Talk: Chill Out

+1, and your mother's a whore. --71.229 06:35, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Technically, more of a guideline proposal than a policy. - PANIC! sexiness! 06:36, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

These kinds of things are almost always between two people, maybe we need something like two people talking back to each other about the same thing on a talk page more than 10 times and it's time to STFU. I'm guessing this is to prevent things like the epic walls of text that appear on Rapta's talk and the stupidity that gets people like Igor banned because they don't know when to STFU. The problem is most people don't know how to express their point in a precise, succinct way, I always have epic walls of text, but at least they are comprehensive god damnit. - Misery Is Hawt 06:46, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Your points are usually succinct. There's just a lot of them sometimes. And yeah, it's almost always between two or three people who end up in a giant wall vs. wall discussion on a build or the AN. Although, people like that 91.143 guy would fall under this, too. WvW isn't necessarily a bad thing (look at the discussion between GoD and I on his "ONOZ!IGOR!" rant) but when the conversation has no structure and begins to cycle downward into veiled insults then it's time to STFU. - PANIC! sexiness! 06:51, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Could of course need some elaboration to when it should be used; and why they should stop (i.e. very short note about ban now, may want to make it more serious). Overall I like the idea and think it's a good addition. Godbox 09:59, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Or u could always permaban them for trolling like Igor (twice). --- Ressmonkey (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

If they would STFU instead then there'd be no need for a ban. When to use this: Always. Also, this is about as serious as it needs to be. It's just a guideline that people should be reminded of when walls of bullshit start appearing in places like the AN. - PANIC! sexiness! 10:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

<3 — Skakid 11:34, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Should it be moved to another name with a redirect at STFU; such as NPA? Godbox 11:41, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

PvXwiki:Shut The Fuck Up. gogo. --Tab Moo 11:42, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

(ec)The name may be a bit harsh, I for one consider it to be quite good but consider that a new member may not like being told to Shut the fuck up. Should maybe be moved to a less... insulting name. Godbox 11:42, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

It shouldn't be literally used to tell people to shut the fuck up but whatever you want. A rose by any other name tbh. - PANIC! sexiness! 11:50, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

For Precedence I also cite PvX:DICK and Wikipedia:Please be a huge dick. - PANIC! sexiness! 11:55, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I have to say, it's looking pretty hawt and could be quite useful to insert into the next giant wall of text argument: PvX:STFU tbh. - Misery Is Hawt 12:12, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I disagree. Most people find "STFU" offensive and saying that to new pvxers trying to defend their build is not the good way to make them change their viewpoint. PvXwiki:Have a Break or something like that. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 16:54, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Heh, this is rather well written. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 13:43, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Does that mean you're in favor, then? - PANIC! sexiness! 14:00, 4 July 2008 (EDT) I'll get you, Skakid... next time!

Not as of yet. However, since this is rather a guideline rather than a policy, it's not really viable for enforcement, which means that this can be passed with little/minimal controversy. It's blunt, so it's my type of policy/guideline. However, that means that I'm pretty biased, so other users should weigh in. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I haven't actually seen any opposition yet... Admittedly there haven't been that many users on the page. This wouldn't allow more bans or anything, but would more give general users something to refer to in order to suggest two other users STFU, in the most polite way possible and might actually potentially prevent bans ;o - Misery Is Hawt 07:54, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Been 7, myself aside, that agree so far. Don't know what Ressmonkey's stance was. But tbh, noone will oppose this. As far as enforcement, etc, there's already precedence for warnings and bans if something gets that far and since this is meant to be the step before that, there's no real point in issuing a warning or whatever for violating it. Although I would love for Rapta to ban somebody for the reason: Refused to go outside and eat something. - PANIC! sexiness! 08:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

ILL DO EET -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 00:18, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

My stand is that I dont think its needed. If theres a problem, admin discresion, mediation, or other policy should cover it. I understand its supposed to be a non-banning guideline, but Id rather see people banned. Also, I have a feeling that this is gonna be cited in the wrong place because long amounts of text arent always under this policies jurisdiction, and some users wont realize that. --- Ressmonkey (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

The aim of this is to prevent problems and consequences. As we've seen in the past, bans aren't the end of the situation in a lot of cases; proxies and drama being the most common backlash. I thought "when it should be used" was clear but perhaps I should expand "when not to use this"? - PANIC! sexiness! 09:07, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

I absolutely LOVE it! And the page itself is worded very well. Would be cool to have a width:100% banner with a time stamp. Anyway, love the idea Choytw ~~ Talk+ 10:44, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Veiled insults

I believe this should be taken out since almost all of my edits now contain veiled (or just regular, old, out-in-the-open) insults and this would make it difficult for me to post without breaking a policy I wouldn't care about breaking in the first place. You cockbags. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 15:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

It's a guideline, be like Rapta, feel free to ignore guidelines. - isery (TALK) 15:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Linkie (more than 1). — Rapta (talk|contribs) 15:52, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I was demonstrating how to ignore guidelines with a veiled insult tbh, and if I wanted to link more than once I would link examples instead of guidelines ;o - isery (TALK) 15:59, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Also, veiled insults are useful --*Wah Wah Wah!* 16:01, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

