Thread:Silver-Haired Seireitou/@comment-18812574-20140307060449/@comment-18812574-20140308022158

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually for the idea of an "approval system," I just think there might be some problems with the concept so far that you (and others involved here as well) may have overlooked. My question on this point is: is there really a need to reinvent the wheel? Or are there ways we could improve the system that is already in place and perhaps amend to narrow down on some of these power issues. It seems like a huge undertaking to me, and one that might not be entirely fair to users. I'm not "whining," and I'm not attempting to play the "devil's advocate" here. I too think there is a serious problem with the quality of articles on here lately, I'm just saying that perhaps there is a better way of addressing it that does not involve so much government.

(But I may have said all that earlier)

1. ''"storm the site with power-crazed Ichigo spam being an infringement on users who take their work seriously." ''Vandalism and "Ichigo-spam" should be considered a violation of policy. But I don't think that's a valid excuse to police everything and everyone on a wiki. If we take the Manual of Style at face value all that is required is enforcement for it to be an effective protector against the infringement you mentioned.

2. ''"permission", it's a matter of assessment of skills. To force users to create a weak character and show their ability to focus on the important qualities of a character."''

Ahah, yes, there it is. I think this is what sums up my unease over the whole thing. You used the word "force" there, and although I agree that users should focus on the more important qualities of character you mentioned, this very militaristic approach has got me concerned. "Forcing" and "enforcing the law" are two very, very different things. Perhaps I'm really just against the perspective here. I don't sympathize with users who create junk articles, but I'll always be against regulation that is implemented by direct force. This loops back with my previous arguments.

3. Let me rephrase: I meant majority of the approval committee. But I do see your point. I was also concerned over the manner in which the committee was "elected," but I won't comment on that. (Volunteers are fine, but I would have preferred a vote.) And you said you changed the number anyway?

4. "must simply restrict themselves to only making Fourth Seat level characters and below from now on. "

Yep, this is what I was getting at here. The "restriction" part.

"This means any currently weak characters you've already made can't be made stronger."

This doesn't make sense to me. If a character is an active member of an RP or a fanon story, and an evolution of their powers occurs during the story, what then? Are we barred completely from that option? It seems antithetical to me. Isn't the purpose here to create quality fanon? If we aren't allowed to even edit our own articles, I don't see how that can happen.

This is really my beef with the matter. You can’t "legislate morality." Users have to decide of their own free will whether or not they will choose to follow the Manuel of Style. If they don’t the punishment is that their articles will get banned. But to force someone to take part in an assessment that hasn’t been implemented by a majority vote (at least, no clear vote) seems to contradict the idea of free speech and/or the internet creativity policies. Not to get in a political debate or anything here, but that is my honest opinion on the matter. Of course these things only apply to a public, or a commonwealth. To me it seems like wikis are, by nature, (largely) open to the public and thus public. So it seems logical for the majority to have a say in the manner in which they are governed. Not chaos, just, well… representation, I suppose.

I wouldn’t have an issue with this concept at all if this were a “private” community. And I know the idea’s been tossed around before. I would have been for it. Solves a ton of the issues we’ve been seeing on here lately without infringing our rights as creators because it would be our own choice to join the group, as opposed to a few imposing a law on the all. I would also probably be for the idea if it was a "quality of the article in general" approval system and not just a specific "power level" assessment thing, because that would in essence make the wiki a closed community. That’s mainly what I was getting at, I think. Sorry for being so long-winded.

P.S.

Two last things: In the article proper, you mentioned (briefly) something about "canon characters," and I'm assuming you meant the same standards apply to them. However, could you clarify this point a bit? For example, if I created an article of, say, Shunsui Kyoraku, and didn't change him in any significant way from canon (simply adding the necessary changes to fit with a fanon, let's say) would I still have to submit him for approval?

Another thing is, while a "bread-box standard" approach is great in its brevity, I've noticed that there seems to be some confusion over how that applies to races besides Shinigami. As a suggestion, perhaps you could give examples of what this would like in other races. "A menos class before removing their mask" or "a Quincy who is unable to use Vollstandig or Hiyanraku" etc. Just to clarify, not to be used as the standard.