https://www.dandwiki.com/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Badger&feedformat=atomD&D Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T13:59:45ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.8https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Hooker_(3.5e_Class)&diff=606729Hooker (3.5e Class)2013-02-05T00:49:16Z<p>Badger: Undo revision 606586 by 67.212.63.6 (talk) Quadrupling damage for no apparent or discussed reason? No. Defend your changes on the talk page</p>
<hr />
<div>{{April_Fools}}<br />
{{DnD Base Class Infobox<br />
|img=<br />
|imgloc=<br />
|imgsize=<br />
|imgcaption=<br />
|rating_power=<br />
|raters_power=<br />
|rating_wording=<br />
|raters_wording=<br />
|rating_formatting=<br />
|raters_formatting=<br />
|rating_flavor=<br />
|raters_flavor=<br />
|status=Playable<br />
|editing=See Talk page<br />
|type=Skill Focused; Zone Controller, Chaotic Guy<br />
|desc=The hooker can you the power of her body two ways; to charm and distract, but also to grapple and attack.<br />
}}<br />
==Hooker==<br />
[[File:Hooker.jpg|thumb|200px|alt=Hooker |Hookers have ways of getting what they want, in any situation.]]<br />
We've all seen them, the scantily clad women leaning over talking to men in carriages, and running away from the sounds of the guard's footsteps. Hookers are as common in most towns as blacksmiths and tax collectors. Some hookers specialize in certain disciplines, becoming true masters of their art, and others are just doing it for a little while to pay their way through Sorcery School. Either way, the tactics and abilities that a hooker picks up during her "on-the-job training" can be applied to countless combat and diplomatic situations. Some adventuring parties find having a hooker in their party a serious drawback, and others find it a huge advantage.<br />
<br />
=== Making a Hooker ===<br />
<br />
'''Abilities:''' [[Charisma]] is the most important attribute of any hooker. However, most hookers will tell you that [[Dexterity]] is also very beneficial in their line of work. [[Constitution]] can help hookers ward off inevitable infections, and anyone living on the streets is recommended to have some [[Strength]]. [[Intelligence]] and [[Wisdom]] tend to be the lower stats of most prostitutes, and let's face it, almost all the people with high wisdom scores don't resort to street walking. <br />
<br />
'''Races:''' Any race; [[Humans]] and [[Half-Elves]] are the most common hookers. Full blooded [[Elves]] generally have too much self-respect to be prostitutes, but if you can find a elven hooker usually she's worth the extra cost (do make sure she's actually a she before you show the coin, sometimes it's hard to tell with elves). Gnomes and halflings make better hookers than dwarves and half-orcs, but that isn't much of an accomplishment.<br />
<br />
'''Alignment:''' Always Chaotic. Few, if any, cities have legalized prostitution. Even in cities where prostitution is legal, hookers tend to work outside the system, and under a complex bureaucracy of pimps, playas, mac daddies, ballas, hustlers and fly ghetto bosses with mad game.<br />
<br />
'''Gender:''' At first level a hooker must identify with a particular gender, and dress accordingly. For all traits pertaining to gender, treat her as the gender she dresses, which may not necessarily be her true gender. Some people like surprises.<br />
<br />
'''Starting Gold:''' 5d4x10 (125 gp)<br />
<br />
'''[[SRD:Race Descriptions#Starting Age|Starting Age]]:''' Simple.<br />
<br />
{| class="d20"<br />
|+<br />
<div>{{#anc:Table: The Hooker}}</div><br />
Hit Die: d8<br />
|-<br />
! rowspan="2" | Level<br />
! rowspan="2" | [[BAB|Base<br/>Attack Bonus]]<br />
! colspan="3" | [[SRD:Saving Throw|Saving Throw]]s<br />
! rowspan="2" | Special<br />
|-<br />
! [[SRD:Saving Throw#Fortitude|Fort]] || [[SRD:Saving Throw#Reflex|Ref]] || [[SRD:Saving Throw#Will|Will]]<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|1st|| class="left" | +0 || +0 || +2 || +2<br />
| class="left" | [[#Chaotic Cans|Chaotic Cans]] 2/day 2d4, [[#Distracting Cleavage|Distracting Cleavage]], [[#Spells|Spells]]<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|2nd|| class="left" | +1 || +0 || +3 || +3<br />
| class="left" | [[#Chaotic Cans|Chaotic Cans]] 3d4, [[#Payday|Payday]]<br />
|- <br />
|3rd|| class="left" | +2 || +1 || +3 || +3<br />
| class="left" | [[#What Did You Call Me?|What Did You Call Me?!]] 1/day<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|4th||class="left" | +3 || +1 || +4 || +4<br />
| class="left" | [[#Chaotic Cans|Chaotic Cans]] 4d4 3/day, [[#Free Hugs|Free Hugs]]<br />
|-<br />
|5th||class="left" | +3 || +1 || +4 || +4<br />
| class="left" | [[#Get Low|Get Low]]<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|6th||class="left" | +4 || +2 || +5 || +5<br />
| class="left" | [[#Chaotic Cans|Chaotic Cans]] 5d4, [[#Turn a Blind Eye|Turn a Blind Eye]]<br />
|- <br />
|7th||class="left" | +5 || +2 || +5 || +5<br />
| class="left" | [[#She be trippin'|She be trippin']]<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|8th||class="left" | +6/+1 || +2 || +6 || +6<br />
| class="left" | [[#Chaotic Cans|Chaotic Cans]] 6d4 4/day, [[#What Did You Call Me?|What Did You Call Me?!]] 2/day<br />
|- <br />
|9th||class="left" | +6/+1 || +3 || +6 || +6<br />
| class="left" | [[#Unrivaled Streetwalker|Unrivaled Streetwalker]]<br />
|-class="even"<br />
|10th||class="left" | +7/+2 || +3 || +7 || +7<br />
| class="left" | [[#Chaotic Cans|Chaotic Cans]] 7d4, [[#Familiar with Tongues|Familiar with Tongues]]<br />
|- <br />
|11th||class="left" | +8/+3 || +3 || +7 || +7<br />
| class="left" | [[#Sometimes I Fake it|Sometimes I Fake it]]<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|12th||class="left" | +9/+4 || +4 || +8 || +8<br />
| class="left" | [[#Chaotic Cans|Chaotic Cans]] 8d4 5/day, [[#What Did You Call Me?|What Did You Call Me?!]] 3/day<br />
|- <br />
|13th||class="left" | +9/+4 || +4 || +8 || +8<br />
| class="left" | [[#He Kept Me Up All Night|He Kept Me Up All Night]]<br />
|-class="even"<br />
|14th||class="left" | +10/+5 || +4 || +9 || +9<br />
| class="left" | [[#Chaotic Cans|Chaotic Cans]] 9d4<br />
|- <br />
|15th||class="left" | +11/+6/+1 || +5 || +9 || +9<br />
| class="left" | [[#He Kept the Pimp Hand Strong|He Kept the Pimp Hand Strong]]<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|16th||class="left" | +12/+7/+2 || +5 || +10 || +10<br />
| class="left" | [[#Chaotic Cans|Chaotic Cans]] 10d4 6/day, [[#What Did You Call Me?|What Did You Call Me?!]] 4/day<br />
|- <br />
|17th||class="left" | +12/+7/+2 || +5 || +10 || +10<br />
| class="left" | [[#Double Team|Double Team]]<br />
|-class="even"<br />
|18th||class="left" | +13/+8/+3 || +6 || +11 || +11<br />
| class="left" | [[#Chaotic Cans|Chaotic Cans]] 11d4<br />
|- <br />
|19th||class="left" | +14/+9/+4 || +6 || +11 || +11<br />
| class="left" | [[#Gentlemen Prefer Blondes|Gentlemen Prefer Blondes]]<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|20th||class="left" | +15/+10/+5 || +6 || +12 || +12<br />
| class="left" | [[#Chaotic Cans|Chaotic Cans]] 12d4 7/day, [[#What Did You Call Me?|What Did You Call Me?!]] 5/day, [[#World's Oldest Profession|World's Oldest Profession]]<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="42" class="skill" |<br />
'''Class Skills (8 + [[SRD:Intelligence|Int]] modifier per level, &times;4 at 1st level)'''<br/><br />
[[SRD:Bluff Skill|Bluff]] ([[SRD:Charisma|Cha]]), [[SRD:Disguise Skill|Disguise]] ([[SRD:Charisma|Cha]]), [[SRD:Gather Information Skill|Gather Information]] ([[SRD:Charisma|Cha]], [[SRD:Handle Animal Skill|Handle Animal]] ([[SRD:Charisma|Cha]]), [[SRD:Knowledge Skill|Knowledge]] (Opposite gender) ([[SRD:Intelligence|Int]]), [[SRD:Knowledge Skill|Knowledge]] (Local) ([[SRD:Intelligence|Int]]), [[SRD:Listen Skill|Listen]] ([[SRD:Wisdom|Wis]]), [[SRD:Profession Skill|Profession]] (Prostitute) ([[SRD:Wisdom|Wis]]), [[SRD:Ride Skill|Ride]] ([[SRD:Dexterity|Dex]]), [[SRD:Sleight of Hand Skill|Sleight of Hand]] ([[SRD:Dexterity|Dex]]), [[SRD:Spot Skill|Spot]] ([[SRD:Wisdom|Wis]]) [[SRD:Survival Skill|Survival]] ([[SRD:Wisdom|Wis]]), [[SRD:Tumble Skill|Tumble]] ([[SRD:Dexterity|Dex]]), [[SRD:Use Rope Skill|Use Rope]] ([[SRD:Dexterity|Dex]]).<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==== Class Features ====<br />
<br />
All of the following are class features of the Hooker.<br />
<br />
'''Weapon and Armor Proficiency:''' Hookers are proficient with simple weapons, the sap, and her acrylic nails, but not with any type of armor or shield. Armor of any type interferes with a Hooker’s ''movement'', which impedes on their ability to seduce.<br />
<br />
Hookers gain the natural attack Scratch, which uses five acrylic nails on each hand. A hooker's scratch does 1d2 piercing, or slashing, non-lethal damage. Acrylic nails threaten a critical on 20, which does x2 damage. However, the additional damage of a critical has a 75% chance to break all five acrylic nails on the hand used. If the nails break, Scratch can not be used on that hand until repaired, a full round action. If assisted by someone with 5 ranks in any [[SRD:Craft Skill|Craft]] skill, it is treated as a move action for the hooker, and an immediate action for the person assisting.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Chaotic Cans}} ([[SRD:Special_Abilities_Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' So there you are, minding your own business when the fuzz comes rollin' up on ya. They've got you cornered, and you can't go back to prison. It's go time, and there ain't no way you're losing. Two times per day, a hooker may attempt to unleash her chaotic cans against any lawful aligned creature with one normal melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus to her attack roll and 2d4 damage. If the hooker accidentally hits a creature that is not lawful, the extra damage has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day.<br />
<br />
At every fourth level the hooker gains an additional use of her Chaotic Cans ability. At second level and every even level after that, she adds and additional 1d4 damage.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Distracting Cleavage}} ([[SRD:Special_Abilities_Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' A first level hooker gains [[Distracting_Cleavage_(3.5e_Feat)|Distracting Cleavage]] as a bonus feat, even if she does not meet the prerequisite. If a Hooker already has this feat she may choose another feat for which she qualifies. <br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Spells}}:''' A Hooker can use the following spells as [[SRD:Special Abilities Overview#Spell Like|spell-like abilities]], which are drawn from the [[SRD:Charm_Subschool|Charm Subschool]] spell list. To use a spell-like ability, a hooker must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class (DC) for a saving throw against a hooker's "spell" is 10 + the spell level + the hooker’s Charisma modifier. The DC is increased by 2 for humanoids of the opposite gender. She gets access to the following spells, usable a number of times per day equal to her charisma modifier. She gets access to the spell at the given level.<br />
<br />
1st&mdash;[[Charm Person]]<br />
<br />
5th&mdash;[[Enthrall]]<br />
<br />
9th&mdash;[[SRD:Charm_Monster|Charm Monster]]<br />
<br />
13th&mdash;[[SRD:Symbol_of_Persuasion|Symbol of Persuasion]]<br />
<br />
16th&mdash;[[SRD:Mass_Charm_Monster|Mass Charm Monster]]<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Payday}} ([[SRD:Special_Abilities_Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' Sometimes after ''services rendered'', a customer is unwilling to pay. A hooker that can't make a profit won't be a hooker for long. Hookers learn to get whats owed, and sometimes they take a little extra. Whenever a hooker strikes with an "acrylic nail" attack she may make a [[SRD:Sleight_of_Hand_Skill|sleight of hand]] check (DC 17) as a free action to steal a bag of coins or similarly sized item off the person. If the hooker is out of combat and doing any other sorts of "touching", the DC is 12, if the person she's touching has anything to steal.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:What Did You Call Me?!}} ([[SRD:Special_Abilities_Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' Sometimes you win people's affection with your winning smile and ''can-do'' attitude. Other times you got to knock a sista' out. Once per day per four levels (minimum 1), a Hooker may enter a "Hooker's rage", during combat as a free action, which mechanically is identical to a [[SRD:Barbarian#Rage|barbarian's rage]].<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Free Hugs}} ([[SRD:Special_Abilities_Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' Hugs are free, but for anything else you have to pay. A 4th level hooker gets [[SRD:Improved_Grapple|Improved Grapple]] as a bonus feat, even if she does not meet the prerequisites. If a Hooker already has this feat she instead gains a +4 bonus to her grapple check.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Get Low}} ([[SRD:Special_Abilities_Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' Let's face it, when it comes to being pinned by a busty blonde or a vicious orc, the choice isn't hard. Whenever grappling a humanoid member of the opposite gender, the hooker's opponent must make a Will Save (DC 10+Hooker class level) or automatically be grappled. The opponent is denied all grapple checks (thus, automatically failing them) until he succeeds this will save. The DC decreases by 1 for every round the Hooker does damage to her foe. Any creature that makes this will save is immune to this ability from this hooker for 24 hours. Furthermore, she does not automatically fail a grapple unless the other creature is at least three size categories larger than her. <br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Turn a Blind Eye}} ([[SRD:Special Abilities Overview#Spell Like|Sp]]):''' At level 6 a hooker can turn herself [[SRD:Invisibility|invisible]], for a number of rounds equal to her charisma modifier (or until she attacks, whichever comes first). This length is doubled for Lawful Good-aligned creatures and halved for any creature with a chaotic alignment. While invisible she is also magically silenced. She can speak, but she is only heard by those who can see her.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:She be trippin'}} ([[SRD:Special_Abilities_Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' A level 7 hooker gains [[Improved Trip]] as a bonus feat, even if she does not have the prerequisites. If a Hooker already has this feat she instead gains a +4 to her attack roll on trip attempts.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Unrivaled Streetwalker}} ([[SRD:Special Abilities Overview#Spell Like|Sp]]):''' Streetwalkin' ain't easy. A well trained hooker can get where she needs to be, when she needs to be there. At level 9 a hooker can use [[Freedom_of_movement|Freedom of Movement]] as a spell like ability at will, but only at night, or in places with dim illumination (such as caves, alleys, red light districts, or particularly dark forests).<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Familiar with Tongues}} ([[SRD:Special_Abilities_Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' Diseases aren't the only things a hooker picks up during her travels. A level 10 hooker can comprehend all spoken languages. Furthermore, she can instantly translate any language spoken she hears to Common (or any other language she knows). However, she cannot speak the language unless she already knows it. (ie, Twynkl, the human hooker, can hear kobolds talking, in draconic, about plans to blow up city hall. She cannot speak draconic back to them unless she already knows how to speak draconic).<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Sometimes I Fake it}} ([[SRD:Special_Abilities_Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' Any hooker will tell you the good ones can fake it. When the best hookers fake it, they can make it count. Once per day a Hooker may replace any single attack roll with a [[SRD:Bluff_Skill|Bluff]] check. She must declare that she is doing this before hearing the outcome of her original attack. She may use either her bluff check or her attack roll, whichever is higher.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:He Kept Me Up All Night}} ([[SRD:Special_Abilities_Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' A hooker never gets a moment's rest. If it's not one thing it's another. For a person spending so much time in bed, it's a wonder how little she sleeps. At level 13 a hooker need not sleep. Ever. She never suffers fatigue due to lack of sleep, and doesn't even need to meditate for a few hours. She may do whatever she wants during this time. This does not make her immune to sleep effects, it merely means she doesn't need to sleep naturally.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:He Kept the Pimp Hand Strong}} ([[SRD:Special_Abilities_Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' Every pimp slaps around his girls. You learn to roll with it. After years of enduring this, you've grown tough. At level 15 a hooker gets total immunity to non-lethal damage, from attacks. Any attack that would normally deal non-lethal damage instead deals no damage at all. You can still take non-lethal damage from other sources (such as falling damage).<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Double Team}} ([[SRD:Special_Abilities_Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' Every hooker's been there. It should come as no surprise that a level 17 hooker can handle two as easily as she can handle one. She may grapple two adjacent creatures at once, as long as neither creature is more than one size category larger than her. She may choose which square she wishes to occupy, and can change squares as a free action once a round. She must roll all grapple checks independently, declaring which roll is for which target. <br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes}} ([[SRD:Special_Abilities_Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' Some guys like blondes, others brunettes or redheads. No hooker wants to lose a job because her hair is the wrong color. At level 19 a hooker can spend 1 hour meditating and change her hair color for 24 hours. In addition to adding to her possible clientèle, she also gains bonuses according to her hair color. After 24 hours everything is returned to normal and all bonuses are lost. Her normal hair color, whatever it may be, does not convey any type of bonus. She may "change" her current hair color to the exact same color to gain access to that bonus. Because this is an extraordinary ability, it still functions in areas where magic is suppressed. <br />
:'''Blond:'''A blond may subtract up to her hooker level from her intelligence score and add it to her charisma score. This change is one way, and irreversible for 24 hours. Because this is voluntary, she cannot get these points back by any means until time elapses. If she reduces her intelligence to zero she suffers all the normal penalties (unconsciousness). If she sets her intelligence to below 3 she is treated as an animal, and loses all class abilities except her natural scratch attack. She can still distinguish between friend and foe, and follow simple commands (run, attack, stay, etc).<br />
:'''Brunette:''' A brunette can use "Sometimes I Fake It" a number of times equal to her Charisma modifier. Furthermore, she can ''go both ways'', meaning gender specific class features can be used on either gender, not just the alternate one. Finally, ''Double Team'' becomes ''Triple Timin' '', meaning she can grapple three opponents as long as they all share a common corner on the battle grid. All other rules from ''Double Team'' apply. <br />
:'''Redhead:''' When a redhead gets angry, she goes all out. While in a "Hooker's Rage", a redhead grows one size category (which stacks with any other sort of size bonuses be they temporary or permanent), gaining the usual bonuses, and catches fire. She deals additional fire damage equal to 1d6 per two hooker levels, rounded up, on all natural/unarmed attacks (ie, 10d6 for a 20th level hooker). She is immune to any fire damage from her own fire, and gains Resistance/10 to other sources of fire, both magical and mundane.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:World's Oldest Profession}} ([[SRD:Special_Abilities_Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' Hot young things make money. Old women don't. That's a fact. As as 20th level hooker, that's about the only thing you won't take lying down. At level 20 a hooker stops aging. She no longer takes penalties to her ability scores for aging and cannot be magically aged. Any such penalties that she has already taken, however, remain in place. Because of this she cannot die of old age, however she can still die (from spells, damage, death effects, etc).<br />
<br />
==== Ex-Hookers ====<br />
<br />
If a Hooker becomes Non-Chaotic, she loses the Chaotic Cans ability, but keeps all her Spell-Like abilities up to the current level. If a hooker returns to her chaotic alignment within one month she may immediately begin taking levels in hooker again. If she leaves her alignment for more than one month she must go through some sort of atonement process, usually involving a [[SRD:Prying_Eyes|prying eyes]] spell and various other willing participants, before she can begin taking levels in hooker again.<br />
<br />
==== Epic Hookers ====<br />
[[File:Hooker2.jpg|thumb|500px|alt=Hooker |The good hookers can pick and choose their clients. Others take what they can get.]]<br />
{| class="d20"<br />
|+ class="epic" |<br />
Hit Die: d10<br />
|-<br />
! Level !! Special<br />
|- <br />
| 21st || class="left" | <br />
|-class="even"<br />
| 22nd || class="left" | [[#Chaotic Cans|Chaotic Cans]] 13d4<br />
|- <br />
| 23rd || class="left" | <br />
|-class="even"<br />
| 24th || class="left" | [[#Chaotic Cans|Chaotic Cans]] 14d4 8/day, [[#What Did You Call Me?|What Did You Call Me?!]] 6/day<br />
|- <br />
| 25th || class="left" | <br />
|- class="even"<br />
| 26th || class="left" | [[#Chaotic Cans|Chaotic Cans]] 15d4<br />
|- <br />
| 27th || class="left" | <br />
|- class="even"<br />
| 28th || class="left" | [[#Chaotic Cans|Chaotic Cans]] 16d4 9/day, [[#What Did You Call Me?|What Did You Call Me?!]] 7/day<br />
|- <br />
| 29th || class="left" | <br />
|- class="even"<br />
| 30th || class="left" | [[#Chaotic Cans|Chaotic Cans]] 17d4<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="42" class="skill" |<br />
8 + [[SRD:Intelligence|Int]] modifier skill points per level.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==== Human Hooker Starting Package ====<br />
<br />
'''Weapons:''' Dagger (Main), 5 Acrylic Nails (Natural, Off-Hand).<br />
<br />
'''Skill Selection:''' Pick a number of skills equal to 4 + [[Int]] modifier.<br />
<br />
{| class="d20"<br />
|-<br />
! class="left" | Skill || Ranks || Ability || Armor<br/>Check<br/>Penalty<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| class="left" | Gather Information || 4 || Cha || &mdash;<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| class="left" | Handle Animal || 4 || Cha || &mdash;<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| class="left" | Intimidate || 4 || Cha || &mdash;<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''Feat:''' [[Skill Focus]] (Gather Information)<br />
<br />
'''Bonus Feats:''' [[Improved Initiative]]<br />
<br />
'''Gear:''' Skimp Clothes (basically rags, but nicer, and give a +2 to all Charisma based checks against opposite gender).<br />
<br />
'''Gold:''' 100 gp.<br />
<br />
=== Campaign Information ===<br />
<br />
==== Playing a Hooker ====<br />
<br />
'''Religion:''' No particular religious preference. Some hookers are devout followers of Pelor, or in rare cases, St. Cuthbert, but many more hookers worship Olidammara, or other deities. However, the vast majority of hookers have no religion, and mutter a prayer to all the gods before doing something particularly dangerous.<br />
<br />
'''Other Classes:''' Hookers generally get along great with all non-lawful characters, and do not work with Paladins or lawful-aligned clerics. Rogues and hookers can be the best of friends or bitter enemies. Sometimes it's hard to tell which.<br />
<br />
'''Combat:''' Hookers make for excellent zone controllers. With their seductive powers they can charm one man, and then wrestle others to the ground with their grappling abilities. With Improved Trip and Freedom of Movement they can control the tide of battle in almost any environment.<br />
<br />
'''Advancement:''' Because of their inherent natural charisma they often fall in among sorcerers, and with their ability to control zones they can become decent fighters. Finally, with their charming personalities (and bodies), they also can make competent bards.<br />
<br />
==== Hookers in the World ====<br />
<br />
{{quote|I was young. I needed the gold pieces.|orig=Twynkl, 9th level Human Hooker}}<br />
<br />
'''Daily Life:''' Most hookers spend the day sleeping off their hangovers and regretting the decisions they made the previous night. At night they go out, get drunk and make more bad decisions to continue the cycle. <br />
<br />
'''Organizations:''' Some cities have legalized prostitution, and hooker unions. These, however, are few and far between. Most hookers run with a band of other hookers, and are given orders from their pimps.<br />
<br />
'''NPC Reactions:''' "Damn, what a slut." Most hookers don't get any respect from NPCs, and they probably don't deserve any.<br />
<br />
==== Hooker Lore ====<br />
<br />
Characters with ranks in Gather Information or Knowledge (Local) can research hookers to learn more about them. When a character makes a skill check, read or paraphrase the following, including information from lower DCs.<br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}"<br />
|+ Gather Information or Knowledge (Local)<br />
! DC || class="left" | Result<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 5 || class="left" | Hookers have sex for money. Characters who get this result can know the names and locations of specific hookers and districts related to them. Information, however, may be old, and may have changed due to police presence or other outside factors (like rival hookers steppin' in and pullin' weaves).<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 10 || class="left" | Some hookers have a dangerous side. No, not that side, a metaphorical side.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 15 || class="left" | Hookers like grappling with opponents, and friends, and strangers. Anyone with enough coin, really.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 20 || class="left" | Hookers can sometimes use magical abilities to pull the heartstrings (and other parts) of humanoids, bending their victim's minds (and bodies) to their will.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==== Hookers in the Game ====<br />
<br />
Hookers are generally used for obtaining information<br />
<br />
'''Adaptation:''' With high ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy a hooker can make for a information gathering character. Multiclassing with Fighter can net bonus feats that will help you make your hooker a better zone controller.<br />
<br />
'''Sample Encounter:''' In a dark back alley, you see a sleazy, yet attractive looking woman in the distance. She approaches you, and asks you if you are looking for some fun. <br />
<br />
{{:User:Badger/sandbox7}}<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{DnD Base Classes Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Class]]<br />
[[Category:Base Class]]<br />
[[Category:Skilled]]<br />
[[Category:Chaotic Guy]]</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Megaraptor&diff=600291SRD Talk:Megaraptor2012-12-12T20:24:54Z<p>Badger: /* Size Complaints */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Size Complaints==<br />
Who ever change the animal from huge to large is brain dead large creatures are up to 10 feet long it says its 24 thats a bit over huge <br />
but not by too much so it should still be huge. I repeat the person who changed it is brain dead. {{template:unsigned|Lordspartan4}}<br />
<br />
:Almost correct. If you check the glossary of the Monster Manual (pg. 314) you'll notice dimensions are listed as 8-16 feet. However, the asterisk tells you that for quadrupeds the axis measured is nose to tip of tail, and for bipeds it's height. Megaraptors are bipeds, and therefore technically fit in the "large" size category. Feel free to make him huge in your campaign if you want, of course. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:30, 18 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The MM lists Megaraptors as Huge (pg. 60). No errata has been issued to change this and, while the size description (pg. 61) does say that Megaraptors are "about 12 feet tall", the purpose of the SRD is to list the content of the SRD. Unless there is reason to believe a typographic error or simple miscalculation was made with this creature, the content of the page should stand. The modifications for being Huge size are reflected throughout the creature's statistics and it seems unlikely to be the result of such an error. Furthermore, while the Size rules on pg. 314 are a good rule of thumb, the footnote on dimensioning is a generalization, not a rule. You can tell this because 1) there are a lot of creatures in d&d that are neither bipeds nor quadrupeds, 2) there are a number of other creatures who also don't follow this rule, for example, the Gauth, who, whether modeled as a 'biped' or 'quadruped' ought to be no larger than small. Additionally, the way the rules are written, the '12 feet' in the description text would, as a creature specific ability, trump the general size information in the glossary, making the Megaraptor, still Huge, 'big for its size'. Regardless, the official text should still stand. [[Special:Contributions/24.23.201.234|24.23.201.234]] 01:12, 12 December 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::An errata to the 3.5e Monster Manual was published in June of 2004, and then updated again in February of 2006 (maybe other times as well, these are the only copies I have). In both of these updates the stat block of the Megaraptor has been corrected to Large (page 3 of the 2006 revision). You can check out the latest errata (2/16/2006 revision) by downloading it from Wizards of the Coast [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a here]. As for the Gauth's size, it isn't mentioned in any copy of the Errata I have. I will say that medium creatures are defined as 4-8 feet, and a "4-foot wide orb" would fall in that range, especially if you include the eye stalks in the measurement. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] ([[User talk:Badger|talk]]) 13:24, 12 December 2012 (MST)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F&diff=600215Discussion:Re-opening the tavern? What does the community think?2012-12-12T01:39:29Z<p>Badger: /* Badger (talk)&nbsp;18:36, 11 December 2012 (MST) */ grammar</p>
<hr />
<div>== Re-opening the Tavern (a dandwiki IRC channel) == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Badger|Badger]]&nbsp;<small><small>18:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
