SmashWiki talk:You are valuable/rewrite

Proposal to implement
I propose implementation of this proposal, as Toomai and I have undergone several stages of revision for this, and appear to have the support of several admins. Mr.  Anon  talk  20:20, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Support Anything to get BlindColours to stop yelling at new users. - Ivy 73 [[File:002MS.png]] 20:25, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Support. Blin dCol ours Thank you for reading my sig. 20:33, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Add something to what this guideline does not mean of "This guideline does not mean your opinion will always carry equal weight of another's regardless of your argument in a Wiki dispute ". Omega  Tyrant   20:43, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Written better and more substantially than the current guideline. Support Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 21:27, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Support with caveat. While this is definitely implementable, I don't think we can call it "you are valuable" anymore. I would rather change it to something like "User Equivalency Policy" or "All users are equal" something, since that's kind of what it's turned into. Toomai Glittershine The Brazen 21:30, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
 * I think it can still be called "You are valuable" because it is written in second person tense (with "you" statements and such). Mr.  Anon MatchupUnknown.png talk   21:33, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
 * I wouldn't support this becoming a policy, as we shouldn't punish users simply for not treating them as being equal to another. And the current name still fits. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 21:34, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
 * I have to agree with OT on this one. While I strongly support it's implementation as a guideline, it's not something that really fits as a policy.  Dokteur Pain99   23:40, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
 * What's the functional difference between "policy" and "guideline"? Toomai Glittershine [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Ghostbuster 06:49, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
 * It should not be called the "User Equivalency Policy", as it doesn't say that users are equal. Nor should it be called "You Are Valuable" any longer, as it says nothing of the value of any user. All it says is that every user has an equal right to speak freely without censorship (not including libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit a crime, etc.), and in my experience, that's called freedom of speech. I propose SW:FOS as the title. Returning to the point of policy or guideline: policy = must, guideline = may. I would describe this as a policy, as users must not, under any circumstances, feel that they lack the right to voice their opinion.  Penguin  of  Death   08:42, 27 October 2011 (EDT)


 * Oppose because this page honestly misses the point and achieves nothing the original page doesn't already. For some reason people on this wiki confuse the value of the user with the value of their arguments; this page was intended to deal with the former, not the latter. Consider the original text:
 * No matter how much time you've spent here, whether or not you are an admin, or even whether or not you are logged in, you are valuable. More importantly, you are not less valuable than any other user- not even admins. It is inappropriate to depreciate yourself by making comments like "But User:Example is a pro smasher, so don't mind my opinion as much as his," or "User:AverageJoe is an admin, so his opinion must be more valuable than mine." Wrong! Comments like these undermine the sense of community and the effort people have put into maintaining SmashWiki. You are just as entitled to question, suggest, or change Smashwiki as any other user, whether it is your first day or your first anniversary. Likewise, you have the same responsibility to follow our editing policies as every other user. Finally, your mistakes will be forgiven- just as they would be for any other user. 
 * This wiki in particular has a problem with people overestimating the opinion of admins, including Mr. Anon's first post on this page. It does (should?) not matter that admins in particular have supported a policy proposal; what actually matters is that the community in general supports the proposal. The sentiment that anyone is welcome to suggest changes to the wiki regardless of experience was better portrayed in the original, and I find it worrysome that nobody seems to recognize that that idea is simply nonexistent here.
 * Even ignoring the above, this policy is highly flawed anyway.
 * "If you are a registered user or even an IP, your input is welcome and you will be treated with respect, provided that you adhere to our policies and guidelines." I would argue that everyone should be treated with respect always. Even when users violate policies, it is inappropriate to abuse them-- see the principles found in QDV.
 * "Feel free to make yourself part of the community here. By doing so, you allow yourself to carry weight in many issues that rely on community consensus." No, users have absolutely no responsibility to be a part of the community in order to make their opinions heard. If this right here was my first post, I would still be right regardless of my lack of "being a part of the community"-- you have once again completely missed the intent of this policy.
 * "Administrators are not kings and in most cases will not act like such[...]" Poorly written and totally unnecessary, or at least it would be unnecessary if this policy portrayed the message it was supposed to.
 * "Do not make comments towards new users that appear to restrict their rights to the above. " Not even sure what you're talking about.
 * "As said above, being treated with respect means that you are expected in turn to be respectful to other users and to follow SmashWiki policies." Again, even when not treated with respect you are still expected to respect other users, including the offender. Temper tantrums have no place on the wiki-- two wrongs don't make a right in any case.
 * "This guideline does not preclude your experience or reputation in administrative matters. For example, experienced users and admins will generally carry more weight in requests for adminship" This line is probably the worst offender in this entire proposal and should be deleted immediately. It does not matter one bit whether the opinion being presented on an RfA is by an admin, by an IP, or a user who's been blocked 6 times-- the only thing that matters it the quality of their comment. If their argument is sound, their argument is sound. Stop pretending that experience or reputation has anything to do with that at all.
 * "while users with a long block history will be held to a stricter standard than others. " Again, what does this have to do with the principle that users are valuable? If someone has been blocked many times, they are still just as capable as providing quality contributions as anyone else (provided they aren't currently blocked). The distinction between users and their contributions seems to be completely lost here.
 * "This guideline does not mean that you can ignore what admins say. Administrators may not be kings, but it is expected that you (for example) stop doing something when they tell you to. " Poorly written, and furthermore what are you trying to suggest here? I can't think of any scenarios in which this would actually apply-- if someone is misusing YAV, then it needs to be clarified (something this proposal has failed spectacularly at doing).
 * "In such disputes, you will primarily be judged on the quality of your arguments, rather than your experience." Finally something good! Now if only you'd delete the rest of the page and just leave this in. – Emmett  10:28, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Yeah, this particular rewrite is kind of beside the original intent, which is why the rename idea came up.
 * When you quoted the original text of the guideline/policy, I had to go look up why it was changed since it seemed better than what we have now - only to find that I was the one that changed it to what it currently is under the idea that it could be twisted to say "all users are equally important regardless of their actions". So I now oppose this particular rewrite and am thinking about whether the original was better than the current, since the main complaint with the current was that it was too short (which the original would fix). Toomai Glittershine [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Wacko 17:24, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Yeah I've revised it to fit your concerns Emmett. Also, I based the RFA weight thing off of PenguinofDeath's statement on RAN1's talk page: "You're free to voice your opinion, but the opinion of an Administrator or Bureaucrat will most likely carry more weight. " Mr.  Anon MatchupUnknown.png talk   23:03, 27 October 2011 (EDT)