Board Thread:The Seven Seas Court/@comment-25164591-20170206014338/@comment-25164591-20170206033616

Ned, utterly misguided, asinine, plain stupid, and dead wrong is rich coming from someone whose belief system is a set of revolving doors.

What's lazy isn't forgetting to mark profanity in a link or not noticing a frankly tame cuss word at the very bottom of the Youtube comment section. What's lazy is putting such tiny and shallow offenses under the same umbrella as actually cursing someone out in chat and then solemnly enforcing the policy in the first place. Do you realize the irony of making your 50th consecutive "leaving" blog and miraculously reappearing a few months later to make complete 180 on your views on profanity then call people incompetent, indifferent to the rules, and overly lazy and/or forgetful? You have ascended to the level of "old user who occassionally shows up to cause trouble, get a strike or two, then fade back into obscurity."

Yes, previous administrations have been "no-tolerance with regards to profanity." In ''chat. ''Swearing in links has been allowed for quite some time as long as it's marked. I fail to see how loosening this already superfluous restriction for Youtube is allowing "free-reign" on links containing swearing. You make baseless and slanderous accusations and strawman arguments against the motion because you're finding it difficult to find actual things wrong with it. You could at least feign worry that it would scare away new users; but not only are the prospects of getting new traffic a far-reach at best, but a user being scared away by swearing in a Youtube link are slim and laughable.

You're the only one bringing up "wiki politics." I have no idea why. It seems you're getting defensive for something no one is accusing you of.

Why the sarcasm regarding "abuse won't be tolerated?" Sure, that should be common sense, but some expressed concern that it could be abused, warranting that to be added on. The idea is that old users returning to spam profane content in chat won't be allowed. I'm sure you understand.

We are not a "democracy" no matter how much you insist you are. We are a wiki that, from near its inception, encouraged community input and has required community votes for large changes to the wiki, but the site itself is 100% run by the staff who make decisions that they feel are for the best. As Mallace put it, sometimes some users may disagree with the movements made by staff, in which case they are free to form complaints and petition that they be challenged.

But what really irks me about your argument is that you've completed the inevitable 360 of this wiki back to the classic "REEEEEE ADMINS DICTATORSHIP" argument. Childish and unfounded. It was a minor change which most staff agreed with as will likely be demonstrated over the next few days. It was later repealed by a staff member that supported it, run through the community, and finally put to a full staff vote. You're better than screaming dictatorship when you don't get your way.

"I think I've probably said enough. But to summarize, this rule is completely pointless, counter intuitive, stupid, misguided, unnecssary, and more."

Which Ned said that? It's hard to tell. Had this proposal been brought up by this time last year, you would have been in full support of it; you probably would have encouraged me to put it to a vote.

You are not Goldvane. You are Ned. Sometimes it's just hard to tell which Ned.

03:36, February 6, 2017 (UTC)