As some of you may recall, we used to have a chatroom where contributors could talk in real time. I think this was a very cool idea, and I was sad that I missed out on it. I've been thinking about it, and I think it's time we reopen it. We've discussed this before (the discussion can be found [[Discussion:The_Tavern:_use,_expansion,_and_availability.|here]]), and I think we should discuss it again. I mentioned this on [[User_talk:Green_Dragon#Tavern_re-opening|Green Dragon's talk page]] just over a week ago, and having not heard back from him yet, I decided to see what the community thinks. So, what does the community think? Are we in support of a chatroom where we can access other users in real time, or do we think that would take away from the overall wiki. I'd like to hear everyone's opinions, for and against, as well as those who have no particular opinion. While the discussion is still in a "for/against/or neutral" phase, suggestions of what you would like to see happen in the tavern are welcome. To be very clear at the end, I am '''for''' re-opening the tavern.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]&nbsp;<small><small>20:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
'''For''', with some stipulations. I initially thought I wouldn't like the tavern at all because of issues I've had with other wikis' off-site communication. However, I've since grown to like the convenience of it. However, I would like to propose some rules as to the use of the tavern (these are in addition to the obvious ones like "be nice" and whatnot)<br />
<br />
#No user is required to use the Tavern. This means that important discussions should not take place on the Tavern, unless they are well documented somewhere on-wiki.<br />
#Nothing said in the Tavern (aside from Admin rebukes) are binding on the wiki.<br />
<br />
...Actually, those're the only real rules I can think of. Important discussions are defined as, but not limited to, the following: official discussions on wiki policy, reasoning behind article changes, wiki organization efforts, new template planning, etc, etc. Basically if you ever talk about something on the Tavern that someone's going to see later, it should be done on the wiki, which has a history.<br />
<br />
:I'm trying to update my preliminary rules to accommodate your rule suggestions, but I don't know what you mean by #2. Care to elaborate/clarify? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Fixed, thanks to being notified on The Tavern! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
=== [[User:Name Violation|Name Violation]]&nbsp;<small><small>22:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
i wouldn't mind a new tavern, and Jazzman said it best about documenting important discussions. <br />
<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Vrail|Vrail]]&nbsp;<small><small>23:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I would like the tavern brought back. My reasoning may be found [[User talk:Green Dragon#Tavern re-opening|here]]<br />
<br />
=== &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small>&nbsp;<small><small>03:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
I'm actually strongly against one of JazzMan's notes above, which is as follows: ''"Nothing said in the Tavern (aside from Admin rebukes) are binding on the wiki."'' I '''''strongly''''' disagree with this. Our civility policy should be in effect for the entire site, at all times - this was probably the single biggest issue with the former Tavern.<br />
<br />
Another item that Green Dragon can comment on better than me, is server issues. The site, as we've all seen, has been up and down and had issues lately. Can we support the tavern again before an upgrade of equipment, which would necessitate a fundraiser.<br />
<br />
Additionally, I would want it to all be tracked with a tavern history like before. All wiki conversations are always able to be found through history, and that should be no different.<br />
<br />
Basically, I like the '''idea''' of a chat, but in practice it was always just a high school-ish meme haven for filth that ran off potential members. Unless you can do all the above '''''(track history, enforce all wiki policies, and confirm server stablitiy)''''', I'm against the tavern coming back. <br />
<br />
Even if you can confirm all those, I'm still not necessarily for it. Back when it was open, regulars there hardly ever actually contributed to the wiki - and some didn't even understand the basics of wiki code after being in the Tavern regularly for over a year. It seemed to create a subcommunity and actually resulted in less actual wiki contribution and growth. <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Badger|Badger]]&nbsp;<small><small>17:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
Hooper makes some very valid points. That said, I'd like to try and address them. <br />
<br />
First, I'll mention policy enforcement. While I agree that policy for the wiki and an IRC channel should be similar, some things just don't translate well between the two. Spammers can be kicked from the channel with a few keystrokes, and no reverting needs to occur. Obviously, we should have some sort of policy on "no swearing, be nice to everyone" and a set of consequences (an admin will warn you, then kick you, then ban you, etc...) but I don't think it should necessarily be the same policy we have in place here on the wiki. Similar, yes; the same, no.<br />
<br />
Second, on server issues. This was my number one thought when thinking about how to bring the tavern back. I checked into low-bandwidth channel hosting for the wiki, as well as alternate methods. I eventually settled on Freenode.net, which provides free hosting. That means the channel will be hosted, for free, on someone else's server. We do, however, get total control of our channel. That said, there are a few drawbacks to not hosting it ourselves, but I think overall it's a solid choice.<br />
<br />
Finally, on logging a history. I know there are tools to log history of an IRC chatroom. I'd be more than willing to learn how to log chats, and post them in a format where they can be accessed as needed. Honestly, this would likely be the easiest thing to rectify. <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]&nbsp;<small><small>23:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
That's not what I meant by non-binding, at all, so perhaps it needs to be clearer. I didn't mean that you can say whatever you want to without consequences (though see below), simply that you can't say stuff on the tavern and expect that people on-wiki will know what happened (though see below, again). In other words, if you say on the Tavern "I'm changing the damage of Super Cool Sword from 1d6 to 10d6 for reason X, Y, and Z", and the people on the tavern all agree, you can't just change the wiki article and expect there to be no on-wiki conversation. I never meant to imply that any and all wiki rules don't apply on the tavern, because they should.<br />
<br />
As Badger mentioned, however, you can't directly impose on-wiki penalties for tavern violations. What happens if someone signs on as "Hooper" and starts swearing or harassing other users? It wouldn't be fair to ban you, and it wouldn't be fair to not ban the other Hooper, but there's no way to know for sure who is who. So people should be punished for bad behavior (likely by banning or kicking), but only on the tavern itself.<br />
<br />
I think Badger also summed up how server load should not be a limitation.<br />
<br />
I was never on the old tavern, so I didn't realize there was a history; if that's possible then it removes pretty much all of my reservations. Though that history doesn't seem to be around anymore, so it doesn't do us any good to have a history if it's not permanent.<br />
<br />
=== &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small>&nbsp;<small><small>05:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
If you were logged into the wiki and went into the old tavern, it would auto give you that name. I may be wrong, but I believe you couldn't sign in as a name already registered on the wiki without having that password information. So you were either an IP, a random name not taken, or your own name.<br />
=== [[User:Jamesja12|James]]&nbsp;<small><small>21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
I personally LOVE the idea. But do not let the tavern itself move your decision, think of the convinence of it. If you are about to role play in an hour or so, and you happen to think of a question that you need to know but can not find it in any of the books you own. So instead of posting on discusion and going without the question answered for that session, you could ask on the tavern and get an answer immediatly.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== [[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]]&nbsp;<small><small>07:35, 17 August 2010 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
I don't know the entire ins and outs of the full system of the Tavern, or the full reason it was taken off in the first place. It seems to me, though, that the reason for wanting a chatroom as such is to: <br> Converse about general wiki ideas and thoughts<br> Talk with enjoyable people<br> Help out people looking for certain rules.<br> To these ends, I don't see how a tavern couldn't be set up, run to simply allow those kinds of conversations, and punish all unwanted talk, simple as. The hard part, I would imagine, is finding people with the commitment, willing and time to actually admin the place, although you could simply put trusted regulars in the place of admin, and see how it went.<br>Anyhow, as I said, I don't know all the details, so it's merely a point in the form of a simple solution.<br />
<br />
=== 69.73.185.198&nbsp;<small><small>16:50, 17 August 2010 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
In the mibbit server of IRC there's a D&D chatroom under #dnd. Just google mibbit and you'll find it pretty easily.<br />
<br />
:Yeah, but that is actually the channel of another DnD wiki. I was hoping to create one centered around this wiki, as a way to build up our community at little. That channel is full of some really nice guys who know DnD very well, however. If you have any questions you need answered right away, I'd go there even before calling the Wizard's help line. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:50, 17 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Why Not ==<br />
<br />
Personally I think it would be a wonderful and useful thing to have. It would allow someone to ask a question and get a good solid answer in real time without needing to wait until some gets around to answering it. But I can also see the bad in it some people just can't take some things seriously. It could provoke things like spam and arguments and some people could get offended. But also it takes a measure of maturity. We have to come to terms with the fact that we are all grown ups here some some things need to slide; if per chance happens to use ther word @$$ we can't all have a coniption fit and freak out on them. I'm not promoting bad language or rudeness but some people are going to say some things that people might not want to hear and that has to be taken into account. but personally I think it should go back up and if things happen they happen. <br />
--[[User:Dragoona22|Dragoona22]]<br />
:Thanks for adding your thoughts, and I'll try to address your question. Traditionally, the argument against the idea of the tavern has been that it would divert traffic away from the wiki. The concern has been that people will use the tavern for general chat, and make decisions in the tavern and make changes on the wiki without consulting (or notifying) those on the wiki who don't frequent the tavern. Hooper addressed that before. However, the points you made about maturity are dead on. I think the ephemeral nature of discussion on the IRC would allow for a little more leeway with "abrasive" language, than on the wiki where things get preserved forever. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:50, 19 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 20:22, 11 March 2011 (MST) ==<br />
<br />
I think that reopening the Tavern would be an excellent idea. that way we can talk to other users immediately. The Tavern needs to be reopened!!!!!! i dont see why it was closed in the first place...<br />
<br />
I AM '''TOTALLY FOR''' REOPENING THE TAVERN!!!!!<br />
<br />
:Not exactly the wiki's chat, but I think some of the old regulars can be found [https://widget.mibbit.com/?settings=8856360d1621465a2d98737419554750&server=irc.mibbit.net&channel=%23dnd&noServerMotd=true here] if anyone wants to chat about D&D. I sometimes pop in there, and they seem to know what they're talking about whenever I have some questions and need them answered ASAP.<br />
<br />
== Re-open please! ==<br />
<br />
Since numerous new people, and not just spambots have joined, I like to think the IRC chat would be welcome. I know that I personally would enjoy talking to some of the individuals I follow on here. Also, it could potential bring gaming groups together. --[[User:Irykyl| Irykyl]] 12:46, 20 March 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I know this was said ages ago, but I second this. --[[User:Qwertyu63|Qwertyu63]] ([[User talk:Qwertyu63|talk]]) 07:27, 25 October 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]])&nbsp;<small><small>13:39, 25 October 2012 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
D&D Wiki is a site about D&D. Having a chat room creates some changes to that notion.<br />
<br />
# It is an non-moderated area.<br />
# It's use does not extend well into the D&D-universe.<br />
## One cannot roll die.<br />
## Narration is poor compared to voice narration.<br />
## D&D rule-sets (character sheets, combat-grids, combat information, etc) are poorly represented across the "gaming table".<br />
# It's use is uncertain at best.<br />
# A chat room requires extensive maintenance for all the changes that D&D Wiki proper sees (e.g. the recent downtime was circumvented by changing D&D Wiki's IP&ndash; this would have led to complications with a chat room I imagine.<br />
<br />
For these reasons I do not think we should bother. D&D Wiki's function is well represented by its format, and people form groups and play D&D anyway: I find that "endorsing" a lesser form of this practice would be counter-intuitive.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Badger|Badger]] ([[User talk:Badger|talk]])&nbsp;<small><small>18:36, 11 December 2012 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Green Dragon, thanks for finally taking the time to weigh in on this issue. I'd like to address each of the points you made, in order.<br />
<br />
# It would not be a non-moderated area, and moderation of the chatroom has been discussed at length [[User:Badger/sandbox1|here]](as have rules and punishments for rule violations).<br />
# Real time communication with other human beings is the very essence of the D&D.<br />
## There are extensions one can use to roll dice (like random number generators) (It's also worth noting that you can't roll dice on the wiki, but that's a whole other story).<br />
## Since mankind invented the written word, it has become incredibly easy to convey meaning over text. Use of italics and boldface text makes narrating and playing a game in text incredibly straightforward.<br />
## I've personally run several games over IRC, or via an email/message board situation. They are very popular. It's a different sort of game than the usual tabletop experience, but still very fun.<br />
# Its use has been clearly mentioned by several users who have posted earlier on this page. Sgtlion and Dragoona22 both mentioned some uses. Naturally, as use became more widespread, we'd find more uses for it (and better defined ones).<br />
# A chat room would require little to no additional maintenance. As mentioned, I've looked into alternate means of hosting, and logging of chats. It could be run independently of the wiki, or alongside it. Any downtime on the chat room would be an inconvenience, but since its intent is to serve as a way to chat with other people, it wouldn't be a huge loss if we were down for a few hours/days.<br />
<br />
At the very least, we should give it a try, and quit if it becomes a hassle to maintain and use. I don't see any of your objections as a reason not to try.<br />
<br />
Sorry about taking awhile to respond, but considering it took Green Dragon over 2 years to respond to my initial discussion, I think my delay of a month and a half to respond seems pretty reasonable. <br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F&diff=600214Discussion:Re-opening the tavern? What does the community think?2012-12-12T01:36:08Z<p>Badger: a response</p>
<hr />
<div>== Re-opening the Tavern (a dandwiki IRC channel) == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Badger|Badger]]&nbsp;<small><small>18:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
As some of you may recall, we used to have a chatroom where contributors could talk in real time. I think this was a very cool idea, and I was sad that I missed out on it. I've been thinking about it, and I think it's time we reopen it. We've discussed this before (the discussion can be found [[Discussion:The_Tavern:_use,_expansion,_and_availability.|here]]), and I think we should discuss it again. I mentioned this on [[User_talk:Green_Dragon#Tavern_re-opening|Green Dragon's talk page]] just over a week ago, and having not heard back from him yet, I decided to see what the community thinks. So, what does the community think? Are we in support of a chatroom where we can access other users in real time, or do we think that would take away from the overall wiki. I'd like to hear everyone's opinions, for and against, as well as those who have no particular opinion. While the discussion is still in a "for/against/or neutral" phase, suggestions of what you would like to see happen in the tavern are welcome. To be very clear at the end, I am '''for''' re-opening the tavern.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]&nbsp;<small><small>20:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
'''For''', with some stipulations. I initially thought I wouldn't like the tavern at all because of issues I've had with other wikis' off-site communication. However, I've since grown to like the convenience of it. However, I would like to propose some rules as to the use of the tavern (these are in addition to the obvious ones like "be nice" and whatnot)<br />
<br />
#No user is required to use the Tavern. This means that important discussions should not take place on the Tavern, unless they are well documented somewhere on-wiki.<br />
#Nothing said in the Tavern (aside from Admin rebukes) are binding on the wiki.<br />
<br />
...Actually, those're the only real rules I can think of. Important discussions are defined as, but not limited to, the following: official discussions on wiki policy, reasoning behind article changes, wiki organization efforts, new template planning, etc, etc. Basically if you ever talk about something on the Tavern that someone's going to see later, it should be done on the wiki, which has a history.<br />
<br />
:I'm trying to update my preliminary rules to accommodate your rule suggestions, but I don't know what you mean by #2. Care to elaborate/clarify? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Fixed, thanks to being notified on The Tavern! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
=== [[User:Name Violation|Name Violation]]&nbsp;<small><small>22:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
i wouldn't mind a new tavern, and Jazzman said it best about documenting important discussions. <br />
<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Vrail|Vrail]]&nbsp;<small><small>23:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I would like the tavern brought back. My reasoning may be found [[User talk:Green Dragon#Tavern re-opening|here]]<br />
<br />
=== &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small>&nbsp;<small><small>03:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
I'm actually strongly against one of JazzMan's notes above, which is as follows: ''"Nothing said in the Tavern (aside from Admin rebukes) are binding on the wiki."'' I '''''strongly''''' disagree with this. Our civility policy should be in effect for the entire site, at all times - this was probably the single biggest issue with the former Tavern.<br />
<br />
Another item that Green Dragon can comment on better than me, is server issues. The site, as we've all seen, has been up and down and had issues lately. Can we support the tavern again before an upgrade of equipment, which would necessitate a fundraiser.<br />
<br />
Additionally, I would want it to all be tracked with a tavern history like before. All wiki conversations are always able to be found through history, and that should be no different.<br />
<br />
Basically, I like the '''idea''' of a chat, but in practice it was always just a high school-ish meme haven for filth that ran off potential members. Unless you can do all the above '''''(track history, enforce all wiki policies, and confirm server stablitiy)''''', I'm against the tavern coming back. <br />
<br />
Even if you can confirm all those, I'm still not necessarily for it. Back when it was open, regulars there hardly ever actually contributed to the wiki - and some didn't even understand the basics of wiki code after being in the Tavern regularly for over a year. It seemed to create a subcommunity and actually resulted in less actual wiki contribution and growth. <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Badger|Badger]]&nbsp;<small><small>17:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
Hooper makes some very valid points. That said, I'd like to try and address them. <br />
<br />
First, I'll mention policy enforcement. While I agree that policy for the wiki and an IRC channel should be similar, some things just don't translate well between the two. Spammers can be kicked from the channel with a few keystrokes, and no reverting needs to occur. Obviously, we should have some sort of policy on "no swearing, be nice to everyone" and a set of consequences (an admin will warn you, then kick you, then ban you, etc...) but I don't think it should necessarily be the same policy we have in place here on the wiki. Similar, yes; the same, no.<br />
<br />
Second, on server issues. This was my number one thought when thinking about how to bring the tavern back. I checked into low-bandwidth channel hosting for the wiki, as well as alternate methods. I eventually settled on Freenode.net, which provides free hosting. That means the channel will be hosted, for free, on someone else's server. We do, however, get total control of our channel. That said, there are a few drawbacks to not hosting it ourselves, but I think overall it's a solid choice.<br />
<br />
Finally, on logging a history. I know there are tools to log history of an IRC chatroom. I'd be more than willing to learn how to log chats, and post them in a format where they can be accessed as needed. Honestly, this would likely be the easiest thing to rectify. <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]&nbsp;<small><small>23:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
That's not what I meant by non-binding, at all, so perhaps it needs to be clearer. I didn't mean that you can say whatever you want to without consequences (though see below), simply that you can't say stuff on the tavern and expect that people on-wiki will know what happened (though see below, again). In other words, if you say on the Tavern "I'm changing the damage of Super Cool Sword from 1d6 to 10d6 for reason X, Y, and Z", and the people on the tavern all agree, you can't just change the wiki article and expect there to be no on-wiki conversation. I never meant to imply that any and all wiki rules don't apply on the tavern, because they should.<br />
<br />
As Badger mentioned, however, you can't directly impose on-wiki penalties for tavern violations. What happens if someone signs on as "Hooper" and starts swearing or harassing other users? It wouldn't be fair to ban you, and it wouldn't be fair to not ban the other Hooper, but there's no way to know for sure who is who. So people should be punished for bad behavior (likely by banning or kicking), but only on the tavern itself.<br />
<br />
I think Badger also summed up how server load should not be a limitation.<br />
<br />
I was never on the old tavern, so I didn't realize there was a history; if that's possible then it removes pretty much all of my reservations. Though that history doesn't seem to be around anymore, so it doesn't do us any good to have a history if it's not permanent.<br />
<br />
=== &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small>&nbsp;<small><small>05:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
If you were logged into the wiki and went into the old tavern, it would auto give you that name. I may be wrong, but I believe you couldn't sign in as a name already registered on the wiki without having that password information. So you were either an IP, a random name not taken, or your own name.<br />
=== [[User:Jamesja12|James]]&nbsp;<small><small>21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)</small></small> ===<br />
I personally LOVE the idea. But do not let the tavern itself move your decision, think of the convinence of it. If you are about to role play in an hour or so, and you happen to think of a question that you need to know but can not find it in any of the books you own. So instead of posting on discusion and going without the question answered for that session, you could ask on the tavern and get an answer immediatly.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== [[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]]&nbsp;<small><small>07:35, 17 August 2010 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
I don't know the entire ins and outs of the full system of the Tavern, or the full reason it was taken off in the first place. It seems to me, though, that the reason for wanting a chatroom as such is to: <br> Converse about general wiki ideas and thoughts<br> Talk with enjoyable people<br> Help out people looking for certain rules.<br> To these ends, I don't see how a tavern couldn't be set up, run to simply allow those kinds of conversations, and punish all unwanted talk, simple as. The hard part, I would imagine, is finding people with the commitment, willing and time to actually admin the place, although you could simply put trusted regulars in the place of admin, and see how it went.<br>Anyhow, as I said, I don't know all the details, so it's merely a point in the form of a simple solution.<br />
<br />
=== 69.73.185.198&nbsp;<small><small>16:50, 17 August 2010 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
In the mibbit server of IRC there's a D&D chatroom under #dnd. Just google mibbit and you'll find it pretty easily.<br />
<br />
:Yeah, but that is actually the channel of another DnD wiki. I was hoping to create one centered around this wiki, as a way to build up our community at little. That channel is full of some really nice guys who know DnD very well, however. If you have any questions you need answered right away, I'd go there even before calling the Wizard's help line. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:50, 17 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Why Not ==<br />
<br />
Personally I think it would be a wonderful and useful thing to have. It would allow someone to ask a question and get a good solid answer in real time without needing to wait until some gets around to answering it. But I can also see the bad in it some people just can't take some things seriously. It could provoke things like spam and arguments and some people could get offended. But also it takes a measure of maturity. We have to come to terms with the fact that we are all grown ups here some some things need to slide; if per chance happens to use ther word @$$ we can't all have a coniption fit and freak out on them. I'm not promoting bad language or rudeness but some people are going to say some things that people might not want to hear and that has to be taken into account. but personally I think it should go back up and if things happen they happen. <br />
--[[User:Dragoona22|Dragoona22]]<br />
:Thanks for adding your thoughts, and I'll try to address your question. Traditionally, the argument against the idea of the tavern has been that it would divert traffic away from the wiki. The concern has been that people will use the tavern for general chat, and make decisions in the tavern and make changes on the wiki without consulting (or notifying) those on the wiki who don't frequent the tavern. Hooper addressed that before. However, the points you made about maturity are dead on. I think the ephemeral nature of discussion on the IRC would allow for a little more leeway with "abrasive" language, than on the wiki where things get preserved forever. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:50, 19 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 20:22, 11 March 2011 (MST) ==<br />
<br />
I think that reopening the Tavern would be an excellent idea. that way we can talk to other users immediately. The Tavern needs to be reopened!!!!!! i dont see why it was closed in the first place...<br />
<br />
I AM '''TOTALLY FOR''' REOPENING THE TAVERN!!!!!<br />
<br />
:Not exactly the wiki's chat, but I think some of the old regulars can be found [https://widget.mibbit.com/?settings=8856360d1621465a2d98737419554750&server=irc.mibbit.net&channel=%23dnd&noServerMotd=true here] if anyone wants to chat about D&D. I sometimes pop in there, and they seem to know what they're talking about whenever I have some questions and need them answered ASAP.<br />
<br />
== Re-open please! ==<br />
<br />
Since numerous new people, and not just spambots have joined, I like to think the IRC chat would be welcome. I know that I personally would enjoy talking to some of the individuals I follow on here. Also, it could potential bring gaming groups together. --[[User:Irykyl| Irykyl]] 12:46, 20 March 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I know this was said ages ago, but I second this. --[[User:Qwertyu63|Qwertyu63]] ([[User talk:Qwertyu63|talk]]) 07:27, 25 October 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]])&nbsp;<small><small>13:39, 25 October 2012 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
D&D Wiki is a site about D&D. Having a chat room creates some changes to that notion.<br />
<br />
# It is an non-moderated area.<br />
# It's use does not extend well into the D&D-universe.<br />
## One cannot roll die.<br />
## Narration is poor compared to voice narration.<br />
## D&D rule-sets (character sheets, combat-grids, combat information, etc) are poorly represented across the "gaming table".<br />
# It's use is uncertain at best.<br />
# A chat room requires extensive maintenance for all the changes that D&D Wiki proper sees (e.g. the recent downtime was circumvented by changing D&D Wiki's IP&ndash; this would have led to complications with a chat room I imagine.<br />
<br />
For these reasons I do not think we should bother. D&D Wiki's function is well represented by its format, and people form groups and play D&D anyway: I find that "endorsing" a lesser form of this practice would be counter-intuitive.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Badger|Badger]] ([[User talk:Badger|talk]])&nbsp;<small><small>18:36, 11 December 2012 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Green Dragon, thanks for finally taking the time to weigh in on this issue. I'd like to address each of the points you made, in order.<br />
<br />
