Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-4530750-20160228040801/@comment-5802325-20160301024846

Lor-break wrote:

Are call-outs something that people want? What makes them okay, and where is the line drawn? How are these things to be handled in the future? How far does it go? How far should it be allowed to go? What's alright, what isn't? Just to give my opinion on this part right here, I believe call-outs are useful, when written in a certain manner. If someone is calling someone else out then there's obviously going to be a vitriolic tone to some degree. The thing that makes it vitriolic or not is the definition. "filled with bitter criticism or malice". Most importantly is the word filled. If there's a bit of resentment in the call-out then so what? If it's vulgar and inappropriate for this wiki, by all means get rid of it. If it can be even remotely considered an informative article and one that evokes thought, much like the example shown here, then at worst I would say have them reword it to conform more in line with the hard rules. Specifically, in this case, naming. Naming is obviously a rule with a clear-cut definition. If any other rules are undeniably broken then have it reworded to fit those as well, but I believe any post that is capable of allowing people to make an informed decision or inform people of anything worthwhile should be given a chance. This obviously doesn't mean go onto the wiki simply to 'inform' people you don't like a person's roleplay style due to something you consider to be BS, but moreso inform people of real concerns and matters. For instance if someone on the wiki has a profile and repeatedly pesters members of a group for something after being told no by the admins themselves then informing people of that should be allowed. It lets people know "Okay, maybe I shouldn't approach this guy or girl because of this." This also opens up the gate for people to lie and try to shame people for things they didn't do, so I would ask a level of proof be included. Something that can't be denied. This would require a redrafting of this rule:


 * 1) Articles or blog posts made to defame other groups/people will be treated as either spam or hostile behavior and will be edited or removed accordingly. This is especially so in the case of direct offenses or attacks against individuals or groups.

Where is the line drawn between defaming and informing? Tone and level of proof. Firstly, let's address tone. You have the first tone, the inappropriate one, which involes a lot of swearing, poor grammar, lots of caps and an openly hostile tone. Example:

"This ******* killed my character! Don't rp with him! He's a ****! He's so overpowered and his character doesn't even make sense!"

Then you have the informative, professional tone. This one is very calm and while it may harbor a little resentment, it is much more polite and gives clear thoughts that can be used to formulate your own opinion. Example:

"I was recently rping with this character and noticed quite a few things that conflicted with lore. His character was supposedly a common peasent, yet had access to ancient magicks of a tier requiring an extraordinary amount of magical skill. He was also not able to provide a sufficient explanation and simply said he was "born with the ability". Even if this character were a Mahjarrat, and allow me to remind you all that he is a simple human peasent with no formal training, practice would be required. You don't see Khazard using blood barrage after all. He is generally a melee fighter, though use of the shadow realm seems to be something most Mahjarrat can do. Back to our main subject, this character proceeded to use several casts of Ice Barrage without any runes, another feat which should be impossible according to given lore, and consequently kill my own character due to his apparently unlimited magical energy and inordinate skill with no explanation as to how he got it. He also taunted me for several days afterwards before being added to my ignore list, I would not recommend rping with this person. [Insert link to proof here]"

That is an example of calling someone out the proper way in order for people to come to an informed conclusion on their own opinions. I should note that the above paragraph is nothing that has ever happened to me or anyone I know and I am not using this as a way to indirectly call someone out. This is simply a scenario I formulated based on different ones I've seen previously. This is simply my idea for what should be allowed and what shouldn't. This will likely put a bit more stress on the admins as people will likely abuse this new rule, if it is implemented, by either pushing the boundaries of how hostile they can be in their tone, or by refusing to include evidence. This is a sacrifice I feel is worth it though, as this seems to be the more moral thing to do. My morals are not everyone's morals though, so I can't honestly say that and speak for everyone, however I have given my opinion on how matters like this should be dealt with and I hope it is taken into consideration and discussed. Thank you. :) Keep up the good work!