really eloquently and write about a topic that doesn't need to be talked about for ages, to make a very good blog that's around 160 words long. I've upped it to 175 words but the absolute max I'd be really happy with lowering the minimum word limit to would be 200 words, which I think would fit nicely with the 20 sentence limit I proposed above. I'm a person who doesn't find it hard to write and write and write, but lots of people who I know can make great blogs could make said blogs 224 words long and then you'd delete them, and I don't think that's fair.

      3. (NUKE THIS CLAUSE)

      Reasons for change: Because y'all said you would. Tbh I no longer care about this clause, I'd be happy to throw in some random yet on topic image on my blogs each time I write one, but people who write blogs way more than me who are against this probably wouldn't be. So I mean, do whatever you want here. Idc.

      4. (KEEP!!) Are relatively difficult for readers to digest

      Reason for (tiny) change: Just throw whatever adjective in there that you think fits cuz specificity is key. Oh, and don't be idiots with enforcing this rule, aka don't get rid of a blog that's perfect according to all the rules except has mispelt the word "headers" to "heders" once because "tHaT'S dIffICuLT fOr rEAdErS tO dIGesT!!1!1!!"😏

      5. (KEEP) have the majority of its focus be Off-Topic (as defined by Blog Policies).

      Reason for no change: Perfectly fine clause that should be respected.

      Extra: All rules are under Ursuul and Banana's retroactivity exception-clause-thingy.


      TL;DR: Change clause 1 to include blogs with 20+ sentences that are not necessarily split into 4 sections, change clause 2 to lower the minimum word limit and include exceptions made by staff on a case-by case basis, nuke clause 3, and keep clause 4 and 5.

        Loading editor
    • So…

      • Blogs must not be low-effort.
      • Low effort blogs are any blogs that:
        1. have less than three paragraphs / sections that are four sentences each (20 sentences total is an alternative).
        2. have less than 175 words.
        3. have less than 2 links &/or one image.
        4. are relatively difficult for readers to digest.
        5. have the majority of its focus be Off-Topic (as defined by Blog Policies).

      I’m ok with some of this. The 20 sentences thing shouldn’t be added because we set up the paragraph/sections for a reason; we don’t want walls of text. No one is going to read a wall of text. This way, it forces blog makers to spread their content out in a more reader-friendly format. You said 200 words is your cap, I’m fine with that. Image/link requirement can go. Relatively doesn’t actually do much to that clause; it’s meant to be open-ended for mods to use their good sense, & adding relatively doesn’t change that in any way at all, so that can be added.

      Here is what I would salvage from that proposal:

      • Blogs must not be low-effort.
      • Low effort blogs are any blogs that:
        1. have less than three paragraphs / sections that are four sentences each.
        2. have less than 200 words.
        3. have less than 2 links &/or one image.
        4. are relatively difficult for readers to digest.
        5. have the majority of its focus be Off-Topic (as defined by Blog Policies).

      Would you be ok with that? Since the image/link requirement is toast we can let the Policies be retroactive, so Hayden you shouldn’t have to worry. I think even with dropping the word count by 50 / removing the link count, we’ll still get most of what we want, & it gets to be a bit more lax for those who would vote against.

        Loading editor
    • ^I can live with this

        Loading editor
    • I strictly cannot. It is an extremely blatant violation of my social acceptability in large posts. I want anyone to see what I say, including about my channel, emoji and agar.io 😩

        Loading editor
    • Ozziene wrote:
      I want anyone to see what I say, including about agar.io 

      It's the Diep.io wiki. Don't you think it would be better if it was related to our game instead of another game? I believe that Ursuul and Aysha's proposal is extremely fair and reasonable. It is a good middle ground to meet at and I 100% support. It is reasonable and it needs to be done, as it was done with comments because a lot of blogs, especially from a few particular users (Myself included), are complete gobblygook.