# It would not be a non-moderated area, and moderation of the chatroom has been discussed at length [[User:Badger/sandbox1|here]](as have rules and punishments for rule violations).<br />
# Real time communication with other human beings is the very essence of the D&D.<br />
## There are extensions one can use to roll dice (like random number generators) (it's also worth noting that you can't roll dice on the wiki, but that's a whole other story)<br />
## Since mankind invented the written word, it has become incredibly easy to convey meaning over text. Use of italics and boldface text makes narrating and playing a game in text incredibly straightforward.<br />
## I've personally run several games over IRC, or via a email/message board situation. They are very popular. it's a different sort of game than the usual tabletop experience, but still very fun.<br />
# It's use has been clearly mentioned by several users who have posted earlier on this page. Sgtlion and Dragoona22 both mentioned some uses. Naturally, as use became more widespread, we'd find more uses for it (and better defined ones).<br />
# A chat room would require little to no additional maintenance. As mentioned, I've looked into alternate means of hosting, and logging of chats. It could be run independently of the wiki, or alongside it. Any downtime on the chat room would be an inconvenience, but since it's intent is to serve as a way to mostly chat with other people, it wouldn't be a huge loss if we were down for a few hours/days.<br />
<br />
At the very least, we should give it a try, and quit if it becomes a hassle to maintain and use. I don't see any of your objections as a reason not to try.<br />
<br />
Sorry about taking awhile to respond, but considering it took Green Dragon over 2 years to respond to my initial discussion, I think my delay of a month and a half to respond seems pretty reasonable. <br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marasmusine/Archive_1&diff=600209User talk:Marasmusine/Archive 12012-12-12T01:11:52Z<p>Badger: /* You've deleted one the most iconic swords in the history of gaming. Why??? */</p>
<hr />
<div>Hello Maramusine, thank you for the welcome to the site! My only question is now, is if there is someone or some group I would contact for review on the power balancing of something I've been working on ( while it is either a WIP, or completed work ).--[[User:Elendra|Elendra]] ([[User talk:Elendra|talk]]) 09:32, 18 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
If you're my best bet, might as well use you, eh? I don't suppose you could take a look at [[Color Bearer (4e Class)]] and [[Color Bearer Powers (4e Power List)]]? I assume they're at ''least'' somewhat poorly balanced, being my first attempt at making a class. And yes, they are both incomplete, but I did just start a couple days ago <_<;; --[[User:Elendra|Elendra]] ([[User talk:Elendra|talk]]) 09:42, 18 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you very much in advanced! c: --[[User:Elendra|Elendra]] ([[User talk:Elendra|talk]]) 09:52, 18 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Hay, Marasmusine, could you review my homebrew template [[Unown_inscribed|Unown inscribed]] sometime? I want to improve it, and you seem to know what youre doing, based on your review of my [[Stone of 100 Rencarnations (3.5e Equipment)]].--[[User:The lost unown|The lost unown]] ([[User talk:The lost unown|talk]]) 09:01, 27 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
:Sure, I'll aim to do that but I'm not sure when yet. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 14:08, 27 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== A thanks ===<br />
Hey, it's Ralcos.<br />
It's been a while since I've been here, but I must say thanks for you editing my race.<br />
I made the Modron Race that was on the 4e homebrew races, and found that my race was changed for the better<br />
(I'm not claiming credit for anyone else's work, and you can look on that page's history).<br />
I just wanted to thank you for the work. I love it more than the original design.<br />
<br />
--- Ralcos<br />
<br />
== Smilodon Maioribus Review ==<br />
<br />
Hello once again Marasmusine,<br />
<br />
It has been a while since we have spoken but I believe (having reached my new permanent duty station) that now would be an excellent time to review the Smilodon Maioribus 4e Race once again, provided you are willing to do so and have the time to make such an effort. Unfortunately I am not entirely sure what, if at all, needs to be changed at this point with the race itself (the Apex Predator 4e Class itself I am intending to overhaul entirely, based on a few mechanics I learned from others who know of DnD in the armed forces).<br />
<br />
As always, thank you for your time and dedication to DnD Wiki, and your efforts, past and present, in staying in touch and assisting me with my race and class design!<br />
<br />
--[[User:Argent Fatalis|Argent Fatalis]] ([[User talk:Argent Fatalis|talk]]) 18:43, 9 August 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Welcome back! Since you were last here I've been a bit distracted with the birth of my daughter - I've not had much time for complicated things. For your Apex Predator overhaul, I recommend concentrating on one or two core mechanics that improve through the levels (and worry less about making lots of different powers); take a look at the Hunter or the Slayer from the Essentials books. Also try to focus on ''one role'' - I've seen too many custom classes that try to do defender/striker and end up in a mess. Hope that helps! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:18, 10 August 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you, Marasmusine, and most importantly, congratulations on the birth of your daughter to both you and your wife. I can certainly understand your crunch for time, especially with a newly born child around. For the Apex Predator class, that is still my intention of making a "specialist" class (with two separate, distinct sub-types), again focusing on criticals, grappling and stealth for its offensive "Vanquisher" variant, and with the "Challenger" deviation, a defender who relies on countering attacks and control. Seeing as the "Grabbed" and (knocked) "Prone" features work well, I have some ideas with them. I certainly don't intend for the Apex to be both, as I've begun making their choices fairly specific to each archetype.<br />
<br />
::--[[User:Argent Fatalis|Argent Fatalis]] ([[User talk:Argent Fatalis|talk]]) 17:34, 11 August 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Hello again Marasmusine,<br />
<br />
:::I've made some significant changes to the [[Sentient, Smilodon Maioribus (4e Race)|Smilodon Maioribus race]] and the [[Apex Predator (4e Class)|Apex Predator class]], both of which I would love to get your opinion on when you have the time. I've tried to heavily relegate certain features to each subdivision of the Apex Predator class (to, in large part, make them two distinct portions). While the class design is not yet finished, it would be great to get your opinion on the re-working of a few mechanics that were present; for example, a primary mechanic of the Vanquisher is [[Seize (4e Power)|Seize], an attack that does minimal damage, but Grabs the opponent. <br />
<br />
:::Other issues lie in the scaling (I've never played nor seen endgame DnD played), so I cannot truly balance the class over the levels. I like the idea of the Apex Predator fittingly being a "niche" class, or one that excels extremely well at a few select things, but relies on its companion's classes to really augment and benefit it, and vice-versa.<br />
<br />
:::--[[User:Argent Fatalis|Argent Fatalis]] ([[User talk:Argent Fatalis|talk]]) 17:08, 18 August 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Hello Marasmusine,<br />
<br />
::::I have just replied the design concept to the Saber Fangs and Razored Claws situation [Talk:Apex Predator (4e Class)|on this talk page] and would certainly like your opinion and possible solutions. Thank you very much for the modifications to those areas along with the Enduring Hide armor to make them more straightforward and simplified within 4E means!<br />
<br />
::::--[[User:Argent Fatalis|Argent Fatalis]] ([[User talk:Argent Fatalis|talk]]) 14:33, 22 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Image Deletions ==<br />
<br />
Wikipedia tells us to assume good faith. This means that images are assumed to be correct, ergo under the GNU FDL, when they state nothing in particular. This must be shown otherwise to allow the image to be deleted. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 16:03, 10 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Wikipedia absolutely does not assume good faith when it comes to image licensing. It gives 7 days to images without licensing/source information before they are deleted. Images that are clear copyright violations are instantly deleted. I gave [[:File:Fight-2-color.jpg]] two weeks. We can't just copy images from the internet willy nilly. I've done a Google Image search for this image now and found that it's a painting under copyright by Simon Robert. I can replace the link in [[Shekastkoré (3.5e Campaign Setting)]] with an embedded image from Robert's webpage, with correct attribution. I'll leave it up to you if you want to delete the file or not. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:06, 11 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:Wow, sorry I came off sounding agressive. It was first thing in the morning and I hadn't had my coffee.[[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:11, 11 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Okay, then with the deletion we should provide a link to where the image is thereby not allowed, don't you think that makes sense? Thoughts on making this policy? We can leave images since their pages being here inherently state that they are under the GNU FDL v1.3 when one cannot find such a site. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:35, 16 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::Here are my thoughts:<br />
:::*We should make it clear that if you are uploading an image you need to say 1) Where you got the image from and who originally created it, and 2) What license it's under (note that ''we cannot use "fair use"'' for our purposes). For example, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload Wikipedia's upload information]. It's bad form to assume that an image doesn't have a copyright just because the uploader hasn't provided any information.<br />
:::*On the flipside, if I come to delete an image file because the above information is missing, I will make every effort to find an alternative compatible with our license, or embed the image from its original source. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 03:47, 17 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::By law, we do not need to do it like that so let's not. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 19:39, 17 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::::I need to get this straight. Here are the different kind of images we might use:<br />
:::::*Copyrighted images. We cannot use these without permission. If we can get permission, the owner would normally ask us to attribute the them and show that it's under copyright. We ''can'' use copyright work without permission where there is fair-use (e.g. book covers where we are providing information about a book), but we still need to attribute the copyright holder.<br />
:::::*Creative Commons[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/]. We ''have'' to attribute the author; if it's Sharealike we ''have'' to release it under the same license.<br />
:::::*Public Domain. We don't have to say anything: my argument is that it's good practice to provide some basic information (like I did [[:File:Vasnetsov samolet.jpg|here]]). <br />
:::::*Images the uploader created themselves. It's up to them what information they provide. Personally I credit myself for my own images. As you say, unless stated otherwise, it defaults to the GNU license.<br />
:::::If I'm understanding you correctly, you want to ''assume'' that images fall into the last two categories?<br />
<br />
::::::No. All I was saying is that the last two categorizes exist. If we find information about copyright we should delete the page with a link to the copyright location (for verification purposes). If the images is under a different license then, though, all we need to do is state that on that page of course and if we can keep the image we can keep the image (depending on the license).<br />
::::::Another thing to note is that images which are product copyright can be here if they are small enough (pretty sure). I think that is another one of their image statements in the image-related laws. If they are too big, though, they are considered (even with the different copyright categories) to infringe on product copyright (since they are images I think is the reasoning). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 20:06, 18 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Thanks for the clarification. With regards product copyright, here's the legal wording for fair-use: ''"the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."''<br />
:::::::Basically, we ''can'' use those images when we are providing educational information. On our wiki, this only our pages about books and other publications. We ''cannot'' use them for user-generated content. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:27, 19 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I imagine that putting them into the D&D universe is a critique of those things from other sources and do apply for fair-use. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 16:42, 19 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::I don't understand? Fair use through ''critique'' just means you can, say, use a picture of a book or toy if you are reviewing it. It has real-world context. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:35, 20 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::On a related note, I've spotted that WotC provide a list of WotC-copyright artwork that's been pre-approved for others to use.[http://www.wizards.com/fankit/fantoolkitdnd.html] [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:38, 20 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Not sure if my voice matters here, but I figure, if nothing else, it couldn't really hurt to speak up. Marasmusine is correct. Unless the purpose of the article within said images are used, is to critique the image, make a commentary on it, or otherwise review or parody it, then it does not fall under fair use. There are likely very few user generated articles and pages on this site that are dedicated to parody and review, for a commentary / educational stance. Now, for the handful wherein that IS true, than fair use would apply, but for those, such as a custom race, class, monster, campaign, that isn't actively done to review the image in some way, that isn't fair use, and permission / approval would be needed. If I were to take someone's image and put it up on a page I made, without their permission, and the image was used as an aid to help demonstrate something I had written in the page, that would be theft, unless they had otherwise stated that that image is perfectly allowed to be shared mercilessly without permission, but even then that would be limited to noncommercial things. Not that that should be a worry here. That said, the 'April Fools' articles may fall under being able to qualify 'fair use' if they are directly relevant to the image. --[[User:Elendra|Elendra]] ([[User talk:Elendra|talk]]) 09:08, 20 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::That all sounds right to me. So I guess, sorry, those mario images were fine to delete.<br />
:::::::::::Does the Image Deletion seem right on [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion|Candidates for Deletion]]? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 12:03, 21 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Barnstar ==<br />
<br />
{{Barnstar|I give you this barnstar for improving, reviewing, and removing a lot of pages. Thanks a lot for your help on those pages! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:35, 16 July 2012 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
Thanks! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:35, 16 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page deleted due to Copy Rights Violation ==<br />
<br />
You had deleted a page I had posted due to a copy rights violation. I was asked by a few friends in my area to post some things from the books and I was wondering it there is a way I can avoid this from occurring in the feature? Would a Legal Disclaimer at the bottom of the page stating it is from that particular book prevent this?<br />
<br />
Thanks, --[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 23:23, 23 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:We can't reprint content from copyrighted books. The only legal thing you can do is send them your book or ask them to aquire the book themselves. There's something else you can do involving a scanner, but I couldn't possibly comment on that. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 24 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
::Is there anyway to use anything from any of the D&D books? Would the Legal Disclaimer work? If not, how were any of the creatures posted from the Monster Manual, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Players Handbook?--[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 18:04, 24 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::You can print material released under the Open Game Content. This includes WotC's System Reference Document[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35] but doesn't include that class. The legal disclaimer won't work, WotC will still be unhappy that you've fleeced them out of a book sale. I'm also definitely not suggesting that your friend use a web search engine to search for the title of book that contains the class along with the words "scan" and "pdf". [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:08, 25 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::::If you have a chance, could you take a look at these pages. I am sure the [[Awaken Sand (3.5e Spell) | Awaken Sand (3.5e Spell)]] is, but I am not sure of the [[Mogwai (3.5e Creature) |Mogwai]] and [[Gremlin (3.5e Creature) |Gremlin]] since they are based on movie creatures... Thanks... --[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 13:10, 28 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
::::::Yeah, the spell's got to go. Gremlin and Mogwai are not copyright violations, but the images used were copied from other sources. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:49, 29 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Thanks... Want to give a creature a feat from a book, I am looking but can't seem to find the code for doing the small raised print for references to D&D books. Could you help with this? Thanks... --[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 10:53, 29 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
::::::::Do you mean <sup>superscript</sup>? If you want to look like a pro, try [[User:Marasmusine/How To Use Footnotes]] (I don't think anyone's done it that way before, you could be the first!) [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 14:07, 30 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::I wasn't thinking of Footnotes<sup>[[User:Marasmusine/How To Use Footnotes | Marasumine's Guide]]</sup>... but that should work really nice together... Thanks :-D --[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 19:07, 30 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Deity Stats ==<br />
<br />
I was interested in making a deity and wanted to actually make the stats. However I can't find the formula to use... I know that they are normally a 20HD outsider that have 30-50 Class levels. By that they should be a CR 40-60 depending on just that... But are there any other factors? Also Do they use the 15,14,13,12,10,8 Elite stat array?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 20:51, 10 August 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:About 5 years ago I sat down to create a 3.5e deity and discovered the same issue - no guideline on how to set the ability scores. However, if you are giving your deity PC class levels, it should the elite stat array; if it only has NPC class levels, use the nonelite array. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 08:06, 11 August 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Can you check out this Deity and let me know what you think? [[Karura (3.5e Deity) | Karura]] Goddess of [[The Burning Wastelands (3.5e Environment) | The Burning Wastelands]]. I Used the Epic Stats, then Added the Stat upgrades for levels and feats. Then added the stat adjustments for items that she has that are listed. Her Challange rating is for her race + Her Class + her Divine Rank. --[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 19:50, 18 August 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Traps ([[User:jerden|jerden]] asking) ==<br />
<br />
I was just wondering if there was a way to change the title of my traps that still don't have (4e Trap) on them. I could copy them to new pages with (4e trap) on, but that won't really help anyone as it still will have the old ones. If it's something I can't do I'm sorry, in future I'll remember to add (4e Trap) to my (4e Trap)s! Anyway, I reacon I've wrote it enough time to remember now!<br />
:Hi Jerden, you can use the "Move" tab at the top of the screen. Also you can sign your posts using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). Thanks again for your contributions - converting the 3.5e DMG traps to 4e was on the back burner of my to-do list. You may also like to look at some of the changes I made to your entries for formatting standards, etc. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:48, 8 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
:Thanks. I'll sort them out. Anyway, I apprieciate your changes, I was actually hoping someone would do that. And I haven't really done that many of the 3.5 edition traps, I mostly just converted spells into traps (it's much easier). I'll probobly do more later once I can borrow the player handbook and possibly the monster manual. [[User:Jerden|Jerden]] ([[User talk:Jerden|talk]]) 12:38, 8 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Sand Elemental Page Deletion ==<br />
<br />
In reguards to the [[Sand Elemental]] page, I was trying to do the same set up as the SRD Elementals. Was this in error doing this set-up or was it just a waist for time? --[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 15:18, 25 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
:Hi Korminor, actually your original formatting was fine. But I'm aiming to have the sand elementals formatted in the same way as what I've done to [[Chaos Elemental, Lesser (3.5e Creature)]] and [[Chaos Elemental, Greater (3.5e Creature)]]. The reason for this is that I've made a new index of creatures at [[User Creatures]], but the table gets screwed up if there's more than one creature template in a page. The creature template itself can display 3 creatures, so that's a maximum of 3 creatures per page - hence me splitting the creatures into "Lesser" and "Greater" pages. It's not ideal - I'd rather have them all on one page - but it's the only fix I can think of to make the index work.<br />
:What I can do, if you think it's appropriate, is keep [[Sand Elemental]] as an overview page, so long as it doesn't contain a creature template. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 15:36, 25 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Also, I never did give you a reply re: [[Karura (3.5e Deity)]]. So let me say this - in my opinion ''this is what all 3.5e deity pages should look like.'' Well formatted, well written, fully statted out. I couldn't tell you if any of the numbers are off though, but it looks like you've been careful and thorough. 15:55, 25 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I would like to keep the [[Sand Elemental]] page as an overview page. I was planning on adding a bit to it on their history (Been a little busy with daughter starting school). Also thanks for the comments on [[Karura (3.5e Deity)]]. I started with the elite stats, then gave the increases for the levels gained (20 outsider + 30 Sandbender), then added the items used. Thanks again, --[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 17:32, 25 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Tiberium Rising Editing ==<br />
<br />
Hey, I'm still working on the pages. If you are going to move the pages, at least leave a redirect. Thanks --[[User:Yossarian|Yossarian]] ([[User talk:Yossarian|talk]]) 14:34, 28 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
:I usually do, I guess today I did it the other way to see what the reaction would be. So there we go. But why did you move it back? Now it has the incorrect title again. 16:24, 28 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Billhook Revert==<br />
Hi, we've not really met. I'm Badger, and I'm an admin who has been away for a while. Either way, we can chat more about that later, if you'd like. This message is to explain why I reverted your edits to [[Billhook_(3.5e_Equipment)|the billhook]]. The page that existed before you changed it was essentially a complete page, with mechanics and a concept. Maybe the concept needs work, and the balance sure needs some attention, but it was at least a fully fleshed out idea. Your edits reduced it to little more than a re-direct. If you are going to fundamentally change a page like you did, you might as well delete it entirely, and just redirect other pages away from it. I'm open to discussion on this point, but my understanding is that we don't try to serve as an encyclopedia, but rather as a reserve of actual content. To clarify that point, any article we have should have in-game mechanics, and not simply redirect a user to another page. Let me know how you feel about this, and I look forward to working with you in the future. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] ([[User talk:Badger|talk]]) 11:57, 5 October 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Price Calculation Check ==<br />
<br />
Would you mind checking to see if I got the math correct for calculating the Market Price for [[Helm of Korminor (3.5e Equipment) | Helm of Korminor ]] for me please? I want to know if i'm doing it correct? --[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 18:54, 22 October 2012 (MDT)<br />
:Sure, I'll check it out fairly soon. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:10, 24 October 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hobbit vs. Halfling ==<br />
<br />
I'm aware that WotC uses the term Halfling to fill in for what is most assuredly a Hobbit. I was wondering if you know of any legal reason that would force this, or if we are free to use the term Hobbit without permission from the Tolkien Estate. I guess I'm just trying to stay out of trouble, but at the same time vastly prefer to use Hobbit. In the same line of thinking, we can use Orc even though Tolkien made that one up as well... --[[User:Pyper|Pyper]] 23oct12<br />
:Whilst the Tolkien Estate aggressively protect their trademark over the word "hobbit", I've only seen it happen in the cases where products are being sold. The worst that can happen is that we'll be asked to remove the page. Add a legal disclaimer at the bottom stating that the term is trademarked. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:30, 24 October 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Category:DnD ==<br />
<br />
On some pages you have been removing [[:Category:DnD]]. This category is there so D&D is separated from D20 Modern and such organizations are possible. 4e is not "new" in the sense of not having a need for Category:DnD, but rather it has not yet been added there because of the dpl's on the 3.5e pages. Unless I am missing something, please keep Category:DnD on all D&D pages. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:19, 25 October 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Since the "4e" and "3.5e" categories are sub-categories of "DnD", it seemed to me that having both was redundant. I can't see any crossovers with "D20M", it is still separate. Maybe ''I'm'' missing something. Can you give me an example of where it is causing a problem? (Also noting the reorganization I proposed at [[Talk:Main_Page#Categories]].) [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 15:21, 25 October 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The only disadvantage to that is that is that one has to generate a dpl for all things D&D, but that still might be okay with the publication's categories anyway and not too important huh. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:42, 25 October 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::I will steadily update the dpls; I had already rewrote the 3.5 weapons index... just spotted that [[User Magical Rings]] for example needs to specify 3.5e. It will all work once I've finished pratting around (next year at this rate!) [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:52, 26 October 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Template deletion ==<br />
<br />
My author template page<br />
{{author Gaelhalee<br />
|date_created=10/28/12<br />
|status=playable, if DM has a good sense of humor<br />
}}<br />
as well as [[User:Mkill|Mkills]] <br />
{{author Mkill<br />
|date_created=10/28/12<br />
|status=playable<br />
}}<br />
was deleted without any explanation that I could find. I give some history about it in [[User_talk:Gaelhalee]]. Please respond there.<br />
<br />
== Quick Question ==<br />
<br />
Regarding community additions to unfinished content, how should I deal with a power that was added by a third party which does not really fit with my class or my design intents? Should I restructure their post as I see fit or notate a different design intent or what? My initial judgment was to change the "|class=" notation in the power, but I'm unsure if doing so would be a violation of some sort. --[[User:Biral|Biral]] ([[User talk:Biral|talk]]) 16:08, 13 November 2012 (MST)<br />
:We could rewrite it for your class, rewrite it for another class (Wizard, say), or propose it for deletion (see [[Deletion Candidates]]). Which power is it? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:06, 14 November 2012 (MST)<br />
::It's Freezing Blast, added by 209.213.26.101, the same user that made that rather overpowered [[Humans Unyielding Training (4e Feat)]] that you posted on nigh two months ago. I don't think I'll keep the name, so I'd just as soon flag it for deletion. --[[User:Biral|Biral]] ([[User talk:Biral|talk]]) 15:50, 14 November 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
== D&D 4.0 Future Oni Class ==<br />
<br />
Vanilla 4e? I don't know what that even is. The thing is, is that Enchantment bonuses should not be implemented, because, hey, this is the future. I don't plan for D&D 4e Future to deviate from D&D 4e at all. Just adding to it. I posted this reply here because I haven't been on for... two months or something longer and figured that you wouldn't see a reply in my talk section. But yes, balancing would be wonderful for all of my creations. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] ([[User talk:Axl|talk]]) 16:48, 15 November 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Actually, never mind. I'm never on D&D Wiki anymore. Feel free to delete my sourcebook and all items therein. You can probably just delete my profile as well. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] ([[User talk:Axl|talk]]) 17:09, 15 November 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::By vanilla D&D, I mean D&D as written in the PHB and DMG. A lot of your entries might work in the context of the Future setting, but they don't work in normal 4e D&D. That's why I was changing some of the categorization. Sorry to hear that you are leaving, let me know if you ever feel like collaborating on something. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 17:26, 15 November 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Oh, okay.<br />