That's what I meant, link to examples. =o — Rapta (talk|contribs) 16:01, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

talk has like 2-3 at the moment, archives for the rest ;o - isery (TALK) 16:03, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

More specific =/ — Rapta (talk|contribs) 16:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

It's specific enough. --*Wah Wah Wah!* 16:11, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh, GoD, you've violated policies and skimped out on guidlines here. That's specific enough. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 16:35, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey guys, shut the fuck up. — Skakid 16:18, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I will find all of your siblings, cut off their heads, and place my penis in their neckholes. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 16:34, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

And also no. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 16:34, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Questioning the nature

Is this policy needed? No, it's not. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 18:15, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

This name

Is terrible. If some told me to "PvX:STFU" I'd take it about as badly as if they just flat out said "stfu". And even if they worded it differently, like "Hey, this conversation is heating up, lets PvX:STFU" or "Forget about this, or we'll be banned by PvX:STFU" it would still be hella awkward and still insulting. There's no way to word this so it doesn't appear offensive or ill meaned. And who wouldnt want, anyways. It states that the point of this is to stop heated discussions, but in a heated discussion no one is ever thinking about lowering wiki drama, they're probably only going to use it as a veiled insult. Even if they weren't the person on the receiving end would take it wrong anyway. The only way this would work is a heated discussion between two very mature, good humored people, which is rare on this wiki, and a conversation between two such people would never become borderline NPA anyways. This policy is pointless and will be abused until you get a proper name for it. Jax010//healingp=0 23:33, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Its a gewd concept but yeah i love the name but it will be abused sooo i would put like maybe...PvX:Intervention or PvX:Stop or something along those lines... idk-- 16:20, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

What about PvX:CHILL? ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 17:21, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

PVX:GETLAID imo. --› Srs Beans R Srs 17:22, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

PvX:CHILL sounds awesome!! 23:03, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't get it, we need a policy so we know when to tell someone to chill out? Lame. Victoryisyours (talk/pvxcontribs) 19:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)

People don't give a crap unless it's a policy. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 00:43, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I still think this policy isn't needed at all. If it's already getting to the point where its pointless conversation, just tell them to chill out. Waving a policy that says to chill out does the same thing. We might as well have a policy for ups... Victoryisyours (talk/pvxcontribs) 06:59, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I think we should have a PvX:anymoretheeviscerateexecutionersstrikespikedontworkthatmuchbutitsfairlyeffective.veryweakagainstanytypeofanti-meleeandshockisacostlyinterruptskill for whenever some1 posts that PWNAGEMUFFIN crabs 00:56, 21 November 2008 (EST)

A policy for one build is a waste. Anyway, it would be PvX:AUTISTIC. And discuss the policy, not random stuff. -- Guild of Deals 07:23, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Guideline

Personally this feels more like a guideline than a policy to me. So i'd like to ehar what other people think, to see if we should change it to a guideline =) ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 07:37, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I originally proposed it as a guideline tbh. Breaches end up falling under stuff like NPA and DIS anyway. - 07:42, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Keep as a policy imo. People can get really annoyed while arguing and say lots of crap that doesn't fall under NPA. I think Misery linked to this to stop a rather pointless discussion between me and Pika Fan. ---Chaos- 07:54, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Tbh, I don't even care what the difference is between a policy and a guideline. Semantics imo. - (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2009 (EST)

"People don't give a crap unless it's a policy. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 00:43, 21 November 2008 (EST) " ---Chaos- 08:01, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Dont was implying that the difference between breaking a guideline and breaking a policy is that policy infractions are bannable (excluding cases of ad hoc Admin judgements ofc.) - 08:06, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I realize that. And I prefer banning people over having them say "it's just a guideline". ---Chaos- 08:08, 12 February 2009 (EST)

If they continue being retarded, they'll get banned anyway tbh. If they don't, then it's not serious enough for a ban so why make this a policy? - 08:15, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Tbh, I'll ban people for breaking a guideline just as easily as if they broke a policy. I'll ban people for breaking no rules at all if they are just being retarded. - (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Do as you find best, banning people is anyways your job. ---Chaos- 08:23, 12 February 2009 (EST)

drama llama

-- 16:24, 18 February 2009

That damn thing creeps me out. God Zefir 16:26, 18 February 2009 (EST)

The green one is worse D: crazycow 16:26, 18 February 2009 (EST)

What is worse than pink? D: --—The preceding trolling attempt was made by Chaos (talk) . 16:27, 18 February 2009 (EST)

everything -- 16:46, 18 February 2009

This thing is a penis with legs. Just imagine that running toward you. God Zefir 16:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Try to stop me (from imagining it). (→17:09, 18 February 2009 - )

There's a reason to why all KJ's sigs look so shocked. --—The preceding trolling attempt was made by Chaos (talk) . 17:10, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Oshi --—The preceding trolling attempt was made by Chaos (talk) . 17:13, 18 February 2009 (EST)