Forum:So we maybe protect all the polices?

Per the title. This is because I feel no reason for new users and IP's to contribute to them, plus is basically a vandal's home when it comes to vandalism. Please leave a message for Penro when you see something wrong I did. 21:51, 4 February 2016 (EST)

It is a point. I can't think of any real examples of recent policy vandals, but it's kind of like SW:ADMIN. There's no reason that anyone should be editing it. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:53, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Might be a good idea. Disaster Flare (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Check the history of SW:SOCK. Please leave a message for Penro when you see something wrong I did. 21:56, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Ahhh, okay. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:57, 4 February 2016 (EST)

This would just be autoconfirmed users only, right? Not admins only? Because with policy edits non-admins would still maybe need to be able to edit it. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:57, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Yep. Please leave a message for Penro when you see something wrong I did. 21:59, 4 February 2016 (EST)

That example happened today. I don't think that happens that much. -- Ethan(Discussion) 22:00, 4 February 2016 (EST)

I won't do it You'll have to convince someone else. I dislike this idea quite a lot, mostly because it seems overkill. It's a short step from protecting policies to protecting the whole SmashWiki namespace. Serpent King 22:16, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Please elaborate why it is overkill and why it is short step from protecting policies to protecting the whole Smashwiki namespace. Please leave a message for Penro when you see something wrong I did. 22:23, 4 February 2016 (EST)

The only policies that I have ever seen vandalized in my entire time here are SW:ADMIN and SW:SOCK. It's a short step because here's the path we're going down: Full protect SW:ADMIN -> Semi protect policies (this proposal) -> Semi protect SmashWiki namespace (most logical next step, should one take place) Serpent King 22:26, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Oh yeah, SW:NOTABLE was vandalized also, forgot about that. Serpent King 22:31, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Slippery slope arguments are usually frowned upon and have little basis. I think this is a good example of that. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 22:34, 4 February 2016 (EST)

In what way is my argument to be frowned upon? Serpent King 22:36, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Well, largely because it's a "slippery slope" argument. Assuming a chain of events will be triggered by a single action is usually no more than, well, an assumption. There's no way it can be proven or disproven, and when presented in an argument is usually ignored for this reason.

It's no different from saying, for example, allowing homosexuality will result in everyone in the world being influenced into becoming homosexual. Can you prove this will or will not happen? Not until it does. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 22:41, 4 February 2016 (EST)

These guys say it better than I can. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 22:42, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Eh even then, Serpent does have a good point about the fact that they haven't been vandalized much. I haven't seen many myself other than the examples he listed. Disaster Flare (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2016 (EST)

(reset indent) I do see why it would be unnecessary and am fine with it not being protected, I just don't like it when people use improper arguments. (Or improper anything really.) ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 22:48, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Perhaps you should review your own behavior then...I'm sorry, I just find this very hypocritical. Serpent King 22:52, 4 February 2016 (EST)