:::Yeah, my entries work for future, but there are currently no settings in the future that would be compatible with my works.<br />
:::All right. I'll let you know if I do feel like collaborating. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] ([[User talk:Axl|talk]]) 18:33, 16 November 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Guardian of Erberus ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Marasmusine.<br />
I was looking on the Barbed Devil race and noticed that the Guardian of Erberus page shows the feat as Barbed Claws. Shall I fix it? --[[User:PokeLinkEs|PokeLinkEs]] ([[User talk:PokeLinkEs|talk]]) 07:21, 20 November 2012 (MST)<br />
:Well spotted, that's a cut and paste error. I'll fix it, thanks. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 10:23, 20 November 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Question ==<br />
<br />
Right so how do I tell what's copywritten and what's not? I'm looking at one of the images I uploaded and nowhere on it does it say it's copywritten. I'm not trying to argue or say that you're wrong b/c I have no doubt you are correct. I just want to know how to tell in the future. Thanks! --[[User:Ixidor|Ixidor]] ([[User talk:Ixidor|talk]]) 13:12, 20 November 2012 (MST)<br />
:With your specific images, I dragged them into Google Images (on a hunch, since they looked professionally produced) and quickly traced them back to their original artist or publisher. If the source doesn't specifically say what kind of license it has, you can assume its under copyright (and that's the case for almost any image you find at random on the internet). On a more positive note, if you've traced it back to somewhere like deviantArt or Flickr, you can at least ask the copyright holder if you can get permission to use it. <br />
:As I say, you can always embed an external image (if the source site allows it). Here's an example from Tomasz Jedruszek's portfolio:<br />
{| style="float:right" border=1 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=2<br />
!http://features.cgsociety.org/gallerycrits/219459/219459_1183250462_submedium.jpg<br />
|-<br />
|[http://morano.cgsociety.org/gallery/513169/ Vale Pact 2 by Tomasz Jedruszek]<br />
|}<br />
:If you do this, it's courtesy to attribute the artist. On the downside, you can't resize the image. Hope that helps. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 14:20, 20 November 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Oh man that helps a lot! I'll probably start using embedded external images then, assuming I can get them smaller. Most of my stuff comes from DeviantArt, CG Society, or StumbleUpon so that shouldn't be an issue. Thanks a ton! --[[User:Ixidor|Ixidor]] ([[User talk:Ixidor|talk]]) 14:50, 20 November 2012 (MST)<br />
:I use Flickr a lot, since most images there will provide you with a link for a resized image under "Share" (although there's less fantasy art there than at other places). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 14:52, 20 November 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Thanks for the Help! ==<br />
<br />
Thank you for your help. Would you mind telling me of what you think about the campaign?<br />
<br />
Thanks again!<br />
<br />
--[[User:Yossarian|Yossarian]] ([[User talk:Yossarian|talk]]) 16:34, 23 November 2012 (MST)<br />
:Sure, I'll check when I next get chance. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:06, 27 November 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
== For what reason did you delete the Dragonslayer sword? Its hardly the same as the Fullblade ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Why'd you delete the Dragonslayer Sword for 3.5? It is not exactly like the fullblade whatssoever, it does a great deal more damage, gives extra feats, not to mention the fact that its both a bludgeon and slashing weapon. There is alot more "unexplained" equipment on the site then that sword. So please don't delete stuff people actually think is cool, because now im going to have a harder time getting my DM the stats for the sword so I can get it in game.<br />
:When you are including in your campaign mundane non-magical weapon that grants 4 bonus feats, an unexplained +8 bonus damage on top of excessive damage die and a 18-20/x4 crit, you've gone beyond normal game balance and may as well just make up the stats yourself. It's better than most of the more powerful magical weapons in the game, at a fraction of the cost, except, hey, you can enchant the dragonslayer as well. Oh, it had 5' and 10' reach as well like a spiked chain, egads. Sorry, it was objectively terrible.<br />
:However, if you like, I can restore the page to your userspace if you still wish to access it.[[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:01, 27 November 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
I would really appreciate it, yes its true, it is somewhat overpowered, but my character is also at a neg 3 level multiplier and the additional feats will definitely help level the playing field. I currently play a lvl. 3 Half-Dragon Fighter that specializes in two handed large weapons and the ECL is 6, so the Dragonslayer is the perfect fit. Currently my group and I are fighting against incrediably powerful enemies that are a CR 20 roughly and currently I can't compete in deeps with either the Barbarian or the Rogue so I need something to level the playing field. Plus I assume that most characters dont have the strength reqs. that the sword needs right off the bat like I do (28 Str, with my lowest mod being +3). But if you could get me the prior info it would really be appreciated. Thank you.<br />
<br />
== Deleting abandoned unrated, 1/5, and 2/5 Campaign settings ==<br />
<br />
One thing I've noticed about the Campaign settings section is that there are a ton of frankly worthless clutter. Most of the 1/5 pages haven't been worked on since 2010 or 2009 and I suspect a lot of the 2/5 ones are the same (mine is there right now I know but I am constantly working on it). Can a lot of those old, abandoned stubs be deleted? Can I do it myself or does it have to be an admin? I suggest everything up to 2/5 because I suspect pages that made it to 3/5 have a lot of useful stuff in them although some of them could probably go too. My main point here is that is the Campaign Settings section is meant to be a resource for the DM community out there, then it really should be a useful one. I feel like people miss a lot of the good stuff that is there because of all the clutter. Just a thought, not trying to be pushy or rude to the people who started those pages. --[[User:Ixidor|Ixidor]] ([[User talk:Ixidor|talk]]) 22:27, 27 November 2012 (MST)<br />
:Over the year I've already deleted a bunch - ones that have been clearly abandoned and have either barely any content, or content that is uninspiring. You're probably correct that there's more to be pruned. If you feel that a campaign stub can't be improved upon, add <nowiki>"{{delete|~~~~~|Your reasons}}"</nowiki> and I'll review it in 2 weeks. If you think the campaign has an interesting seed that someone might potentially add to, add <nowiki>"{{abandoned|~~~~~}}"</nowiki> and we give it a year before deleting it. Each setting needs checking individually (rather than sweeping the whole 1/5, 2/5 category under the carpet :) Thank-you for any help in this matter. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:28, 28 November 2012 (MST)<br />
::Roger and thanks. I'd been adding the <nowiki>"{{abandoned|~~~~~}}"</nowiki> tag to any that were stubs and not touched in over a year and that was just about all of them (1/5-2/5). I'll go back through and add in the <nowiki>"{{delete|~~~~~|Your reasons}}"</nowiki> tag to those that are pretty useless. Also of the ones that are 1/5-2/5 and do have useful stuff (but still aren't stand alone), could some sort of campaign setting tools or ideas page be put together? Cause there are some with useful stuff in these categories, just not nearly enough to be stand alone. --[[User:Ixidor|Ixidor]] ([[User talk:Ixidor|talk]]) 07:46, 28 November 2012 (MST)<br />
:::A "campaign seeds" page would be a good idea, if the entries aren't bigger than one or two paragraphs (or can be trimmed down). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:46, 28 November 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
== You've deleted one the most iconic swords in the history of gaming. Why??? ==<br />
<br />
The Buster Sword has long been an awesome force in the gaming community. I don't ask that you bring the page back, but just forward me the details that were on the page. I'd raised my concerns when you proposed deleting the page, frivolously, and also failed to make copy-pasta out of it :(<br />
<br />
:You can find what the page used to be [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Buster+Sword+%283.5e+Equipment%29&timestamp=20120122053558 here]. It wasn't very good, and had been nominated for deletion since October. No one brought up any objection to the deletion, and so it was axed. As a general rule, I don't undelete things, and this isn't content worth having on the site, as far as I am concerned. The reason it was deleted is because it wasn't different enough than the full blade to warrant it's own page. If you'd like to make your own version of the sword that is demonstrably different than the fullblade, it might just stick around. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] ([[User talk:Badger|talk]]) 18:11, 11 December 2012 (MST)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anime_Girl_(3.5e_Class)&diff=600208Talk:Anime Girl (3.5e Class)2012-12-12T01:05:15Z<p>Badger: reverting spam</p>
<hr />
<div>== HUGE PROBLEM ==<br />
<br />
You're saying there's extradimensional space between their breasts? What happens if two anime girls "hug"?(Not to mention do OTHER THINGS, if you know what I mean.) Kaboom? Because you've got two extradimensional spaces going into each other.<br />
<br />
Although I guess that would be an awesome scheme for a mind-controlling villain.<br />
<br />
== Apologies, Suggestions ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Titanic, I am sorry. I didn't see your note in the signature header to not make any edits. Did a revert to your last version. Even if I can't edit, I will make some suggestions. Take 'em or leave 'em:<br />
<br />
* A Simple age category seems appropriate for a character called "anime girl": for example, humans start at 15 +1d4 years in the Simple age category (max 19 years old).<br />
* Since the class doesn't take well to Charisma-penalized races (half-orcs, tieflings), would it be safe to say Charisma is a big part of the anime girl's abilities?<br />
* Which anime show(s), manga or character(s) will you be referencing for this class? There are a lot of female-only casts in anime and manga, not just the CLAMP stuff. You have a wide library to choose from, so I hope you choose well.<br />
* Some anime girls are magical in nature. If she is magical, will she cast/manifest like any of the other classes or will she have a smaller spell/power list?<br />
<br />
Just some things to consider when designing the class. --[[User:Gedren56|Gedren56]] 13:49, 25 March 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
(Reply)<br />
* Simple Age will definitely be my choice too.<br />
* Yes, CHA will be the primary attribute, with DEX coming into play as well – you know how skinny these anime girls can get.<br />
* References are more of the stereotypical kind, such as Maison Ikkoku, Ramna ½, etc. I look at the class as a humorous, almost victim-class. Especially with the Demonic Attention. Consider that a disadvantage.<br />
<br />
I definitely don't have clue what I'm doing, but hey, it's fun to play with. --[[User:Titanic|Titanic]] 12:58, 26 March 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:If you have the time or access, take a look at the roleplaying system '''Big Eyes, Small Mouth''' (BESM). Either version is fine, but the d20 version is easier to adapt. You can get a lot of ideas from that. I should have thought of that the first time around, but it slipped my mind. --[[User:Gedren56|Gedren56]] 09:42, 1 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
*Please make this more clear posibly by using an example - "Catgirl-Type Cosplay: The anime girl gains sneak attack (as the rogue ability) with damage dice equal to 1/4 anime girl class level" --[[User:Wdwilson1|Wdwilson1]] 2:13am 17 Sep 09 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Clarified with an example and made changes to the catgirl-type cosplay's sneak attack dice progression. --[[User:Gedren56|Gedren56]] 09:40, 2 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
===More Suggestions===<br />
My kids love this class. My 9 year old daughter wanted to play an anime girl, so I created the dataset for PCGen. I just loved working on this class. It's so much fun!! Even though it literally took me days to create a data set that worked, I never felt like it was chore (and I now know more about PCGen lst files than I ever thought I would!). In creating the data sets, I realized a few things and would like to pass them along as suggestions, if you don't mind. <br />
<br />
While this class is A LOT of fun to read, it is considerably underpowered when compared to core PC classes. It's hard to justify a 4th level caster class that has only 2 spells in its repertoire. Perhaps the general feeling is that since this class has a better-than-caster BAB progression, larger-than-caster HD (6) and better than average Saving Throw progressions, this is acceptable. Even the Psychic Warrior (not exactly core, but included with PCGen's provided data set) who has the same BAB stats and bigger HD (8) has more &ldquo;magic&rdquo;. The same goes for the other two types (which I ended up making subclasses for Anime Girl) don't compare favorably with their core counterparts. The fighter-type lacks both offensive (with lower-than-fighter BAB and fewer fighter feats) and staying power (low HD), IMO. The catgirl (or rogue-type, as I've come to call it) is at a big disadvantage in trying to pump up her primary skills, as many skills normally on the rogue list cost the Anime Girl double. I know she get's the 1/2 lvl bonus to some skills, but it's not nearly enough, IMO. As a result, I compensated in certain ways, and I'm wondering if it was too much. Here are some of them:<br />
* ''More Costumes!'' To make the class more appealing I allowed the class to switch between costumes. One of the most wonderful concepts to this class is that anime girls merely have to don a costume, and they suddenly are able to assume some of the abilities of that costume's type. Switching costumes can't just happen nilly-willy, though. I've imposed restrictions on how long it takes to prepare a costume and how frequently a costume may be changed. At first, it takes an hour to prepare a costume (accessorizing is difficult!) and anime girl is only allowed to wear one costume per day, but as time goes on, the changes can happen more quickly, switching costumes during the day becomes possible, and the highest levels allow switching costumes mid-encounter. I also toyed with only allowing one costume for the entire 1st level, then adding a second costume at 3rd, or something like that, but ended up throwing that out. It was too much to keep track of. Allowing costume switching makes the Anime Girl class a little more akin to a Bard in the sense that she can do it all, but in a watered-down, less potent sort of way.<br />
* ''Spell System Revision'' <br />
** ''Varied Spells'' My daughter wanted psionic spells, so I added in that as a possibility for the Magic-type. Additionally, since the Magic-type is fairly spell poor, I eliminated the progression of adding in spell types (divine, arcane, psionic) at Cosplay levels. She can choose from arcane, divine or psionic from level one.<br />
** Since the original spell progression didn't seem to account for 0th level spells, I allowed a number of 0th level spells equal to her charisma modifier. <br />
** More narrowly specified the available spells as any spell that belongs to the the Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wilder class spell lists (instead of all Arcane, Divine and Psionic). <br />
** Continued with divine (and psionic) spells being treated as arcane. Additionally, Psionic powers may be automagically augmented to casterlevel. <br />
** As for what level spell she may choose, I rephrased it as, &ldquo;Starting at 1st level, and every other level after that, she may add a new spell to her repertoire that is of spell level equal to or lower than her caster level.&rdquo; (I was trying to reduce confusion by stating what she ''can'' do, instead of what she ''can not'' -- which may be no less confusing, I suppose)<br />
** The allowed number of spell castings seemed too low. Mainly, what bothered me was that you could start with say 6 (cha=17) spell castings per day, and by level 20 maybe have only double that (if one considers +8 or +10 Charisma items and attribute bonuses from every 4 levels). To give the Magic-type more opportunities to be truly magical, I added whatever the current Cosplay Level number is to the spell casting total (i.e., each cosplay level adds one more spell cast per day). I also explicitely allowed the bonus spells from Table 1.1 in the handbook that are derived from high Caster-Stat ability scores. (The current description does not mention whether this bonus is allowed or not). The final formula was 3 + CHA mod + cosplay level + any bonus spells due to charisma. A level 20 anime girl with a 30 cha would have 33 spell castings. In comparison, a 20 sorcerer with 30 charisma could cast 77 spells (and have quite a few more spells to choose from).<br />
** I reordered some of the Cosplay Level bonuses. +1 caster level seemed like one of the more powerful bonuses, and I undermined the choose-arcane-or-divine bonus. The resulting progression looks like this:<br />
*** Cosplay Level I: +2 Will Saves and Eschew Materials bonus feat (why eschew materials? the reasoning was that Anime Girls really think it's yucky to be handling spider webs, bat guano, and the like materials.)<br />
***Cosplay Level II: Choose Metamagic or Item Creation Feat<br />
***Cosplay Level III: Gain a bonus caster level<br />
***Cosplay Level IV: (Same: Add charisma mod to direct damage), as originally stated. Although, since it seemed open to interpretation whether the charisma bonus to damage was applied to each dice roll or to the total damage, I defined it as total damage. Considering that a 16th level Magic-type would only cast an 8d6 ''Chain Lightning'', it was a tough decision not to add it to each die roll or, in anticipation of a mid to high 20's charisma score, maybe modify it to 1/2 cha mod to each die roll.<br />
***Cosplay Level V: (Same) <br />
* Because some abilities were not on the '''Anime Girl Table''', it was difficult to tell if they were supposed to have been removed. Particularly ''Charming'' and ''Tentacle Susceptibility''. Related to this, the ''Fiendish Attention'' ability on the table has no definition. It sounds interesting, like she would attract monsters (they'd sense her or something, from a certain distance?). Or was it the kind of thing like bad guys are drawn to her, she makes them repent, then they follow her around like a minion? Anyway, I added the ''Charming'' and ''Tentacle Susceptibility'', but left out Fiendish Attention for lack of its intent.<br />
I can see how you might think some of the changes are too sweeping or so deep-cutting that it doesn't seem like the same class at all. Personally, I don't feel that way, of course. The intention was to take the spirit of the class and improve/refine it in such a way that my PCs would want to choose it as much as they would any other class. I'd love to hear any feedback. Thanks!<br />
[[User:Syneran|Syneran]] 8 September April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Humorous ==<br />
<br />
The name before was Anime Girl (DnD Class, humorous), which isn't a proper name for dandwiki. I moved the page to Anime Girl (DnD Class) because it is the proper title and tag. For the humorous part, I added the [[:Category:April Fools|April Fool's Category]], as is usual for things like this. -[[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine the Rogue]] 14:59, 26 March 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
(reply)<br />
<br />
Thanks for the little edit. Makes more sense.<br />
<br />
== Just stumbled across... ==<br />
<br />
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Tropes<br />
<br />
Basically it has more than a few things which might be applicable given the somewhat stereotypical/cliched nature of the abilities that seem in line for the class. Namely:<br />
<br />
*[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheChick The Chick]<br />
*[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ActionGirl Action Girl]<br />
**[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StandardFemaleGrabArea Standard Female Grab Area] - Achilles heel-type device<br />
**[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitledr2p2k8t?from=Main.WouldntHitAGirl Wouldn't Hit a Girl] - male attackers suffer penalties (perhaps at the discretion of a saving throw)<br />
*[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Fanservice Fanservice]... which gives rise to the sub-tropes, which are numerous and stereotypical and would require some creativity on your part (and may not be desirable), but could nevertheless be a source of inspiration. I have picked out a few that might fit better.<br />
**[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MostCommonSuperPower Most Common Super Power]<br />
**[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NakedFirstImpression Naked First Impression]<br />
**[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JigglePhysics Jiggle Physics]/[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Gainaxing Gainaxing]<br />
**[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PantyShot Panty Shot]/[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DistractedByTheSexy Distracted by the Sexy] (depending on who you're playing with, perhaps)<br />
**[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CensorSteam Censor Steam]<br />
**[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HelloBoys Hello, boys...]<br />
**[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ClothingDamage Clothing Damage] - gains Charisma for each successive round spent fighting, perhaps (might cost AC)<br />
**[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CatFight Cat Fight]<br />
**[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BoobsOfSteel Boobs of Steel]<br />
<br />
Granted they tend to sexualize the character, but hey, it is anime, isn't it? -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 15:56, 26 March 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Still working on this. Please don't delete! ==<br />
[[User:Titanic|Titanic]]<br />
:If you're still working on it then please...update it? [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 16:18, 12 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== C'mon, man... ==<br />
<br />
Work on this thing! If you can't, may I adopt it? If so, is this the proper place to propose adoption?<br />
--[[User:Gedren56|Gedren56]] 12:12, 28 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:It's been a month. I would say go ahead, or start your own variant. It isn't like there's much here to work with. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 14:07, 28 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::''Excellent.'' --[[User:Gedren56|Gedren56]] 09:51, 29 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Spells? ==<br />
<br />
I love the class and I know you say that you're working on it, but one thing to fix is the spells. What are the spell level restraints? I got that the number of spells she knows is 1/2 of her level, but you could make that clearer. The class is awesome bro! I can't wait to see the finished product. -Tyraxor 20:35 6/9/09<br />
<br />
:Wow, a request to fix spells. Excited to hear from you, and will make the most of your suggestion. --[[User:Gedren56|Gedren56]] 15:24, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
:[EDIT TO ABOVE] Looked at class and was about to work on magical-type when I read this:<br><br />
::''The anime girl knows a number of spells '''and has a caster level''' equal to 1/2 her class level (minimum 1).''<br><br />
:What this means is a magical-type anime girl of Xth level would have a caster level (CL) of X/2. She can cast any X/2nd level spell, but she only has X/2 spells to choose from. For instance, Nanoha (a 3rd level anime girl on the magical-girl track with a Charisma of 16) reaches 4th level. She now has a caster level of 2nd, and now has 2 spells to choose from out of the whole sorcerer/wizard spell list. She chooses ''shield'' and ''scorching ray'' as her spells, and she can cast a spell 6 times a day (3 + Nanoha's Charisma modifier [score of 16 = modifier of +3]). To clarify, Nanoha '''does not and cannot''' cast each spell 6 times but she '''can''' cast ''one'' spell 6 times.<br />
<br />
:Let me know if this makes sense and I will clarify it in the actual class description. --[[User:Gedren56|Gedren56]] 15:59, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::[EDIT TO ABOVE] Re-read what I wrote and I should make it clearer, thusly: "An anime girl on the "magical girl" track cannot cast a spell whose level is greater than her caster level." Hope this'll work. --[[User:Gedren56|Gedren56]] 12:42, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it can become powerful if you work at it --[[User:Jagen heie|Jagen heie]] 22:32, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - 5/5''' I give this class a 5 out of 5 because used proper gramer and spelling --[[User:Jagen heie|Jagen heie]] 22:32, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - 2/5''' I give this class a 2 out of 5 because it was missing some of the class information for how to play as an anime girl --[[User:Jagen heie|Jagen heie]] 22:32, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - 5/5''' I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is unique and very well planned --[[User:Jagen heie|Jagen heie]] 22:32, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Will work on how to play an anime girl as soon as I can. Please bear with me. --[[User:Gedren56|Gedren56]] 15:25, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - 2/5''' I give this class a 2 out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> The progressions are too random and unfocused, and the class in general isn't quite balanced. I feel the class should be three seperate prestige classes with the following requirements:<br />
Alignment: Any (There are SOME truely evil anime girls out there)<br />
Disguse self: 8 ranks<br />
Profession (Cooking): 3 ranks<br />
Gender: Female<br />
Must have brightly coloured (dyed) hair (natural or unatural)<br />
Class skills: Bluff, Craft (any), Disguise, Diplomacy, Profession (cooking), Sense motive, Use magic device.<br />
<br />
<br />
Each prestige class type would have different progression as follows:<br />
Cosplay Warrior: Good Base attack bonus; Good Fort save HD 10, Skills per lvl (3+int)<br />
Cosplay Magician: Poor Base attack bonus; Good Will save HD 4, Skills per lvl (3+int)<br />
Cosplay Catgirl: Normal Base attack bonus; Good Reflex save HD 6, Skills per lvl (8+int)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Cosplay''' In order to activate the cosplay, the anime girl must make a disguise self check versus her opponents sense motive check. If she fails this check, her opponents see through her disguise for what she really is and call her on her bluff; that she is not really a warrior/magician/catgirl and just a silly little girl in a costume, shaking her resolve, taking a cumulative -2 penalty each time. Once she succeeds, she has fooled her audience (and herself) and becomes the warrior/magician/catgirl the the remainder of the encounter, gaining abilities as descirbed below:<br />
<br />
'''Cosplay progressions:''' Should happen at lvls 1 4 7 and 10.<br />
<br />
''Warrior''<br />
CP BONUS 1: Weapon Focus and proficiency with exotic weapon chosen. Add intimidate, knowledge (local) and diplomacy<br />
CP BONUS 2: Two weapon fighting feat or Precise shot feat or Endurance feat<br />
CP BONUS 3: Improved two weapon fighting or Rapid shot feat or Die-hard feat<br />
CP BONUS 4: Greater two weapon fighting or Many shot feat or Rage 1/day as per Barbarian ability<br />
<br />
''Magician''<br />
CP BONUS 1: Scribe scroll and proficiency with (exotic) weapon chosen. The anime Girl knows one spell per lvl of anime girl<br />
class, the spell must be of the same lvl or lower of her class when learned. Also, each level, an anime girl may choose to forget<br />
a spell and learn another one in its place. the new spell must be at least one level lower than her anime girl level. She may<br />
cast these spells 4 times a day, plus any bonus spells for high charisma. The DC for her spells are charisma based. She can cast<br />
deiine or arcane. Add Decipher script, knowledge religion, knowledge arcane and spellcraft to her skills.<br />
CP BONUS 2: Bonus meta magic or item creation feat.<br />
CP BONUS 3: Bonus meta magic or item creation feat.<br />
CP BONUS 4: Bonus meta magic or item creation feat. (she can potentially cast wish, miracle and another 9th lvl spell 4 times a day)<br />
<br />
''Catgirl''<br />
CP BONUS 1: Proficiency with exotic weapon chosen. The catgirl gains sneak attack damage as a rogue does (1d6) at 1st lvl,<br />
and andditional 1d6 every two levels thereafter. Add Balance, Hide, Move Silently, Listen, Open lock, Sleight of hand, Search,<br />
Spot, Tumble.<br />
CP BONUS 2: Evasion or +10 base movement<br />
CP BONUS 3: Improved evasion +20 base movement<br />
CP BONUS 4: Hide in plain slight or +30 base movement<br />
<br />
<br />
'''A girl's gotta defend herself''' Anime Girls gain the unarmed strike feat at level 1.<br />
<br />
'''"A" for effort''' The anime girl may add her charisma modifier to any attacks, saves or skill checks she makes (she only adds<br />
her charisma modifier to charisma based skill checks once.<br />
<br />
Brightly coloured hair should give the +2 to cha checks (except use magic devise) but should also confer a -2 penalty to hide<br />
checks, as she "stands out in a crowd"<br />
<br />
Make tentacle susceptability come into effect at lvl 1.<br />
<br />
Poisinous cooking should either be made in secret, or whenever someone eats an anime girls cooking, go two ways with this:<br />
-If the anime girl succeeds on her cooking, then whenever someone eats the dish, they must be succeed on a will save DC = to the cooking check or treat the anime girl as one step friendlier.<br />
-If the anime girl fails her check (it is poisonous), then when ever someone eats that dish they must make a fortitude save DC = 10+ the total cooking check or be poisoned.<br />
The taster may add his or her own Profession (cooking) or Profession Food taster check to avoid either of these outcomes.<br />