        Loading editor
    • Captain Hayden wrote:
      Ozziene wrote:
      I want anyone to see what I say, including about agar.io 
      It's the Diep.io wiki. Don't you think it would be better if it was related to our game instead of another game? I believe that Ursuul and Aysha's proposal is extremely fair and reasonable. It is a good middle ground to meet at and I 100% support. It is reasonable and it needs to be done, as it was done with comments because a lot of blogs, especially from a few particular users (Myself included), are complete gobblygook.

      wow captain you are a tad too strict dont you think?

        Loading editor
    • I'm just stating facts and rules that need to be implemented. The point is is that this community wants to go back to a simpler time where there were no rules. What happened? This community almost completely fell apart and there were many purges. But with strengthening policies, it keeps this wiki safe and defended. So am I being strict? Maybe. But is it for ensuring the future of the community? Yes

        Loading editor
    • Ursuul wrote: So…

      • Blogs must not be low-effort.
      • Low effort blogs are any blogs that:
        1. have less than three paragraphs / sections that are four sentences each (20 sentences total is an alternative).
        2. have less than 175 words.
        3. have less than 2 links &/or one image.
        4. are relatively difficult for readers to digest.
        5. have the majority of its focus be Off-Topic (as defined by Blog Policies).

      I’m ok with some of this. The 20 sentences thing shouldn’t be added because we set up the paragraph/sections for a reason; we don’t want walls of text. No one is going to read a wall of text. This way, it forces blog makers to spread their content out in a more reader-friendly format. You said 200 words is your cap, I’m fine with that. Image/link requirement can go. Relatively doesn’t actually do much to that clause; it’s meant to be open-ended for mods to use their good sense, & adding relatively doesn’t change that in any way at all, so that can be added.

      Here is what I would salvage from that proposal:

      • Blogs must not be low-effort.
      • Low effort blogs are any blogs that:
        1. have less than three paragraphs / sections that are four sentences each.
        2. have less than 200 words.
        3. have less than 2 links &/or one image.
        4. are relatively difficult for readers to digest. (COUGH COUGH THIS MEANS THE 20 SENTENCES THING COULD BE CONSIDERED DIFFICULT FOR READERS TO DIGEST IF ORGANIZED BADLY EG IN A WALL OF TEXT)
        5. have the majority of its focus be Off-Topic (as defined by Blog Policies).

      Would you be ok with that? Since the image/link requirement is toast we can let the Policies be retroactive, so Hayden you shouldn’t have to worry. I think even with dropping the word count by 50 / removing the link count, we’ll still get most of what we want, & it gets to be a bit more lax for those who would vote against.

      HELL YEAH Y'ALL ACTUALLY LIKE IT WOOOO


      Yes, I would be okay with that :DDDDD. Can we lower the word count just a bit more though, to 180 words? Just asking. And with the sentences thing, what about my examples though??? You're right about the walls of text thing, but what if somebody makes a blog about art they made for the wiki, and it's 3 paragraphs long with one paragraph that's 3 really well constructed sentences long, and then it has all their art with a one sentence caption underneath each of their pictures??? Can we have a sentence added to the clause saying there can be possible case-by-case exceptions for really really good blogs that aren't organized quite like that? If the answer to all those questions is no, fine lol. No matter what happens though, I'm really glad you like most of what I said, and.....

      I VOTE YES FOR THE NEW BLOG POLICIES


      ps: Cap'n, you're really good at debating! :D Before, I too thought you were being too strict, but you made such a good point about being too relaxed with rules and how stuff got pretty bad when we did that and now I realize you're completely right!

        Loading editor
    • So, my final counter-compromise would be:

      • Blogs must not be low-effort.
      • Low effort blogs are any blogs that:

      1. Have less than three paragraphs / sections that are four sentences each.

      OR

      Have less than 20 well-constructed, well-organized sentences. (NO WALLS OF TEXT ALLOWED)

      2. Have less than 180 words (but I'll completely drop this if Ursuul says no)

      3. Are difficult for readers to digest

      4. Have the majority of its focus be Off-Topic (as defined by Blog Policies).

        Loading editor
      1. I really want to insist on this. It’s pretty much an unwritten rule that Staff can be lenient if there’s a legitimate reason for it. I’d rather it say “X,Y,Z paragraphs” so that the majority of blogs makers in the future will try to follow that format, but if they do something unorthodox like you describe with the images (something that has happened rarely if at all) then we can give them a break with or without it being mentioned in the policies, it just needs to be outwardly restrictive so as to discourage people from trying to do stunts that most of the time will not end up looking good at all.
      2. You said you would be ok with 200, so I’d like to stick with 200.
      3. So don’t care about relatively? Cool with me.
      4. Ok.