The anime girl is immune to the effects of her own cooking, and cannot tell if it is poisonous or not (she assumes it is always amazing)<br />
<br />
The DC on wouldn't hit a girl should either be static + cha modifier (ie consistent to her lvl or ranks in a skill) or it should<br />
be a skill check such as bluff when feinting vs the opponenets sense motive, with the effects described. It should also be gender<br />
dependent (Ie only effective vs males).<br />
<br />
'''Half your age plus 7 Distraction (lvl 2)''': The anime girl gets a +1 to diplomacy and bluff checks against older males. This<br />
bonus is cumulative +1 per each factor of age difference (ie Girl on is 15 vs bugbear age 30; factor of 1, +1 bouns. Girl Two is<br />
age 12 vs Elven MOnk age 195, gest +4 [24,48,96,192]. Girl Three is age 17 vs stable boy age 18. No bonus.<br />
<br />
'''Half your age plus 7 Attraction (lvl 2):''' The anime girl takes a -2 to grapples and escape artist checks vs older males. <br />
This bonus is cumulative -2 per each factor of age difference (ie Girl one is age 15 vs Bugbear age 31; factor of 1 takes a -2.<br />
Girl Two is Age 12 vs Elven Monk age 195, takes -8 [24,48,96,192]. Girl Three is age 17 vs stable boy age 18. Takes no penalty)<br />
<br />
Distracted by the skin should be akin to a monks wis bonus to AC, except it should factor in only when the anime girl IS flat<br />
footed (and within 30 feet). This bonus doubles if the anime girl IS helpless. The ability has no effect against creatures with<br />
tentecles (This ability is NOT gender dependant)<br />
<br />
Change the charming abilites to 3rd 6th 9th and replace the abilites with charm person, hold person, dominate person (1/day each), with the DC = to 10 + her anime girl lvl + her cha modifier.<br />
<br />
Megaton punch should work like favored enemy at lvl 4, ie it can only be used against a specific type of enemy (or ally), but she<br />
gets +2 on this attack. Upgrades to Megaton kick at lvl 8, with a +4 on this attack.<br />
<br />
'''Ultimate Cosplayer''' At level 10, the Anime Girl is so into cosplaying that she actually believes she is a warrior/magician<br />
catgirl, and no longer needs to make a disguise check to convince her opponents otherwise. Even if anyone sees through her<br />
disguise, she retains all cosplay abilites, as long as she believes in herself.<br />
<br />
--[[User:70.54.6.104|70.54.6.104]] 21:20, 4 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because Still needs to be proof read in certain spots --[[User:70.54.6.104|70.54.6.104]] 21:20, 4 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - 2/5''' I give this class a 2 out of 5 because Incomplete, etc. --[[User:70.54.6.104|70.54.6.104]] 21:20, 4 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because on the one hand, it's nice to see some non-standard classes and ideas, however the abilities and character background can not be used in a serious campaign (although I would welcome this character in an of my sessions) --[[User:70.54.6.104|70.54.6.104]] 21:20, 4 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You DO realize that this character was not designed for a serious campaign, yes? <br />
:In reading your suggestions, particularly the part about turning the anime girl base class into 3 different prestige classes, you might want to ''read the third line'' under '''"Cosplay Henshin"''' about anime girls not being able to change their cosplay costume once chosen. It's a defining class feature that essentially limits the anime girl to one form of cosplay until epic levels, where a 21st level anime girl gains the ability of '''"Cosplay Henshin Master"'''(combined cosplay costumes with different benefits). Then again, we may not be talking about the same issue you may have with this class.<br />
:Then a question came to my mind: if you wish to have the extensive changes made as listed above, why not make your own prestige classes and implement changes there instead of on this page? On the other hand, you wouldn't have written in to this talk page to do your own thing. I hereby grant permission to change the anime girl base class into a balanced and organized class. Understandably, "balance" and "organization" is subjective, and if the above requests for changes are any indication I expect something...''other'' than what I wrote when I look in on this article again. --[[User:Gedren56|Gedren56]] 14:20, 18 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - 2.5/5''' I give this class a 2.5 out of 5 because this class is unbalanced and weak. --[[User:Io|Io]] 01:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it is okay, but it needs help on the wording. --[[User:Io|Io]] 01:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - 3/5''' I give this class a 3 out of 5 because this class is missing alot of the important stuff on how to play this class. --[[User:Io|Io]] 01:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Lol ==<br />
<br />
Just would like to say that was a nice idea and I hope to see the complete work soon :)<br />
I play a "cartoonish" campaign (based on video games like Disgaea) and it totally fits it, lol.<br />
<br />
:Thank you, that was my goal. You are welcome.--[[User:Gedren56|Gedren56]] 09:34, 14 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Is this still being made? ==<br />
<br />
Hey, I just found this page, and it looks like something I could use, if only to play a joke on my DM. Is it still being constructed, and when will it be done?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Macgyvercas|Macgyvercas]] 11:08, 30 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Sure, go nuts if the nameless guy below you doesn't get to it first and start an edit war.--[[User:Gedren56|Gedren56]] 09:33, 14 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Mind if I commandeer this? ==<br />
<br />
I've been working on this on my own for about a week, and I think I came up with some pretty fun ideas. Anyone mind if I were to commandeer and finish this class? I'd hate to see it in a state of perpetual incompleteness.<br />
<br />
:Sure, go nuts if the guy above you doesn't get to it first and start an edit war.--[[User:Gedren56|Gedren56]] 09:33, 14 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<nowiki><!-- !!!REMOVE THIS FIRST LINE OF THIS PAGE BEFORE YOU SAVE!!! (i.e. the "nowiki" tag) --><br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - 5/5''' I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~<br />
<br />
'''Wording - 5/5''' I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - 5/5''' I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - 5/5''' I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hooker_(3.5e_Class)&diff=600207Talk:Hooker (3.5e Class)2012-12-12T01:04:12Z<p>Badger: /* Rating */ One does not vandalize my Hooker page and live to tell the tale!</p>
<hr />
<div>== Necessary?==<br />
Why not just use [[SRD:Expert|Expert]] or [[SRD:Commoner|Commoner]]? I can't imagine a prostitute would be useful for a PC class. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We just let our sorcerer put ranks in Profession(Streetwalker)(CHA based skill) and had some formula for what DC made what money, based on relative wealth of the neighborhood. Also, there was some feature akin to "+5 on gather information or intimidate checks to characters from whom you've used this skill." In this instance, intimidate was more along the lines or blackmail and extortion than "hulking brute face smashes". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Now that sounds interesting (I presume the formula was similar to pick pocketing). I'm just not sure how one could expand that to an entire class, though. I guess we'll see (or we won't, and this will get deleted). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Our DM made up something like this, only I'm pretty sure there were also logarithms and integrals: <br />
<br />
:::(Profession check*Charisma modifier*Community modifier from DMG*(GP limit of town/Adult population))=Copper Pieces made in a night<br />
<br />
:::Because you are multiplying by the Community modifier it was impossible to effectively "streetwalk" in anything smaller than a "large town". We attributed this to increased presence of a tight-knit community, with strong morals; smaller towns unwillingness to allow such behavior; the fact that word spreads in small towns; or the increase in percentage of guards per citizen. Also, you had to have a Charisma score higher than 10 in order to use this skill. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's not supposed to be useful, its just for fun. Also, I like the money making idea, I'll try to put that in.--[[User:Luxtan|Lüxtan]] 06:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Done ==<br />
<br />
The class is done for the most part, I just have to finalize a few details, but other than that, it is playable, so could someone remove the deletion template.--[[User:Luxtan|Lüxtan]] 06:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This class is not yet playable. You have yet to add what "Call Pimp" does, and it's customary that all class abilities be included on the page (ie, include the text from "distracting cleavage" on the class page, or at least a link in the body of the page. Also, does a hooker have to meet the pre-req's for that feat?). Furthermore, I have no idea what you are doing with spells. If a Hooker can cast spells, you need to give them a spell progression: spells per day, spells known, and preperation process. For example, when can a Hooker cast Charm Person? How many times per day? Need she prepare it beforehand? If these are truly "Spells" you needen't include (sp) behind the name. However, if these are Spell like abilities, which is what I think they are, you should remove the "spells" heading, and make them class abilities. Also, looking at your "spells per day" table, it looks like you can cast level 1 spells only. Is that the case? What about the higher level spells you have on your lists? On Ex-hookers: If they return to a chaotic alignment, can they begin to attain levels in Hooker, or must they go through some "attonement" procedure? After you finish off the mechanical stuff I mentioned you still need to add a ton of fluff, like "Hookers in the world", and "Playing a hooker". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::It's complete enough so for now I took off the deletion tag. However, it's not really usable as a class, and not funny or clever enough to be justified keeping it in April Fools. If you do a little more work on it it could be a very good April Fools entry. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Personally, until the page says what "Call Pimp" does I'd leave the deletion template up. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I dunno, it's one of those gray areas that aren't really covered by any tags. Even though it doesn't have much mechanics-wise *other* than call pimp, there's only one class feature that isn't fully described. It doesn't seem right to delete it when someone could so easily finish it. You or I could finish it without much work, but the only reason we are doing so is in deference to the creator.<br />
<br />
::::Don't worry, though, I'll keep an eye on it so it doesn't get forgotten. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Suggestions==<br />
If you plan to keep this as an "April Fools" class, you might as well add some more jokes. here are a few of my suggestions, others should feel free to add more --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
*Reduced movement speed do to heels, but a climb speed equal to half base land speed<br />
*Immune to diseases, or can cause diseases<br />
*Payday: whenever you strike with a "acrylic nail" attack you may make a sleight of hand check (DC 17) as a free action to steal a bag of coins or similarly sized item off the person. <br />
*What did you call me: Once per day per four levels, a Hooker may enter a "Hooker's rage", which mechanically is identical to a barbarian's rage. <br />
*Unrivaled streetwalker: At level X a hooker can use Freedom of Movement as a spell like ability at will, but only at night, or in places with dim illumination (such as caves, alleys, or particularly dark forests.<br />
*Get low: Whenever grappling a humanoid member of the opposite sex, the opponent must make a Will Save (DC 10+Hooker class level) or automatically be grappled. The opponent is denied all grapple checks (thus, automatically failing them) until he succeeds this will save. The DC decreases by 1 for every round the Hooker does damage to her foe. Any creature that makes this will save is immune to this ability from this hooker for 24 hours.<br />
*He kept the pimp hand strong: Due to years of resistance, at level X a hooker gets total immunity to non-lethal damage. Any attack that would normally deal non-lethal damage instead deals no damage at all.<br />
*Familiar with tongues: A level X hooker can comprehend all spoken languages. Furthermore, she can instantly translate any language spoken near her to Common (or any other known language). However, she cannot speak the language unless she already knows it. (ie, Sugargurl, the human hooker, can hear kobolds in the next room talking, in draconic, about plans to blow up city hall. However, she cannot speak draconic back to them unless she already knows how to speak draconic). <br />
*Turn a blind eye: At level X a hooker can turn herself invisible for a number of rounds equal to her charisma modifier (or until she attacks, whichever comes first). This length is doubled for Lawful Good-aligned creatures and halved for any creature with a chaotic alignment. While invisible she is also magically silenced. She can speak, but she is only heard by those who can see her.<br />
*B!tch be trippin': A level X hooker gains Improved Trip as a bonus feat, even if she does not have the prerequisites. <br />
*Sometimes I fake it: Once per day a Hooker may replace any single attack roll with a Bluff check. She must declare that she is doing this before hearing the outcome of her original attack. She may use either her bluff check or her attack roll, whichever is higher. <br />
<br />
:Since my [[Economist (3.5e Class)|economist]] I've wanted to make other occupations into classes, so I can quite readily say I approve of this, though I think ''He kept the pimp hand strong'', aside from perhaps needing a shorter name, could potentially be broken when combined with something which provides regeneration. Otherwise, brainstorm away; I'll add my two cents later, perhaps. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 23:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::It's April Fools, so I'm just throwing out random ideas that would get laughed off the table at any serious game. As for a shorter name for "he kept the pimp hand strong", I couldn't think of something that tied back into the comedic hooker theme. Feel free to modify, this doesn't even qualify as "rough draft" for me yet. "School of hard knocks" maybe? I think funny names of class features is a key part of April Fools classes. As for B!tch be trippin', I know our policy on swearing, but this page has a Adult template on it, so I figured it'd be ok. Also I'm not swearing ''at'' anyone. Am I right? I guess we could rename that if we must. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 08:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Seeing as how the user hasn't been back in two weeks, and this class still isn't up to snuff, I placed the abandoned tag on it. Feel free to add to your heart's content. And don't take my word as official or anything, but I don't think that "the B word" is really high on the list of Swears You Can't Say On The Wiki. Actually, I think it's even funnier if you censor it like you did above. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Does anyone have a guess as to what "Call Pimp" was supposed to be? Or at least what you would make it? I don't want to remove one of three class features, but I have any idea how to include it. I think the +1d4 is really confusing me... --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::I have no idea. I thought maybe it was a sneak-attack type thing, but 1d4 / 2 levels + 1 seems underpowered, especially a limited number of times per day. Then I thought maybe you literally called 2d4 pimps to help you out, but that seems ''over''powered, and really if you have more than one pimp in the same room they are going to fight each other for you, not fight your enemies. Maybe it's just a bonus to your damage roll every time you use the ability. Power-wise it works, but logic-wise it's a little strange. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::So it's the hooker version of the Paladin's Smite Evil (for lawful creatures?)? I think I'll go with that, but reduce the progression and change the d4 to d6 (because bottom line, I've got like 3d4 and 300d6...) we change the name from "call pimp" to "Double D's of Doom" or "Chaotic Cans" or "Anarchic Knockers"... --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::Ha ha ha, yeah, Hooker Smite sounds about right. I would think it should be against lawful creatures though. As a way, for example, to fight off the pesky Paladin trying to put her in custody. If you go that route, definitely call it something other than call pimp. DDD or CC works, I love the alliteration. Or maybe you can replace the acrylic nail proficiency with this instead, call it "Cat Fighting" or something. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::::Alright, so I've added a bunch of the mechanical aspects to this class. However, in order to be a good April Fools class it needs to have funny descriptions. I've tried a few, and they kinda fail, so if someone wants to go in and add fluff on the class abilities to make them funnier, that would be appreciated. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Oh man, this is great! I tried to make it funnier, but I think it's pretty good as-is. (I actually laughed out loud). I did make a few minor changes though, so see if you agree. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 01:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Gentlemen prefer blondes==<br />
So I'm working on a new class feature, essentially based on what hair color you have you get special abilities. Meditating for 1 hour at the start of the day will change your hair color. All effects end 24 hours later. Suggestions for color attributes? It's a level 19 ability, so they can be strong, or several lesser traits... --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
*Blonde- A blond may subtract up to her hooker level from her intelligence score and add it to her charisma score. Note: She can take up to, and beyond, her intelligence score. If she does that she suffers all the normal penalties for having intelligence reduced to (or below) zero. Her abilities return to normal 24 hours later. If she sets her intelligence to below 3 she is treated as an animal, and loses all class abilities except her natural attack.<br />
**Blonde alternate- continually under the effects of [[Mind_blank|Mind Blank]]<br />
*Brunette- +2 on WIS checks, Can use "Sometimes I Fake It" a number of times equal to her Charisma modifier.<br />
**Brunette alternate- "Go both ways": gender specific class features (at this point just get low) can be used on either gender, not just the alternate one<br />
*Redhead- +2 on CON checks, Immunity to Fire<br />
**Redhead alternate- When in a "Hooker's Rage" you catch fire. You deal an additional (1d6+CHA mod) fire damage on all natural/unarmed attacks.<br />
*Non-Natural Colors:<br />
**Blue- +2 Str, gain +2 to all attacks<br />
**Green- +2 Dex, gain one more use of all spells<br />
**Pink- +2 on INT checks, Double Team becomes Triple Timin'<br />
**Other- pick the benefits of any one color above<br />
<br />
:I don't really know if these are balanced, but I added some suggestions. Blond, brunette and redhead are easier to figure out that the other colors. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 01:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I would treat blond as something that scales up to mindblank or something similar, with red hair being rage-related. Brunette has less defined cultural connotations/stereotypes, so I'm not sure what you'd go with there. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 02:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, so I added an alternate for redhead, blonde, and brunette; we can swap them out or combine them if that sounds better than what we have. As for non-natural colors, I just added them so we could get some interesting other attributes if we wanted. The colors I added were just the first three I thought of, feel free to change them or add new ones. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 03:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::New Blonde power; (undoubtedly) too powerful, but it's a joke class so I'm inclined to leave it because it ''is'' funny... --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 06:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Meh, I'm ok with it. Especially if it's used by a very good roleplayer. Think about it, she lowers her intelligence, finds out that she does better, then lowers it again, then does even better, and eventually gets stuck in the loop and is too dumb to get out of it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 01:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::The balance issue comes when she's taking 9 out of INT and dumping it on CHA. That's a +4 mod for "free". Considering all the class abilities that revolve around CHA, she might be too overpowered. But again, power is not something I bother with on April Fools. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::Well, I'm actually going to use this class. Don't ask me WHY, but I'm going to use it. So, if we were to use the hair color joke, the transfer of ability points just doesn't seem like a good idea. Perhaps using this is a better idea?<br />
<br />
* Blonde: A Blonde may subtract up to twice her intelligence modifier and add it to her charisma score. <br />
<br />
:::::::Sound like a plan? [[User:PokeDM|PokeDM]] 23:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::::I'd like to remind you this is an April Fool's class. That means it's not very well balanced within most games, most likely. Your alteration doesn't do anything with a blonde who has an INT of 11 or lower (modifier 0). Honestly, I like the way it works as is. It's strong, but it's level 19, so not that strong. Also, by dropping your INT to 4 you're making it really easy for someone to stat death you and remove you from combat. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::::If you have to limit it, you should limit it to either "you can't go below 0 int" or "you can't move more than your original CHA modifier's worth of points". It straight-up says that Int is a dump stat, so it's not useful to limit it to that. I like the clarification of what happens if you go below 0 Int though. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 04:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Finishing touches==<br />
Alright, so what are our thoughts on getting a picture for this page? I know at this point it hardly matters, as pictures aren't working. I'm just curious. I think a picture would help finish off this page, as long as we kept it relatively tame. Also, we need to write a sample encounter. I hate doing that, so I've just been putting that off. Any volunteers? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 08:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Gender Neutral Pronouns ==<br />
<br />
I don't like them. I think they are a bad call. The jokes from the class come from the names. If you change the names, they become less funny. Anyone else agree? I've not immediately reverted the edits, but I'm inclined to, unless someone has a better reason than "that's what's done". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:07, 2 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I agree, the change was unnecessary. Besides which, changing "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" to "Blonde Preference" makes it sound like the character is the one who has a fair-hair preference, not the character's clientele. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:10, 2 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::"That's what's done" was my reason. There must be a way to keep the humor (although some I think is improved, like the trippin' name). Although I really don't care enough to think more about this personally. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 2 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::No offense, but that's a really bad reason to do things. (Reminds me of the joke of the woman who always cut the ends of the roast off before she put it in the oven but didn't know why; look it up if you aren't familiar). Especially if you don't care enough to fix it... [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:29, 2 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Well it works (flavor-wise) in my opinion as it is (or I would not have done it), but I guess others disagree. And things should be "what's done" (unless of course they hurt the article in a way, then it should be discussed), but to argue in this instance I don't think makes sense. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:59, 2 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok, so, my point is that I ''do'' think it hurts the article, which is why I started this dicusssion. "He kept the pimp hand strong" is an expression that people are familiar with. "She be trippin'" is likewise an urban expression. Neither of those actually refer to the hooker herself, either, so there's that. Continuing on, "Gentlemen prefer blondes" is a reference to a classic movie. On that front, I'd be willing to change it to something else, like "Blondes have more fun", but "Blonde preference" is just altogether un-funny. That said, I'm open to your suggestions as to how to make the names gender neutral, as well as funny. I just think most of your suggestions were rather lacking. I know most classes in the SRD have gender neutral names, but that's because most names are dull. "Enhance Arrow +3" is just lame when you compare it to "Chaotic Cans +3d4" (which by the way, isn't a gender neutral name). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:56, 2 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Here are some ideas I had.<br />
::::::Maybe change it to "keeping the pimp hand strong"? Strong was important there I guess.<br />
::::::How about "be trippin'" for that? A song "Got 'Em All Under Pressure" by Young Droop makes mention of "be trippin'" with multiple nouns (including the original), although of course that is not a definitive resource (but a resource nonetheless). Thoughts?<br />
::::::Maybe pull things from the film? "Blonds like diamonds, brunettes like marrying rich" (I don't know: I've never seen the film, I just read a review). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:45, 2 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Where to begin, let's just go in your order:<br />
:::::::*"He kept the pimp hand strong" makes reference to the hooker being hit, not hitting (if you read the class feature you could tell that). The joke is the pimp (he) hit the hooker so often and with such force (kept the pimp hand strong) that she is now immune to non-lethal damage.<br />
:::::::*"She be trippin'" was originally "B!tch be trippin'" and was changed at some point (likely to not say naughty words). Ironically, that was a gender neutral class ability. Clearly someone was opposed to that, but otherwise it was funnier and gender neutral. I'm in favor of going back to that.<br />
:::::::*"Gentlemen prefer blondes" is only funny insofar as you can make it seem dirty and sexual. If you change it to something like you suggested, the joke isn't there. The film isn't about hookers, so drawing quotes from it wouldn't make the joke funnier. Moreover, your suggestion is way too long to be a class feature. There is a critical length for funny names, and anything beyond it just fails to hit the comedic mark. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 11:12, 3 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - 3/5''' I give this class a 3 out of 5 because it is not meant to be a powerhouse class. It is as it needs to be. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.110|173.245.50.110]] 05:16, 10 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - 5/5''' I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the verbage is brilliant. Very entertaining. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.110|173.245.50.110]] 05:16, 10 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - 5/5''' I give this class a 5 out of 5 because for what it is, it's perfect. An urban support character that is mostly geared for NPCs, but can operate as a low power PC. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.110|173.245.50.110]] 05:16, 10 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - 5/5''' I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the writing is hilarious, and I am quite surprised that no one has posted something like this elsewhere. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.110|173.245.50.110]] 05:16, 10 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
<nowiki><!-- !!!REMOVE THIS FIRST LINE OF THIS PAGE BEFORE YOU SAVE!!! (i.e. the "nowiki" tag) --><br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
19<br />
'''Power - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~<br />
<br />
'''Wording - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Badger&diff=592514User talk:Badger2012-10-13T22:58:47Z<p>Badger: /* Who to talk to.... */ answer</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For your help with finding vandal's edits, removing vandal's work, and helping keep D&D Wiki clean, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:06, 4 November 2010 (MDT)}}<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archived messages 1-20<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Help (Creature Creation)==<br />
<br />
Hey, I made my creature as best as I can using the template you showed me. For some reason it was not giving me the code usage for the special qualities and such on the basic page so I went and found a page that was using it. From there things seemed to work out. It now has its own page in the Creatures section... not completely sure as to which section since I just pressed add new creature. Anyway, I figured you would like to know how far I have made it, and that if nothing else you will know where to find it. Also, since you mentioned you might chime in and give suggestions and such when you get to look at it. [[Dimidium_Troll_(3.5e_Creature)|Dimidium Troll]] Also, it seems that I have figured out how to link into pages as well. You are a good teacher, thanks for the instruction! --[[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 22:56, 4 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Question (Dealing with Spam)==<br />
<br />
I have left a similar message on Green Dragons Talk page but I figure I should be thorough with this. It seems there are a few Users that are posting spam and doing a redirect for their User page to the mentioned Spam. One instance is this link [[Best_Electronic_Cigarette_Review |here]]. I don't know the procedure for deleting spam so I am asking you and the owner. I was just wondering if I should just mention it and leave be or if I should delete the contents of the page since I don't know how I would delete the page itself. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 23:57, 8 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, the long and the short of it is you shouldn't probably bother to do anything. Only Admins can totally delete a page. Likewise, only admins can ban a user. Whenever I come across spam, I blank the page, and then add a delete template. After that, I save changes with something like "Delete this spam" in the edit summary. Usually Jazzman is pretty good about catching these and deleting them for real. I don't know the official site policy on users handling spam, but no one has asked me to stop, so I still do it. One thing, however, is to make sure that the page never had any content on it. We don't want to delete a page that once had content, just because it now has spam. Like I said, us users can't do much in the way of permanent change (that's the admin's job), so if you want to turn a blind eye, no one will blame you. However, if you delete a bunch, someone might give you a nifty little barnstar like I have at the top of this page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:02, 9 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (Creating an Animal) ==<br />
<br />
So... you mentioned something about tables and things like that? i did find what each thing means ( [[Template:d20M_Creature|d20M Creature]] ) but what i need is the stuff it lists in the examples please. -[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 11:06, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, [[d20_Modern_Creatures|here]] is a link to every homebrew d20M creature. One of them is bound to have examples of what you need. Jazzman left a comment on one of your messages with some suggestions of how he would do it. You might want to check that out. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:17, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Might [[Creature Types (MSRD)#Animal|this]] be what you are looking for? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:22, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It's exacly what I needed. Thanks for the help! --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 10:53, 25 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (4e Community) ==<br />
<br />
Hey Badger,<br />
Do you know anyone who's really good at making D&D 4e stuff, but is also good at changing 4e stuff (you know, like, changing monsters from the monster manual)? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:11, 1 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, I'll be honest, I don't know how active they are anymore, but [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] has done quite a bit of 4e work (and is an admin here, so he might still be active-ish). For some reason I want to say [[User:Sam_Kay|Sam Kay]] also knows 4e a bit, but I don't think he's active on this wiki much anymore (again, I could be wrong on both points). Those are the two names that spring to mind, but I want to be clear that I don't know how much (if any) help then can/will be. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:21, 1 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for trying to help. But the reason was actually to help me with my Pumped Up [[Pumped Up (4e Sourcebook)|sourcebook]]. But I'm deleting it now. Sorry for bothering you. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:30, 16 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::No problem, I'm here to help. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:54, 30 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Help (Sandboxes)==<br />
<br />
Hey badger it is Dj00345. I wanted to ask you if there is a way to create ur own sandbox? I wanted to create one myself and don't know how to?... Can u help me out and explain how to make one??<br />
[[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]].<br />
<br />
:It's really easy, just add a /sandbox after your username, for example [[User:Dj00345/sandbox]]. You can put anything on the page, so sandbox, or sandbox1, or ninja_of_the_winterlands, or whatever you want. If you go to that page you'll be prompted to make a new page with that name. It's easy. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:31, 1 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Help (Pictures)==<br />
hey badger. it is me Dj00345. i just added a image to one of my pages. and the picture is too big. how do i make it small enough to fit on the page??? can you help me at all??? the page is called [[Zendra (3.5e Deity)|Zendra]]. please help me..... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 17:42, 3 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I went ahead and changed the size. Check out the code and you can learn for next time. You can change the text by editing the code. You can change the size of the picture by increasing or decreasing the pixels. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:53, 3 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thx. Got it now! ;) [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 10:14, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Help (Stubs)==<br />
<br />
Hey one more question.... If I want to help finish a STUB page, do I just go ahead and edit it, or do I have to wait for someone to give me an answer??? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 10:14, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I usually check to see when the stub template was added, how long the page has gone un-edited, and if the original author is still around. If it looks like no one else is going to do it, just jump right in. On pages that are a little more complete, and just missing little things here and there, it might be better to leave a message on the talk pages with your suggested changes, and give the community a week or so to talk about it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:10, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::And if I finish what the stub template says needs to be fixed,, do i remove the template??? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 17:53, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I assume you're asking about Dhampir, which just needs another adventurer? Yeah, that you can just add whenever you think of one, and remove the stub template when you do. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:05, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Alrighty then. Thx again. And yes I am asking about dhampir [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 18:33, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I ended up removing [[Template:Stub]] from the [[Dhampir (4e Race)|dampir]]. See the history for what the edit was. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:39, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question (User Creation Log) ==<br />
<br />
hey badger. i was just looking around on the Wiki and ended up in the User Creation log. where it shows every account that has been created. i went down to the date i helped my friend get an account on this wiki and saw it. then i went to December dates to see if my account was there. (i was bored and wanted to see). Apparently, my account i guess doesn't exist... i didnt see my account name anywhere in there... '''Is That A Good Thing or A Bad Thing.???????''' Please answer..... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 20:15, 11 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Huh, that's interesting. Well, do you recall creating an account? It does appear that you never made one, but you are certainly logged in and making edits. To make an account you need to log in. If you log in and make edits, you should have an account. I don't know what's going on, I'd ask Green Dragon if you're concerned. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:36, 11 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Well see. I made an account. I guess it didn't recognize it. I didn't get the message that green dragon sends to you saying that you are now a dnd wikian. I never got that message... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 09:54, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::That's not an automated message, GD goes through and does those manually, so it's possible he just missed you. If you have an options menu at the top right corner of the screen that says "Dj00345, my talk, my preferences, my watchlist, my contributions, logout" you're probably a member and the site is just a little hinky. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:40, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Yeah I have all those. So it must be some sort of glitch maybe...? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 12:43, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Yeah, as far as I can tell you're a full-blooded wikian, and the wiki is just screwing up. If you're concerned you can leave a message on Green Dragon's talk page, either asking him there, or directing him to this conversation. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:46, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not really concerned. i was just making sure that the wiki wasn't screwed up or anything. i was just keeping an eye out. thx for the help badger! [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 14:57, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Oh, the wiki screws up all the time. This isn't anything major, so I wouldn't worry about it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:46, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question (Multi-classing) ==<br />
Alright, so I think I'm doing this right. And I suppose this will be the first question I will ask, is it possible to go back to a class that specifically says you can't after multiclassing? Even if the class you multiclass with says you can? (Sorry if you don't understand or if this seems stupid.)--[[User:Raem|Raem]] 17:35, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:First, yeah, you did everything correctly. Now, let me try to understand your question. I think if the 2nd class explicitly says "you can multi-class, even if your first class says you cannot" then you ''can''. However, if the 2nd class ''doesn't'' say that, you're out of luck. That said, it's really up to your DM. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:42, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (Campaign Creation) ==<br />
<br />
Hey badger! Dj00345. I have a question. I'm thinking of making my own campaign setting and was just wondering where to go in order to create the "Supplement" pages for it??? I took a look at the "Valgora" campaign setting and it's edit stuff. And noticed that the links said '''Valgora supplement'''. Where do I go to make one of those pages except under a different campaign setting of course... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 13:57, 5 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Oh, well, as far as I know there is no official formatting for creating campaign settings. This little box might make it easier to add to a campaign setting, just replace "MyPage" with the name of your page, and "MySetting" with the name of your setting:<br />
<br />
<!-----Campaign Setting-----><br />
<div style="text-align: left; width: 23.5em; margin: 2em;"><br />
<inputbox><br />
type=create<br />
break=no<br />
buttonlabel=Create New Page for Campaign Setting<br />
default=MyPage (MySetting Supplement)<br />
preload=<br />
</inputbox><br />
</div><br />
<br />
:If you'd like, I'm sure someone can help you making a footer/header for your campaign setting and using it as a preload. My guess is Hooper would be the guy to ask about that, as I think Valgora is his setting, and you seem to like that one. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:30, 5 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Help (Class Creation)==<br />
<br />
Hello it was recomended to me that you might be able to help me with a concept. You see me and my friends are planning to start a DnD 3.5 OP campaign (so crazy templates etc...) But im new to dnd so I have no idea how to make the class/template/race I wanted. the concept I came up with was a ''Prototype'' character based off of the game prototype for the xbox 360. Im not quite sure weither it would be a class a template or a race. So I was wondering if you could help me make it? (or make it for me)? -- [[User:Grunt|Grunt]] 17:03, 25 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, let me begin by saying I've never played Prototype, so I probably can't help you with much. However, here's how I'd recommend you try it. <br />
<br />
:If you want to use existing classes, here's what I'd suggest: I don't know if you're familiar with [[UA:Gestalt_Characters|gestalt characters]], but that's what I'd recommend. Basically, you combine the best parts of two classes into one super-class. I'd recommend something like a [[Psion]] with an emphasis in psychometabolism, or maybe psychokinesis. From there, I'd make your other class something that would work well with the abilities of your psion, so maybe rogue. I like rogues a lot, so maybe I'm just biased. It sounds like a barbarian might also work well. Since you're going for overpowered, I think a gestalt [[Psion]]/[[Barbarian,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome Barbarian]] would best approximate what you're looking for.<br />
<br />
:However, if you're looking to create your own homemade material, here's what I'd suggest: Start with a beefy Hit Die, like a d10, give yourself medium or good Base attack bonus(like the rogue or fighter), good fortitude and reflex saves (+12 at 20) and bad will saves (+6 at 20). After that, I'd give yourself a limited spell list, pulling your favorite spells from psionics, and use Constitution instead of Intelligence for the key ability. After that, add on a bunch of heavy hitting power class skills, using classes like [[Threat_(3.5e_Class)|Threat]], [[Barbarian,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome Barbarian]], and maybe even [[Death_Knight_(DnD_Prestige_Class)|Death Knight]] for ideas.<br />
<br />
:I hope this helps. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:03, 25 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hey Badger ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Badger.<br />
<br />
:Hi. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:42, 15 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
yo what up badger think i could get u to take a look at the mage of earthsea class again?? give me a few more pointers?<br />
<br />
==ty [[User:La Mortis|La Mortis]]==<br />
<br />
== Help (Campaign Settings) ==<br />
<br />
You asked if I wanted help, I do.<br />
I go straigh to the point.<br />
<br />
I would want to make an own:<br />
#make a page with the info about classes "and the world" and "how to make a class character".<br />
#Then put a link to it in the Classes.<br />
#make links that change pages adn scrolls down to an article. <br />
#learn to make footers<br />
#page for my classes that are adapted for my campaign setting.<br />
<br />
::I've numbered each of the questions you have, and I'll answer them in order. Let me know if you need more detail on any of them<br />
::1. If you want to make a page about classes for your Campaign Setting, just make a standard page for your Campaign setting. If you want, you can use the "Add New Campaign Setting Info" thing that I made [[User_talk:Badger#Help_.28Campaign_Creation.29|here]]. As far as I know there is no codified pre-load for this, so you can just model it off a page that you like, or do it on your own. <br />
::2. Putting a link to it is just like adding any other link. You simply type this code: <nowiki> [[Name_Of_Page | Display Text]]</nowiki>.<br />
::For example, you would probably make the pages named "Classes_(MyCampaign_Supplement)", so your code would say: <nowiki>[[Classes_(MyCampaign_Supplement) | Classes in MyCampaign]]</nowiki>. Naturally, you'll want to replace "MyCampaign" with whatever the name of your campaign is. <br />
::3. Making links that link to a specific section is also pretty easy. You use the same format that you used above for creating a link, and to link to a particular section, you put a #SectionName after the name of the page. For example, if you wanted to make a link to this section, you would write " <nowiki>[[User_Talk:Badger#Help_(Campaign Settings) | Display Text]]</nowiki>.<br />
::4. Making footers is as easy as making a page. First you make a page and put on it whatever you want the footer to say. Name the page something like "Navigation Footer (MyCampaign Supplement)". After that, you just have to include that page at the bottom of every page you want a footer. Only, this time, instead of using brackets like you normally use for a link (These: "[[]]"), use braces (These: "{{}}")<br />
::5. Again, just make a page that's name ends with (MyCampaign Supplement), and put a list of classes and changes. You may find it is easier to make full on tables to show changes, or just text lists of changes. It's up to you.<br />
::One last note, as helpful as I may be with this, [[User:Hooper]] is probably better. He is the one who rates most of the campaign settings, and he is the one who has one of the most complete campaign settings on this wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:47, 30 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== For Identification Purposes? ==<br />
<br />
Ok now i'm curious why you moved my page... made it loads of fun to try and find it through my simple input of the address it was sitting at without the variant 3.5 mumbo jumbo.<br />
<br />
I'm just curious why you did it, I understand that there WAS a Dragoon class that was made and deleted for whatever reason... That's why i made it a Dragoon Lancer, there was someone who made a Dragoon that i thought was totally whacked out on ADnD and well I felt it needed a do-over, pouring through the books i found a nice combination that is actually based on pre-existing 3.0 and 3.5 edition material, short of some attack/ Wings purposes it is all based on the rules. I think it works marvelously and when i find the actual balance i would really hope people start picking it up. It was one of my favorite classes in FF Tactics, short of the huge error in missing people because they moved while you were in the air (Huge disappointment there) but getting back on track. I would appreciate a simple explanation, and well some feedback would be nice since you seem to have been the ONLY person on here who has done anything of note to my Dragoon Lancer.<br />
<br />
James<br />
<br />
:Badger didn't mean any offense. All homebrew pages are (supposed to be) appended with an identifying tag such as (3.5e Creature) or (d20M Advanced Class). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:14, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yep, Jazzman summed it up. Sorry for any confusion it may have caused. There should have been a redirect from the old URL to the updated one, I don't know why that wasn't working (but it appears to be working now). I've not actually read the page, but since my vacation has just begun I'll get around to it (sooner or later) and leave some thoughts on the talk page. Once again, sorry for any confusion or trouble this may have caused; I was just following policy.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:24, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well i was really just curious as to the why... since it really didn't seem to have been a part of any of the other classes that i looked at. I have been going through and trying to reflect any changes i've come across and would really like some insight anyone has. [[User:Gainesja|Gainesja]] 04:34, 12 June 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::People are really, really, really, bad about adding those tags, so I'm sure there are many pages floating around that don't have them yet. Though more pages have them than not, so if you haven't seen any yet you must just be really lucky. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 07:40, 12 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I think on that day alone I moved like 3 or 4 other classes and deities. It's just something I do every so often, when I notice a few pages in the recent changes need it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:27, 12 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Admin Nomination==<br />
I hope that you accept the recent nomination for adminship that has been activated for you. Please go to [[Requests for Adminship/Badger]] to reply to the nominee questions. I look forward to seeing the community's thoughts! &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 06:10, 19 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Thank you for your nomination, as well as your support. I accept the nomination, and I look forward to continuing to contribute to the community, either as a administrator, or as a user. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:09, 19 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Welcome to Adminship. You are now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. Honestly, as you will notice, not much has been changed now that you are an admin. If anything, I would say more burden is placed on you. I recommend you take a look at [[Special:ListGroupRights]] if you have not already. Some of the the new features' uses pertaining to D&D Wiki follow. You can now delete pages, protect pages, rollback edits, block users and IP's, edit every page, patrol edits, and do a couple more minor things.<br />
::*Deleting pages is normally done through [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. Anything with a good reason to be deleted on that page should be deleted. The other time pages should be deleted is when someone makes a certain page and after a few edits they either blank the page or replace it with something like "Please delete this". If this page consisted of close to just the preload, just delete it.<br />
::*Protecting pages has quite a few different times when it should be used. Pages should be protected according to the author's wishes (with [[Template:Locked Page]] added to the top of the page in question), in case of conflict (with [[Template:Temp Locked Page]] added to the top of the page in question), in case of [[Help:FAQ#What are OGL, OGC, SRD, and GNU FPL?|OGC]] published materials (with [[Template:OGL Top]] added to the top of the page in question and [[Template:OGL Bottom]] added to the bottom), or finally if the page is a vital part of D&D Wiki's organization. If it deals with D&D Wiki's organization it either needs to be be protected from IP edits or all non-sysop edits. As a rule of thumb pages up to two tiers deep (up for discussion/rethinking) from the [[Main Page]] are normally locked to anyone but sysops and all the others are just protected from IP edits. For Example [[3.5e Homebrew]] is protected from all non-sysop edits whereas a deeper in page like [[LA 0 Races]] is only protected from IP edits. No template needs to be added to pages if they are part of D&D Wiki's organization (even though some do exist like [[Template:Admin Locked Page]])<br />
::*Blocking a user or IP should only be used after an IP or user vandalizes a certain page. To block someone just click "block" (found on [[Special:Recentchanges|RC]], the diff in question, the userpage, etc) and fill out the corresponding form. For a typical vandalism attack I normally block the user for two weeks. Certain things demand a longer block and others a shorter. No standards have been set for block lengths, use your best judgment.<br />
::*Editing every page on D&D Wiki mostly means you can now edit the [[SRD:System Reference Document|SRD]] and the [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|MSRD]]. Feel free to edit them if inaccuracies are found. If interested further please look at the [[SRD Talk:System Reference Document#SRD ToDo List|SRD ToDO List]] or the [[MSRD Talk:Modern System Reference Document#Tasks|MSRD tasks]]. Of course that is only the base. There is never enough help to get everything done, so I am sure your help would be appreciated.<br />
::*Patrolling edits should, in a nutshell, be used when you have looked over an edit and fixed everything that needs to be fixed (this includes reviewing the content with templates, answering questions, etc).<br />
::I know this is really long-winded, so I'll keep the rest short. You have more burden on yourself now that you are an admin because users will be looking at you for editing help, knowledge of the standards, etc. It's a bit more work, but I really hope you enjoy being an admin and I hope you decide to stay around on D&D Wiki for a while more to come. Welcome to Adminship, again you're now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:58, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Modifiers Added, But for future refrence, ==<br />
<br />
what are the modifiers to use? Class, Prestige Class, NPC, Monster, Equipment, Campaign, Quest, Deity, Trait, Flaw, Feat, Spell, Race are the ones i can think of, am i missing any? Also, Is there a way i can set a page to only accept changes that I approve?<br />
<br />
:I've corrected the spelling of the modifiers above (and added a few more). Those are all the ones I can think of off the top of my head (and all the major ones), but I am sure there are more obscure ones. As for your second question, no there is not. However, you can use the "watch" tab, at the top of each page, and any changes that are made to that page will show up in the "my watchlist" page linked in the top right corner of the page (when you're logged in). You can click on "diff" to see the changes made in each edit. This is about as close as you can get to what you want. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:26, 14 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hi I was interested in joining the D&D WIKI but it seams your create account is broken ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was trying to find the webmaster but didn't see a link to leave a message for one. Maybe you can forward this on to her/him/them.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I went to create an account and tried to make an account but it seams to be broken. A box keeps popping up saying type two words to in to prevent span but the silly thing just keeps cycling and won't go away to let you create the account. I tried at least a dozen times to get past it but always comes back. Very frustrating!<br />
<br />
And now the fool thing shows up trying to post this message.<br />
<br />
:Does it mention it is related to CloudFlare ([[D&D Wiki:General disclaimer]])? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:05, 30 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you can give me the exact error message you're getting, that would help immensely. What name are you trying to register? Is it possible that someone has already registered that name? Green Dragon, who responded above me, is the owner/operator of the website, so he's probably your best bet for a fix. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:37, 31 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank You ==<br />
<br />
I wished to thank you for your recent remarks on my page. And to acknowledge your intrinsic and direct approach.<br />
<br />
:Any time? But seriously, I have no idea who you are or what page you're talking about (I've been a whirlwind of edits these past few days), but you're welcome. Let me know if there's anything else you need. In the future, don't forget to sign your posts with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or by pressing the signature button. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:51, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Your deletion of a page was most appreciated.<br />
<br />
:::Oh, well, glad I could help. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:19, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Could you extend your gracious policy upon a few of my other incomplete works?<br />
<br />
:::::Policy says that we're supposed to wait at least 2 weeks before deleting anything. If I've deleted anything sooner than that, I apologize. Most of our to-be-deleted content is months, if not years old, though (so you should have plenty of time). If your content has a delete template, I'll check on the history, and if it looks like you're making progress on it, I'll give it time. If you give me the links you want me to keep an eye out for, I'll get around to checking on them later. Also, if I delete anything that you'd like back, I think can restore it easily (I've never tried, but I know I should be able to). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:29, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I understand. I would like 75% of all my work deleted (noting most is incomplete, and I have no wish to complete 75%). I have only a few articles here; and have a desire to complete the 25%. The other work only hurts my prestige.<br />
<br />
:::::::Right, well, place the code <nowiki>{{delete|~~~~~|Author has abandoned.}}</nowiki> to the top of every incomplete page you don't want to keep, and I'll delete them as I get around to them. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:45, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::It is finished.<br />
<br />
:::::::::Is there a reason that you're signing out and not signing your comments when leaving a message to me, but logging in to edit your pages? You're not trying to hide your identity, are you? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:00, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::No. I simply wanted to make sure you were interested before damming the pages. --[[User:Frankenkesey|Frankenkesey]] 20:12, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Well, it's not policy to delete pages just because the author doesn't want them anymore. Arguably you should be using the "abandoned" template instead, but I've never seen anyone adopt one of those pages and fix it up, so I don't know that it's a very useful template (although it's a good idea). It's my personal belief that we should just delete unfinished and unusable material, rather than letting it stick around as abandoned for years. If your pages don't have enough content for someone else to take and finish up, I'll delete them. However, if they have enough already, I'll swap out delete with abandoned. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:12, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::This maxim sounds fair. --[[User:Frankenkesey|Frankenkesey]] 20:15, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths ==<br />
<br />
Just created the "Master of the twin paths" for 3.5e custom prestige classes. It was moved to "formatting issues" soon after.<br />
<br />
My question is simple, is now officially removed or is it waiting to be checked? If it is removed, how may I improve it to have it added to the homebrew category it fits.<br />
<br />
Also how do I format it correctly?<br />
<br />
with many thanks,<br />
Ryulin18<br />
<br />
You're doing a great job<br />
<br />
:Right, well, good news! Master of the twin paths hasn't been removed, it was just moved (for a totally unrelated reason). You can find you creation [[Master_of_the_Twin_Paths_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|here]]. <br />
<br />
:First off, your page was moved to include an "identifer", which means I added "_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)" to the end of your class name. We use these to keep all our content straight, and every page is supposed to have one.<br />
<br />