      If you’re ok with that, then we can ask around to get the mini-vote going.
        Loading editor
    • The Finalized Compromise

      • Blogs must not be low-effort.
      • Low effort blogs are any blogs that:
        1. have less than three paragraphs / sections that are four sentences each.
        2. have less than 200 words.
        3. are difficult for readers to digest.
        4. have the majority of its focus be Off-Topic (as defined by Blog Policies).
        Loading editor
    • ^ Everyone who is agreed to the above, just Kudo that. We had 19 total qualified voters, so if exactly 10 qualified voters kudo that reply by Sunday the compromise goes through. Be sure to ask around for people to vote.

        Loading editor
    • My Kudos rarely, if ever, works right now, so I'll just say "I agree."

        Loading editor
    • good enuf

        Loading editor
    • Ok to rule 1 then, and yes this is perfect!!

        Loading editor
    • Make the language a bit looser yet still firm in the final draft, since I would not want anyone pulling hairs over a missing sentence or something of the sort. Something like "Low effort blogs are generally any blogs that" might be appropriate, not being so outwardly lax so as to encourage lazy blogs, but not so to-the-letter rigid so as to discourage actually good non-standard blogs.

        Loading editor
    • I think we can add that without even really needing to vote, since it’s just semantics & not any actual change in rules.

        Loading editor
    • "I agree."

        Loading editor
    • I cannot Kuddo vote. I agree

        Loading editor
    • I change my vote to yes, I do want these policies, good enough.

        Loading editor
    • So when does this voting end?

        Loading editor
    • WOOHOO YOU LIKE MY COMPROMISE YEET


      Look at Ursuul's comment about just saying "I agree"-but I'll save you the extra few seconds and say Sunday/tomorrow.

        Loading editor
    • Rules can always be changed... with another petition

      _____________________________________________________________________________________________________



      PI,

        Loading editor
    • Ursuul wrote:

      The Finalized Compromise

      • Blogs must not be low-effort.
      • Low effort blogs are any blogs that:
        1. have less than three paragraphs / sections that are four sentences each.
        2. have less than 200 words.
        3. are difficult for readers to digest.
        4. have the majority of its focus be Off-Topic (as defined by Blog Policies).

      Guys, the above has to pass 10 kudo votes or the original, stricter version will be approved instead. If you want looser blog policies, kudos the above NOW. Voting ends today.

        Loading editor
    • I kuddoed vote and it didn't count...

        Loading editor
    • I think we have 10 votes for the compromise!

        Loading editor
    • We do indeed.

        Loading editor
    • I am not Kudoing. I think these two points should be merged:

      • have less than three paragraphs / sections that are four sentences each.
      • have less than 200 words.
        Loading editor
    • HELLLLLLL YEAHHHHHHHHHHHH 10 VOTES YEEHAW

        Loading editor
    • Grudgeholderr wrote: I am not Kudoing. I think these two points should be merged:

      • have less than three paragraphs / sections that are four sentences each.
      • have less than 200 words.

      Clarify?

        Loading editor
    • Alright lads, sorry for being late, but I will add this compromised version to the Policies page now!

        Loading editor
    • Does this mean older blogs that don't follow this get deleted? Because I am personally thinking they should...

        Loading editor
    • Ursuul wrote: Alright lads, sorry for being late, but I will add this compromised version to the Policies page now!

      LIT

        Loading editor
    • Captain Hayden wrote:
      Does this mean older blogs that don’t follow this get deleted? Because I am personally thinking they should…
      Not deleted, moved to user-space. New blogs would be deleted however.
        Loading editor
    • Alrighty.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message