:If you check out other Prestige classes, like [[Animal_Lord_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|this one]], you'll notice the bottom has a sort of footer that works as navigation, as well as some categories. You'll want to add those to your page (not those exact ones, but the ones that apply to your class). I'd search through other [[3.5e_Prestige_Classes|prestige classes]] until you find one that seems like yours, and check out what categories you'll want to include. Let me know if you need anything else. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:18, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Tavern ==<br />
<br />
If it existed, you should get on it right now. But it doesn't so... [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:37, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths - Part 2 ==<br />
<br />
Okay. I have added breadcrumbs and the categories! Is it okay now?<br />
<br />
Any advice to get it finished?<br />
<br />
much thanks, Ryulin<br />
<br />
:Alright, well, the cats and breadcrumbs look a lot better now. The next thing I'd say is fluff. Everything always needs more fluff. Well, almost everything. Check out a featured article like [[Deviant_(3.5e_Class)|this one]] for notes on making your page better. If you're committed enough, you can turn your page into a featured article. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:53, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Apologies ==<br />
<br />
Hi Badger,<br />
<br />
I realized that I took my trolling too far yesterday. Seriously, I'm not a jerk like that usually. I have just been using this website as out outlet, so to speak, which is pretty immature. Anyways, I've decided to quit my trolling here altogether and also to stop harboring resentment for Green Dragon and Hooper.<br />
<br />
In the case of Green Dragon, I realized that teasing him may have been fun, it really was a childish way to burn off steam over real life issues.<br />
<br />
In the case of Hooper, I realized that he's just like a lot of other D&D players I've met and gotten along with: he's got a strong personality and reflects that with strong opinions. And really, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Unfortunately, I let situations where I saw him butt horns with other users sway me to dislike him.<br />
<br />
I was logged into a chatroom that both of you were in last night (although I was afk), and although most of your conversation was cut off, I realized that I was being pretty stupid and you are decent guys.<br />
<br />
So, my apologies to you (and Hooper), for the nonsense I stirred up. Cheers. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:15, 31 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:From my administrator standpoint: That was mean, you shouldn't do that. I have half a mind to ban you here and now, regardless of policy.<br />
:From my human being standpoint: Ehh, just don't do it again. <s>At least, not on important pages.</s> I probably over-reacted in my message asking you to cut it out. It wasn't really that big of a deal. No hard feelings, at least on my end. It is my suspicion, though I can't speak for him, that Hooper also thought it was no big thing. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:02, 31 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths - Part 3 ==<br />
<br />
Added all the fluff I dare to. Can you give me an idea of what to do next before I can have this page legitimized (I'm an English teacher, so using a z there hurt) and sent to my DM?<br />
<br />
I really want this rated...Anyone want to do it?<br />
<br />
== Hey Badger ==<br />
<br />
I saw that you Changed the name of my raze Urgalz to Urgalz (3.5e Race) I forgot to do that and I just wanted to thank you for that. I looked at your the classes that you created and I do sai that the Hooker (3.5e class) is kinda funny at least i haven't lauged so much when I looked at some class. --Baharas 05:54, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, thank you; I'm pretty proud of that Hooker class, even though it's a April Fools class. Don't worry about missing that identifier, lot's people get it wrong the first few times, just try to include it for all the future pages you make. If you've already made pages without identifiers, you can use the "move" tab at the top of that page to move it to a page with the correct identifier. Welcome to the wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:09, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::yeah I noticed when you moved it how to change it and I just noticed that you were a admin so congratulation for that :P <br />
::and I want to ask you: I am creating a class named [[Guardian, Variant2 (3.5e Class)]] why does this look like this?<br />
<br />
:::When the page says "remove this entire line" it means that entire line of text from the edit window, not just everything after it says "remove this line" (so also delete the bit that says <nowiki><nowiki><!- REMOVE THIS ENTIRE LINE</nowiki>). I've fixed it for you, but you can see what I did by checking out [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Guardian,_Variant2_(3.5e_Class)&diff=next&oldid=535771 this diff]. Also, don't forget to sign your posts by typing <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> at the end of your message, or by hitting the signature button in the toolbar (the one that looks like a bunch of loops, second from the end).--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:59, 19 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::yeah sorry about that forgot and thanks for helping me :P --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 02:26, 20 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::No worries, that's why I'm here. Kinda. Mostly. It's why I enjoy being here at least. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 02:34, 20 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Patronage Featured Article? ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Badger. I've put in images on most of my pages for my [[Patronage (4e Campaign Setting)]]. Could you take a look and decide if more is needed to get your vote for Featured Article status?--[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 16:42, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Wow. Those pages look so much better now with pictures, in my opinion. I've changed my vote on the FA nomination accordingly. Good work. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:09, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Image ==<br />
<br />
I just wanted to ask you how can I put Image on my races pages I tryed but it doesent work? --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 05:05, 29 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Uh, well, let me first start by making sure the image you want to upload is legal. Assuming it is, what you have to do is type out <nowiki>[[File:Image_Name.jpg]]</nowiki> and save the changes. Once you've done that, your "image" will show up as a red link. Click on that link. It should take you to a page that will allow you to upload your chosen image. If you've already uploaded the image to our image server, it appear right away, rather than as a red link. If you can show me what image you want to upload, and where it needs to go, I can show you in more detail. As far as I know, that should work. Images tend to go a little wonky every so often, but they seem to be working just fine right now. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:40, 29 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::well I tryed that but it didn't work and here is a link to the pic [http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&q=barbarian#/d1k47mn] and I am trying to put it on [[Urgalz (3.5e Race)]] --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 03:53, 3 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::you don't have to do anything I found out what i was doing wrong and I finally uploaded pic on [[Urgalz (3.5e Race)]] and [[Knasari (3.5e Race)]] --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 05:51, 7 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copperwood permission ==<br />
<br />
Hi from new account.<br />
I came across this wiki by accident and just happened to notice a message saying "awaiting permission from copperwood" for a couple of articles.<br />
<br />
Well, I am the one and only copperwood. Those permissions have been waiting for about, ooh, 5 years ago! Bit of a long time, but I created the account on Wizards ages ago to submit those articles and haven't logged back in since they changed to 'D&D Insider'<br />
<br />
If it matters, and the articles are still available, then you have my permission!<br />
<br />
== Greetings Badger ==<br />
<br />
Greeting Badger, this is Lyrad8791. We have talked a bit before on some of my stuff that I have submitted a while back. I was wondering if you had the time to take a look at my sandbox and tell me what you think about my charts there. I also have a second sandbox, which I have dedicated to my world that I am creating. Since the charts didn't fit in with the world itself, I left them in their current location. Anyway, I was hoping I might get some opinions on them, as well as some ideas on how to progress from where I am currently at in my project. If you can think of anyone else who might like to help or would be interested to see what I have thus far, send them over and have them leave a message in the discussion area of either page. The link to the charts is [[User:Lyrad8791/sandbox1#Town_Placement_Charts|here]] and the page for what I currently have on my world is [[User:Lyrad8791/sandbox2|here]]. Thanks for the time you took in reading this, and I hope to hear from you again. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 02:22, 21 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Suggestions and rating help ==<br />
<br />
Ello Badger!<br />
<br />
(insert the badger song -> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI])<br />
<br />
Okay seriously, I need help with getting my custom prestige class rated and commented.<br />
I am a bit of an addict when it comes to feedback and I am having trouble finding the right places to create attention to my works.<br />
Also I have read the forms and guides to a good page but I am not sure I have every thing cowered.<br />
<br />
Could you go my work over? Especially the warhammer 40K boltgun. Cant figure out a nice and fitting way of presenting all the upgrades and ammunition options available.<br />
<br />
Thanks before hand from --<span style="font-family:albertus mt; font-variant:small-caps; margin-left:4px; border:2px solid #501010;"><span style="background:#CA2020; border:3px solid #7B0E0E; padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;">'''[[User:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;">ElvenKingSlave</span>]]'''&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[Exalted Wiki:Human|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="I will drown you in daggers!">Weapons Summoner</span>]]&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[User talk:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="Contact me">Talk</span></span>]]</span> 03:01, 28 November 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Weapon_Summoner_(3.5e_Class)#Class_Features Weapon Summoner(3.5 class)]]<br><br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Boltgun_(3.5e_Equipment) Boltgun(3.5 Equipment)]]<br><br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lasgun_(3.5e_Equipment) Lasgun(3.5 Equipment)]]<br><br />
<br />
:Right, well, where to begin... <br />
:I'm gonna let you know right now, there are a lot of people on this wiki making content, and virtually no one reviewing it. I'd recommend trying to make connections with other users who seem to be pretty active, and set up a sort of co-op where you keep each other in the loop with your stuff, and constantly rate one another's stuff. I'd give your class a once over, but I'm more than swamped at the moment with real world things. I'll be honest, I've been away for so long now that I'm not even sure who is still very active on the wiki.<br />
:A quick once over says to me that you've done pretty well at formatting most of your stuff. There are a few things, like the NPC on your [[Weapon_Summoner_(3.5e_Class)|Weapon Summoner]] is wonky. My first edit, however, will have to be striking out your rating because you aren't allowed to rate your own stuff. Sorry, it's the rules.<br />
:Other than that, I don't know what to tell you. I'll be free in about two weeks. Send me another message then and I'll see what I can do for you. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:44, 28 November 2011 (MST)<br />
::Thanks :D Thats all I am asking. --<span style="font-family:albertus mt; font-variant:small-caps; margin-left:4px; border:2px solid #501010;"><span style="background:#CA2020; border:3px solid #7B0E0E; padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;">'''[[User:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;">ElvenKingSlave</span>]]'''&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[Exalted Wiki:Human|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="I will drown you in daggers!">Weapons Summoner</span>]]&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[User talk:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="Contact me">Talk</span></span>]]</span> 07:15, 30 November 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== My created items ==<br />
<br />
Badger, could I get you to take a look at the Magic items I created and give me an opinion on them? My friends like them, but I think they are a bit biased. Any critiques would be welcome. They are all listed on my user page. Thanks again. --[[User:Irykyl| Irykyl]] 11:24, 6 March 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
== 2 things ==<br />
<br />
First i would like you to know that i've have added 2 feats under the 3e Feats section (Ambidexterity and Armor Proficiency (Heavy))<br />
<br />
also something seems to be wrong with sending a confirmation email to allow me to send messages to people.<br />
<br />
== Please remove all my material from this wiki ==<br />
<br />
I asked Green Dragon but he refuses. I would like all pages created by me to be deleted from this wiki. The reasons are personal and nobody's business but my own. Thank you for your cooperation. --<span style="font-size:90%;">[[User:ScryersEve|<span title="User page of Scryer's Eve"><span style="color:#006565;">Scryer's</span> <span style="color:#db6700;">Eve</span></span>]] <sup>([[User_talk:ScryersEve|<span style="color:#0053BF!important;" title="Talk page of Scryer's Eve">talk</span>]] | <span title="Contributions of Scryer's Eve">[[Special:Contributions/ScryersEve|<span style="small-caps;color:#0053BF!important;" title="Contributions of Scryer's Eve">contribs</span>]])</span></sup> 15:56, 26 March 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Sorry, but according to policy I'm not allowed to do that. Is it a silly policy? Probably. Do I like that policy? I can't think of a time I have. Do I have to follow it? Tragically. I'm not going to bother asking why you don't want your stuff on the wiki anymore, as it doesn't really matter, but there's nothing I can do. The way I see it, you have two options: First, you can stick around and try and petition the rule change so that your content can be removed. If you can show (through history) that no one else has modified the content you uploaded, that would go a long way to showing that you'd not be removing anyone else's contributions (in my mind at least). Option two is to just walk away angry. It's a pretty lame option, but it's what might happen anyway. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:47, 26 March 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Homebrew Race Formatting ==<br />
<br />
When submitting a homebrew race, may I format the top section (Race's name in plural) like a creature page and/or a SRD, or is the markup, or some version thereof, supplied at the edit/create page all that's accepted?[[User:Omegatiger121|Omegatiger121]] ([[User talk:Omegatiger121|talk]]) 13:34, 16 June 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Real-time human-moderated games ==<br />
<br />
hello. i was looking for a site that offers real-time human-moderated games. do you know of any?<br />
<br />
thank you.<br />
<br />
== Am I allowed to proceed? ==<br />
<br />
Hi badger, I'm sure this happens a lot but I just pulled your name first from the Admin list, hoping to get someone to talk to. Anyway, my question was aimed towards the lack of content that exists for 3.5 and has not been posted. While I understand that a lot of classes are not core, Psion as well as its including features are listed, and so I thought I might request to put up more classes, such as from the Magic of Incarnum book, or the Complete Warrior, Divine, Ect. I would love to punch in as much time as needed to get this done. My players love this wiki and I have no time to go fishing for spells in countless books. Please let me know. Thanks :)<br />
<br />
:Hi there. Welcome, and we're glad to see that you like the wiki, and want to contribute. Unfortunately, you aren't allowed to add just any content you want. Any content we have has to be licensed in a way that allows for free distribution. The complete warrior/divine, and many other books have not been licensed under the OGL (open gaming license). If you know of content that is licensed under the OGL (or a similar license), contact an admin, and we'll double check and then give you the go ahead to transcribe it.<br />
<br />
:There are plenty of other ways you can contribute, though! Here you can find a list of [[abandoned]] pages, each of which could use some work. An editorial eye could be used on just about any page here on the wiki, and there are tons of people who would love for you to read (and rate) their creations. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask me, or any other admin. Cheers. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] ([[User talk:Badger|talk]]) 20:12, 3 October 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Bills and indeed hooks. ==<br />
<br />
Hi badger, thanks for contacting me. I have no issues with your revert and I'll make my case on the talk page. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:31, 5 October 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Who to talk to.... ==<br />
<br />
Hey,<br />
I was wondering who to talk to about the 3.5 Necromancer homebrew page... it used to have skeletal ally which i really liked, but now it has stitched familiar and i was wondering if it was either possible to view the older page or have the information maybe sent to me, or as i said just who to talk to.<br />
<br />
Thanks for your time!<br />
<br />
Isaac<br />
stogy5@hotmail.com<br />
<br />
:That's the nature of wikis, they are always changing just a little. Luckily, however, you can see the article the way it used to be. if you navigate to the page you want, and click on the "history" tab, you can see every version of the page. Click on the date you want, it it will show you how that page appeared at that time. The most recent version of that page that included the "skeletal ally" is [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Necromancer_(3.5e_Class)&direction=prev&oldid=592205 this one]. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] ([[User talk:Badger|talk]]) 16:58, 13 October 2012 (MDT)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marasmusine/Archive_1&diff=591523User talk:Marasmusine/Archive 12012-10-05T17:57:55Z<p>Badger: explaining my reverts</p>
<hr />
<div>Hello Maramusine, thank you for the welcome to the site! My only question is now, is if there is someone or some group I would contact for review on the power balancing of something I've been working on ( while it is either a WIP, or completed work ).--[[User:Elendra|Elendra]] ([[User talk:Elendra|talk]]) 09:32, 18 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
If you're my best bet, might as well use you, eh? I don't suppose you could take a look at [[Color Bearer (4e Class)]] and [[Color Bearer Powers (4e Power List)]]? I assume they're at ''least'' somewhat poorly balanced, being my first attempt at making a class. And yes, they are both incomplete, but I did just start a couple days ago <_<;; --[[User:Elendra|Elendra]] ([[User talk:Elendra|talk]]) 09:42, 18 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you very much in advanced! c: --[[User:Elendra|Elendra]] ([[User talk:Elendra|talk]]) 09:52, 18 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Hay, Marasmusine, could you review my homebrew template [[Unown_inscribed|Unown inscribed]] sometime? I want to improve it, and you seem to know what youre doing, based on your review of my [[Stone of 100 Rencarnations (3.5e Equipment)]].--[[User:The lost unown|The lost unown]] ([[User talk:The lost unown|talk]]) 09:01, 27 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
:Sure, I'll aim to do that but I'm not sure when yet. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 14:08, 27 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Smilodon Maioribus Review ==<br />
<br />
Hello once again Marasmusine,<br />
<br />
It has been a while since we have spoken but I believe (having reached my new permanent duty station) that now would be an excellent time to review the Smilodon Maioribus 4e Race once again, provided you are willing to do so and have the time to make such an effort. Unfortunately I am not entirely sure what, if at all, needs to be changed at this point with the race itself (the Apex Predator 4e Class itself I am intending to overhaul entirely, based on a few mechanics I learned from others who know of DnD in the armed forces).<br />
<br />
As always, thank you for your time and dedication to DnD Wiki, and your efforts, past and present, in staying in touch and assisting me with my race and class design!<br />
<br />
--[[User:Argent Fatalis|Argent Fatalis]] ([[User talk:Argent Fatalis|talk]]) 18:43, 9 August 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Welcome back! Since you were last here I've been a bit distracted with the birth of my daughter - I've not had much time for complicated things. For your Apex Predator overhaul, I recommend concentrating on one or two core mechanics that improve through the levels (and worry less about making lots of different powers); take a look at the Hunter or the Slayer from the Essentials books. Also try to focus on ''one role'' - I've seen too many custom classes that try to do defender/striker and end up in a mess. Hope that helps! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:18, 10 August 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you, Marasmusine, and most importantly, congratulations on the birth of your daughter to both you and your wife. I can certainly understand your crunch for time, especially with a newly born child around. For the Apex Predator class, that is still my intention of making a "specialist" class (with two separate, distinct sub-types), again focusing on criticals, grappling and stealth for its offensive "Vanquisher" variant, and with the "Challenger" deviation, a defender who relies on countering attacks and control. Seeing as the "Grabbed" and (knocked) "Prone" features work well, I have some ideas with them. I certainly don't intend for the Apex to be both, as I've begun making their choices fairly specific to each archetype.<br />
<br />
::--[[User:Argent Fatalis|Argent Fatalis]] ([[User talk:Argent Fatalis|talk]]) 17:34, 11 August 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Hello again Marasmusine,<br />
<br />
:::I've made some significant changes to the [[Sentient, Smilodon Maioribus (4e Race)|Smilodon Maioribus race]] and the [[Apex Predator (4e Class)|Apex Predator class]], both of which I would love to get your opinion on when you have the time. I've tried to heavily relegate certain features to each subdivision of the Apex Predator class (to, in large part, make them two distinct portions). While the class design is not yet finished, it would be great to get your opinion on the re-working of a few mechanics that were present; for example, a primary mechanic of the Vanquisher is [[Seize (4e Power)|Seize], an attack that does minimal damage, but Grabs the opponent. <br />
<br />
:::Other issues lie in the scaling (I've never played nor seen endgame DnD played), so I cannot truly balance the class over the levels. I like the idea of the Apex Predator fittingly being a "niche" class, or one that excels extremely well at a few select things, but relies on its companion's classes to really augment and benefit it, and vice-versa.<br />
<br />
:::--[[User:Argent Fatalis|Argent Fatalis]] ([[User talk:Argent Fatalis|talk]]) 17:08, 18 August 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Hello Marasmusine,<br />
<br />
::::I have just replied the design concept to the Saber Fangs and Razored Claws situation [Talk:Apex Predator (4e Class)|on this talk page] and would certainly like your opinion and possible solutions. Thank you very much for the modifications to those areas along with the Enduring Hide armor to make them more straightforward and simplified within 4E means!<br />
<br />
::::--[[User:Argent Fatalis|Argent Fatalis]] ([[User talk:Argent Fatalis|talk]]) 14:33, 22 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Image Deletions ==<br />
<br />
Wikipedia tells us to assume good faith. This means that images are assumed to be correct, ergo under the GNU FDL, when they state nothing in particular. This must be shown otherwise to allow the image to be deleted. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 16:03, 10 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Wikipedia absolutely does not assume good faith when it comes to image licensing. It gives 7 days to images without licensing/source information before they are deleted. Images that are clear copyright violations are instantly deleted. I gave [[:File:Fight-2-color.jpg]] two weeks. We can't just copy images from the internet willy nilly. I've done a Google Image search for this image now and found that it's a painting under copyright by Simon Robert. I can replace the link in [[Shekastkoré (3.5e Campaign Setting)]] with an embedded image from Robert's webpage, with correct attribution. I'll leave it up to you if you want to delete the file or not. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:06, 11 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:Wow, sorry I came off sounding agressive. It was first thing in the morning and I hadn't had my coffee.[[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:11, 11 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Okay, then with the deletion we should provide a link to where the image is thereby not allowed, don't you think that makes sense? Thoughts on making this policy? We can leave images since their pages being here inherently state that they are under the GNU FDL v1.3 when one cannot find such a site. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:35, 16 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::Here are my thoughts:<br />
:::*We should make it clear that if you are uploading an image you need to say 1) Where you got the image from and who originally created it, and 2) What license it's under (note that ''we cannot use "fair use"'' for our purposes). For example, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload Wikipedia's upload information]. It's bad form to assume that an image doesn't have a copyright just because the uploader hasn't provided any information.<br />
:::*On the flipside, if I come to delete an image file because the above information is missing, I will make every effort to find an alternative compatible with our license, or embed the image from its original source. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 03:47, 17 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::By law, we do not need to do it like that so let's not. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 19:39, 17 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::::I need to get this straight. Here are the different kind of images we might use:<br />
:::::*Copyrighted images. We cannot use these without permission. If we can get permission, the owner would normally ask us to attribute the them and show that it's under copyright. We ''can'' use copyright work without permission where there is fair-use (e.g. book covers where we are providing information about a book), but we still need to attribute the copyright holder.<br />
:::::*Creative Commons[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/]. We ''have'' to attribute the author; if it's Sharealike we ''have'' to release it under the same license.<br />
:::::*Public Domain. We don't have to say anything: my argument is that it's good practice to provide some basic information (like I did [[:File:Vasnetsov samolet.jpg|here]]). <br />
:::::*Images the uploader created themselves. It's up to them what information they provide. Personally I credit myself for my own images. As you say, unless stated otherwise, it defaults to the GNU license.<br />
:::::If I'm understanding you correctly, you want to ''assume'' that images fall into the last two categories?<br />
<br />
::::::No. All I was saying is that the last two categorizes exist. If we find information about copyright we should delete the page with a link to the copyright location (for verification purposes). If the images is under a different license then, though, all we need to do is state that on that page of course and if we can keep the image we can keep the image (depending on the license).<br />
::::::Another thing to note is that images which are product copyright can be here if they are small enough (pretty sure). I think that is another one of their image statements in the image-related laws. If they are too big, though, they are considered (even with the different copyright categories) to infringe on product copyright (since they are images I think is the reasoning). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 20:06, 18 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Thanks for the clarification. With regards product copyright, here's the legal wording for fair-use: ''"the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."''<br />
:::::::Basically, we ''can'' use those images when we are providing educational information. On our wiki, this only our pages about books and other publications. We ''cannot'' use them for user-generated content. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:27, 19 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I imagine that putting them into the D&D universe is a critique of those things from other sources and do apply for fair-use. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 16:42, 19 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::I don't understand? Fair use through ''critique'' just means you can, say, use a picture of a book or toy if you are reviewing it. It has real-world context. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:35, 20 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::On a related note, I've spotted that WotC provide a list of WotC-copyright artwork that's been pre-approved for others to use.[http://www.wizards.com/fankit/fantoolkitdnd.html] [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:38, 20 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Not sure if my voice matters here, but I figure, if nothing else, it couldn't really hurt to speak up. Marasmusine is correct. Unless the purpose of the article within said images are used, is to critique the image, make a commentary on it, or otherwise review or parody it, then it does not fall under fair use. There are likely very few user generated articles and pages on this site that are dedicated to parody and review, for a commentary / educational stance. Now, for the handful wherein that IS true, than fair use would apply, but for those, such as a custom race, class, monster, campaign, that isn't actively done to review the image in some way, that isn't fair use, and permission / approval would be needed. If I were to take someone's image and put it up on a page I made, without their permission, and the image was used as an aid to help demonstrate something I had written in the page, that would be theft, unless they had otherwise stated that that image is perfectly allowed to be shared mercilessly without permission, but even then that would be limited to noncommercial things. Not that that should be a worry here. That said, the 'April Fools' articles may fall under being able to qualify 'fair use' if they are directly relevant to the image. --[[User:Elendra|Elendra]] ([[User talk:Elendra|talk]]) 09:08, 20 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::That all sounds right to me. So I guess, sorry, those mario images were fine to delete.<br />
:::::::::::Does the Image Deletion seem right on [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion|Candidates for Deletion]]? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 12:03, 21 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Barnstar ==<br />
<br />
{{Barnstar|I give you this barnstar for improving, reviewing, and removing a lot of pages. Thanks a lot for your help on those pages! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:35, 16 July 2012 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
Thanks! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:35, 16 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page deleted due to Copy Rights Violation ==<br />
<br />
You had deleted a page I had posted due to a copy rights violation. I was asked by a few friends in my area to post some things from the books and I was wondering it there is a way I can avoid this from occurring in the feature? Would a Legal Disclaimer at the bottom of the page stating it is from that particular book prevent this?<br />
<br />
Thanks, --[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 23:23, 23 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:We can't reprint content from copyrighted books. The only legal thing you can do is send them your book or ask them to aquire the book themselves. There's something else you can do involving a scanner, but I couldn't possibly comment on that. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 24 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
::Is there anyway to use anything from any of the D&D books? Would the Legal Disclaimer work? If not, how were any of the creatures posted from the Monster Manual, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Players Handbook?--[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 18:04, 24 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::You can print material released under the Open Game Content. This includes WotC's System Reference Document[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35] but doesn't include that class. The legal disclaimer won't work, WotC will still be unhappy that you've fleeced them out of a book sale. I'm also definitely not suggesting that your friend use a web search engine to search for the title of book that contains the class along with the words "scan" and "pdf". [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:08, 25 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::::If you have a chance, could you take a look at these pages. I am sure the [[Awaken Sand (3.5e Spell) | Awaken Sand (3.5e Spell)]] is, but I am not sure of the [[Mogwai (3.5e Creature) |Mogwai]] and [[Gremlin (3.5e Creature) |Gremlin]] since they are based on movie creatures... Thanks... --[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 13:10, 28 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
::::::Yeah, the spell's got to go. Gremlin and Mogwai are not copyright violations, but the images used were copied from other sources. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:49, 29 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Thanks... Want to give a creature a feat from a book, I am looking but can't seem to find the code for doing the small raised print for references to D&D books. Could you help with this? Thanks... --[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 10:53, 29 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
::::::::Do you mean <sup>superscript</sup>? If you want to look like a pro, try [[User:Marasmusine/How To Use Footnotes]] (I don't think anyone's done it that way before, you could be the first!) [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 14:07, 30 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::I wasn't thinking of Footnotes<sup>[[User:Marasmusine/How To Use Footnotes | Marasumine's Guide]]</sup>... but that should work really nice together... Thanks :-D --[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 19:07, 30 July 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Deity Stats ==<br />
<br />
I was interested in making a deity and wanted to actually make the stats. However I can't find the formula to use... I know that they are normally a 20HD outsider that have 30-50 Class levels. By that they should be a CR 40-60 depending on just that... But are there any other factors? Also Do they use the 15,14,13,12,10,8 Elite stat array?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 20:51, 10 August 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:About 5 years ago I sat down to create a 3.5e deity and discovered the same issue - no guideline on how to set the ability scores. However, if you are giving your deity PC class levels, it should the elite stat array; if it only has NPC class levels, use the nonelite array. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 08:06, 11 August 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Can you check out this Deity and let me know what you think? [[Karura (3.5e Deity) | Karura]] Goddess of [[The Burning Wastelands (3.5e Environment) | The Burning Wastelands]]. I Used the Epic Stats, then Added the Stat upgrades for levels and feats. Then added the stat adjustments for items that she has that are listed. Her Challange rating is for her race + Her Class + her Divine Rank. --[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 19:50, 18 August 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Traps ([[User:jerden|jerden]] asking) ==<br />
<br />
I was just wondering if there was a way to change the title of my traps that still don't have (4e Trap) on them. I could copy them to new pages with (4e trap) on, but that won't really help anyone as it still will have the old ones. If it's something I can't do I'm sorry, in future I'll remember to add (4e Trap) to my (4e Trap)s! Anyway, I reacon I've wrote it enough time to remember now!<br />
:Hi Jerden, you can use the "Move" tab at the top of the screen. Also you can sign your posts using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). Thanks again for your contributions - converting the 3.5e DMG traps to 4e was on the back burner of my to-do list. You may also like to look at some of the changes I made to your entries for formatting standards, etc. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:48, 8 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
:Thanks. I'll sort them out. Anyway, I apprieciate your changes, I was actually hoping someone would do that. And I haven't really done that many of the 3.5 edition traps, I mostly just converted spells into traps (it's much easier). I'll probobly do more later once I can borrow the player handbook and possibly the monster manual. [[User:Jerden|Jerden]] ([[User talk:Jerden|talk]]) 12:38, 8 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Sand Elemental Page Deletion ==<br />
<br />
In reguards to the [[Sand Elemental]] page, I was trying to do the same set up as the SRD Elementals. Was this in error doing this set-up or was it just a waist for time? --[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 15:18, 25 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
:Hi Korminor, actually your original formatting was fine. But I'm aiming to have the sand elementals formatted in the same way as what I've done to [[Chaos Elemental, Lesser (3.5e Creature)]] and [[Chaos Elemental, Greater (3.5e Creature)]]. The reason for this is that I've made a new index of creatures at [[User Creatures]], but the table gets screwed up if there's more than one creature template in a page. The creature template itself can display 3 creatures, so that's a maximum of 3 creatures per page - hence me splitting the creatures into "Lesser" and "Greater" pages. It's not ideal - I'd rather have them all on one page - but it's the only fix I can think of to make the index work.<br />
:What I can do, if you think it's appropriate, is keep [[Sand Elemental]] as an overview page, so long as it doesn't contain a creature template. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 15:36, 25 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Also, I never did give you a reply re: [[Karura (3.5e Deity)]]. So let me say this - in my opinion ''this is what all 3.5e deity pages should look like.'' Well formatted, well written, fully statted out. I couldn't tell you if any of the numbers are off though, but it looks like you've been careful and thorough. 15:55, 25 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I would like to keep the [[Sand Elemental]] page as an overview page. I was planning on adding a bit to it on their history (Been a little busy with daughter starting school). Also thanks for the comments on [[Karura (3.5e Deity)]]. I started with the elite stats, then gave the increases for the levels gained (20 outsider + 30 Sandbender), then added the items used. Thanks again, --[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] ([[User talk:Korminor|talk]]) 17:32, 25 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Tiberium Rising Editing ==<br />
<br />
Hey, I'm still working on the pages. If you are going to move the pages, at least leave a redirect. Thanks --[[User:Yossarian|Yossarian]] ([[User talk:Yossarian|talk]]) 14:34, 28 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
:I usually do, I guess today I did it the other way to see what the reaction would be. So there we go. But why did you move it back? Now it has the incorrect title again. 16:24, 28 September 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Billhook Revert==<br />
Hi, we've not really met. I'm Badger, and I'm an admin who has been away for a while. Either way, we can chat more about that later, if you'd like. This message is to explain why I reverted your edits to [[Billhook_(3.5e_Equipment)|the billhook]]. The page that existed before you changed it was essentially a complete page, with mechanics and a concept. Maybe the concept needs work, and the balance sure needs some attention, but it was at least a fully fleshed out idea. Your edits reduced it to little more than a re-direct. If you are going to fundamentally change a page like you did, you might as well delete it entirely, and just redirect other pages away from it. I'm open to discussion on this point, but my understanding is that we don't try to serve as an encyclopedia, but rather as a reserve of actual content. To clarify that point, any article we have should have in-game mechanics, and not simply redirect a user to another page. Let me know how you feel about this, and I look forward to working with you in the future. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] ([[User talk:Badger|talk]]) 11:57, 5 October 2012 (MDT)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leg_of_Fharlanghn_(3.5e_Equipment)&diff=591521Talk:Leg of Fharlanghn (3.5e Equipment)2012-10-05T17:38:39Z<p>Badger: Changed section title</p>
<hr />
<div>==Needs Balance==<br />
*What is the incentive of using platinum? It costs way more, and doesn't give any bonuses (other than the usual platinum bonuses). <br />
*What does it mean to "make successful use of the leg"? Do you have to make a check? On every use? Every day? Once?<br />
*An item that grants a total of +4 to abilities, without taking up a slot, should cost a minimum of 32,000gp. Keeping in mind this is two different abilities, it should cost even more (1.5x one of the abilities, if I recall).<br />
Everything considered above, I'm adding the needs balance tag. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] ([[User talk:Badger|talk]]) 11:37, 5 October 2012 (MDT)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leg_of_Fharlanghn_(3.5e_Equipment)&diff=591520Talk:Leg of Fharlanghn (3.5e Equipment)2012-10-05T17:37:58Z<p>Badger: adding reason for needs balance tage</p>
<hr />
<div>==Material==<br />
*What is the incentive of using platinum? It costs way more, and doesn't give any bonuses (other than the usual platinum bonuses). <br />
*What does it mean to "make successful use of the leg"? Do you have to make a check? On every use? Every day? Once?<br />
*An item that grants a total of +4 to abilities, without taking up a slot, should cost a minimum of 32,000gp. Keeping in mind this is two different abilities, it should cost even more (1.5x one of the abilities, if I recall).<br />
Everything considered above, I'm adding the needs balance tag. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] ([[User talk:Badger|talk]]) 11:37, 5 October 2012 (MDT)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Leg_of_Fharlanghn_(3.5e_Equipment)&diff=591519Leg of Fharlanghn (3.5e Equipment)2012-10-05T17:37:56Z<p>Badger: added needsbalance</p>
<hr />
<div>{{needsbalance|See talk}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Equipment]]<br />
[[Category:Magic]]<br />
[[Category:Wondrous Item]]<br />
<br />
'''Leg of Fharlanghn (God of Travel)'''<br><br />
Price when made of [[SRD:Mithral|Mithral]]:15,300gp <br><br />
Price when made of [[Platinum (3.5e Equipment)|Platinum ]]: 54,300gp<br><br />
Limb: Leg<br><br />
Caster Level: 8th<br> <br />
Aura: Moderate; (DC18) Transmutation, Abjuration <br><br />
Activation: Continuous<br><br />
Weight: -- lbs<br><br />
<br><br />
'''Leg of Fharlanghn:''' This artificial leg made of either [[SRD:Mithral|Mithral]] or [[Platinum (3.5e Equipment)|Platinum ]] replaces a leg that has been lost. A Character that makes successful use of the leg gains +2 [[SRD:Strength|Strength]] and +2 [[SRD:Dexterity|Dexterity]]. The leg also grants a +2 Deflection bonus to [[SRD:Armor Class|Armor Class]]. Boots, Slippers and Sandals can be worn and still function normally. <br />
<br />
If a character has all of their legs replaced with Leg of Fharlanghn, they gain a +20 to their base land movement speed and a +10 competence bonus on [[SRD:Jump Skill|Jump Checks]].<br />
<br />
*Prereqs: Caster Level 8th,[[SRD:Craft Wondrous Item|Craft Wondrous Item]], [[SRD:Animate Objects|Animate Objects]], [[SRD:Shield|Shield]], [[SRD:Expeditious Retreat|Expeditious Retreat]], [[SRD:Jump|Jump]]<br><br />
*Cost to Create when made of [[SRD:Mithral|Mithral]]: 7,650gp, 8 Days.<br><br />
*Cost to Create when made of [[Platinum (3.5e Equipment)|Platinum ]]: 27,150gp, 27 Days.<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Magical Wondrous Items Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Equipment]]<br />
[[Category:Magic]]<br />
[[Category:Wondrous Item]]<br />
[[Category:No Slot]]<br />
<br><br />
--[[User:Korminor|Korminor]] 21:17, 22 September 2011 (MDT)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Badger&diff=591333User talk:Badger2012-10-04T02:29:19Z<p>Badger: /* Am I allowed to proceed? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For your help with finding vandal's edits, removing vandal's work, and helping keep D&D Wiki clean, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:06, 4 November 2010 (MDT)}}<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archived messages 1-20<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Help (Creature Creation)==<br />
<br />
Hey, I made my creature as best as I can using the template you showed me. For some reason it was not giving me the code usage for the special qualities and such on the basic page so I went and found a page that was using it. From there things seemed to work out. It now has its own page in the Creatures section... not completely sure as to which section since I just pressed add new creature. Anyway, I figured you would like to know how far I have made it, and that if nothing else you will know where to find it. Also, since you mentioned you might chime in and give suggestions and such when you get to look at it. [[Dimidium_Troll_(3.5e_Creature)|Dimidium Troll]] Also, it seems that I have figured out how to link into pages as well. You are a good teacher, thanks for the instruction! --[[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 22:56, 4 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Question (Dealing with Spam)==<br />
<br />
I have left a similar message on Green Dragons Talk page but I figure I should be thorough with this. It seems there are a few Users that are posting spam and doing a redirect for their User page to the mentioned Spam. One instance is this link [[Best_Electronic_Cigarette_Review |here]]. I don't know the procedure for deleting spam so I am asking you and the owner. I was just wondering if I should just mention it and leave be or if I should delete the contents of the page since I don't know how I would delete the page itself. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 23:57, 8 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, the long and the short of it is you shouldn't probably bother to do anything. Only Admins can totally delete a page. Likewise, only admins can ban a user. Whenever I come across spam, I blank the page, and then add a delete template. After that, I save changes with something like "Delete this spam" in the edit summary. Usually Jazzman is pretty good about catching these and deleting them for real. I don't know the official site policy on users handling spam, but no one has asked me to stop, so I still do it. One thing, however, is to make sure that the page never had any content on it. We don't want to delete a page that once had content, just because it now has spam. Like I said, us users can't do much in the way of permanent change (that's the admin's job), so if you want to turn a blind eye, no one will blame you. However, if you delete a bunch, someone might give you a nifty little barnstar like I have at the top of this page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:02, 9 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (Creating an Animal) ==<br />
<br />
So... you mentioned something about tables and things like that? i did find what each thing means ( [[Template:d20M_Creature|d20M Creature]] ) but what i need is the stuff it lists in the examples please. -[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 11:06, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, [[d20_Modern_Creatures|here]] is a link to every homebrew d20M creature. One of them is bound to have examples of what you need. Jazzman left a comment on one of your messages with some suggestions of how he would do it. You might want to check that out. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:17, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Might [[Creature Types (MSRD)#Animal|this]] be what you are looking for? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:22, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It's exacly what I needed. Thanks for the help! --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 10:53, 25 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (4e Community) ==<br />
<br />
Hey Badger,<br />
Do you know anyone who's really good at making D&D 4e stuff, but is also good at changing 4e stuff (you know, like, changing monsters from the monster manual)? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:11, 1 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, I'll be honest, I don't know how active they are anymore, but [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] has done quite a bit of 4e work (and is an admin here, so he might still be active-ish). For some reason I want to say [[User:Sam_Kay|Sam Kay]] also knows 4e a bit, but I don't think he's active on this wiki much anymore (again, I could be wrong on both points). Those are the two names that spring to mind, but I want to be clear that I don't know how much (if any) help then can/will be. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:21, 1 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for trying to help. But the reason was actually to help me with my Pumped Up [[Pumped Up (4e Sourcebook)|sourcebook]]. But I'm deleting it now. Sorry for bothering you. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:30, 16 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::No problem, I'm here to help. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:54, 30 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Help (Sandboxes)==<br />
<br />
Hey badger it is Dj00345. I wanted to ask you if there is a way to create ur own sandbox? I wanted to create one myself and don't know how to?... Can u help me out and explain how to make one??<br />
[[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]].<br />
<br />
:It's really easy, just add a /sandbox after your username, for example [[User:Dj00345/sandbox]]. You can put anything on the page, so sandbox, or sandbox1, or ninja_of_the_winterlands, or whatever you want. If you go to that page you'll be prompted to make a new page with that name. It's easy. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:31, 1 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Help (Pictures)==<br />
hey badger. it is me Dj00345. i just added a image to one of my pages. and the picture is too big. how do i make it small enough to fit on the page??? can you help me at all??? the page is called [[Zendra (3.5e Deity)|Zendra]]. please help me..... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 17:42, 3 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I went ahead and changed the size. Check out the code and you can learn for next time. You can change the text by editing the code. You can change the size of the picture by increasing or decreasing the pixels. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:53, 3 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thx. Got it now! ;) [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 10:14, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Help (Stubs)==<br />
<br />
Hey one more question.... If I want to help finish a STUB page, do I just go ahead and edit it, or do I have to wait for someone to give me an answer??? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 10:14, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I usually check to see when the stub template was added, how long the page has gone un-edited, and if the original author is still around. If it looks like no one else is going to do it, just jump right in. On pages that are a little more complete, and just missing little things here and there, it might be better to leave a message on the talk pages with your suggested changes, and give the community a week or so to talk about it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:10, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::And if I finish what the stub template says needs to be fixed,, do i remove the template??? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 17:53, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I assume you're asking about Dhampir, which just needs another adventurer? Yeah, that you can just add whenever you think of one, and remove the stub template when you do. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:05, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Alrighty then. Thx again. And yes I am asking about dhampir [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 18:33, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I ended up removing [[Template:Stub]] from the [[Dhampir (4e Race)|dampir]]. See the history for what the edit was. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:39, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question (User Creation Log) ==<br />
<br />
hey badger. i was just looking around on the Wiki and ended up in the User Creation log. where it shows every account that has been created. i went down to the date i helped my friend get an account on this wiki and saw it. then i went to December dates to see if my account was there. (i was bored and wanted to see). Apparently, my account i guess doesn't exist... i didnt see my account name anywhere in there... '''Is That A Good Thing or A Bad Thing.???????''' Please answer..... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 20:15, 11 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Huh, that's interesting. Well, do you recall creating an account? It does appear that you never made one, but you are certainly logged in and making edits. To make an account you need to log in. If you log in and make edits, you should have an account. I don't know what's going on, I'd ask Green Dragon if you're concerned. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:36, 11 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Well see. I made an account. I guess it didn't recognize it. I didn't get the message that green dragon sends to you saying that you are now a dnd wikian. I never got that message... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 09:54, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::That's not an automated message, GD goes through and does those manually, so it's possible he just missed you. If you have an options menu at the top right corner of the screen that says "Dj00345, my talk, my preferences, my watchlist, my contributions, logout" you're probably a member and the site is just a little hinky. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:40, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Yeah I have all those. So it must be some sort of glitch maybe...? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 12:43, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Yeah, as far as I can tell you're a full-blooded wikian, and the wiki is just screwing up. If you're concerned you can leave a message on Green Dragon's talk page, either asking him there, or directing him to this conversation. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:46, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not really concerned. i was just making sure that the wiki wasn't screwed up or anything. i was just keeping an eye out. thx for the help badger! [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 14:57, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Oh, the wiki screws up all the time. This isn't anything major, so I wouldn't worry about it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:46, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question (Multi-classing) ==<br />
Alright, so I think I'm doing this right. And I suppose this will be the first question I will ask, is it possible to go back to a class that specifically says you can't after multiclassing? Even if the class you multiclass with says you can? (Sorry if you don't understand or if this seems stupid.)--[[User:Raem|Raem]] 17:35, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:First, yeah, you did everything correctly. Now, let me try to understand your question. I think if the 2nd class explicitly says "you can multi-class, even if your first class says you cannot" then you ''can''. However, if the 2nd class ''doesn't'' say that, you're out of luck. That said, it's really up to your DM. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:42, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (Campaign Creation) ==<br />
<br />
Hey badger! Dj00345. I have a question. I'm thinking of making my own campaign setting and was just wondering where to go in order to create the "Supplement" pages for it??? I took a look at the "Valgora" campaign setting and it's edit stuff. And noticed that the links said '''Valgora supplement'''. Where do I go to make one of those pages except under a different campaign setting of course... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 13:57, 5 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Oh, well, as far as I know there is no official formatting for creating campaign settings. This little box might make it easier to add to a campaign setting, just replace "MyPage" with the name of your page, and "MySetting" with the name of your setting:<br />
<br />
<!-----Campaign Setting-----><br />
<div style="text-align: left; width: 23.5em; margin: 2em;"><br />
<inputbox><br />
type=create<br />
break=no<br />
buttonlabel=Create New Page for Campaign Setting<br />
default=MyPage (MySetting Supplement)<br />
preload=<br />
</inputbox><br />
</div><br />
<br />
:If you'd like, I'm sure someone can help you making a footer/header for your campaign setting and using it as a preload. My guess is Hooper would be the guy to ask about that, as I think Valgora is his setting, and you seem to like that one. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:30, 5 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Help (Class Creation)==<br />
<br />
Hello it was recomended to me that you might be able to help me with a concept. You see me and my friends are planning to start a DnD 3.5 OP campaign (so crazy templates etc...) But im new to dnd so I have no idea how to make the class/template/race I wanted. the concept I came up with was a ''Prototype'' character based off of the game prototype for the xbox 360. Im not quite sure weither it would be a class a template or a race. So I was wondering if you could help me make it? (or make it for me)? -- [[User:Grunt|Grunt]] 17:03, 25 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, let me begin by saying I've never played Prototype, so I probably can't help you with much. However, here's how I'd recommend you try it. <br />
<br />
:If you want to use existing classes, here's what I'd suggest: I don't know if you're familiar with [[UA:Gestalt_Characters|gestalt characters]], but that's what I'd recommend. Basically, you combine the best parts of two classes into one super-class. I'd recommend something like a [[Psion]] with an emphasis in psychometabolism, or maybe psychokinesis. From there, I'd make your other class something that would work well with the abilities of your psion, so maybe rogue. I like rogues a lot, so maybe I'm just biased. It sounds like a barbarian might also work well. Since you're going for overpowered, I think a gestalt [[Psion]]/[[Barbarian,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome Barbarian]] would best approximate what you're looking for.<br />
<br />
:However, if you're looking to create your own homemade material, here's what I'd suggest: Start with a beefy Hit Die, like a d10, give yourself medium or good Base attack bonus(like the rogue or fighter), good fortitude and reflex saves (+12 at 20) and bad will saves (+6 at 20). After that, I'd give yourself a limited spell list, pulling your favorite spells from psionics, and use Constitution instead of Intelligence for the key ability. After that, add on a bunch of heavy hitting power class skills, using classes like [[Threat_(3.5e_Class)|Threat]], [[Barbarian,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome Barbarian]], and maybe even [[Death_Knight_(DnD_Prestige_Class)|Death Knight]] for ideas.<br />
<br />
:I hope this helps. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:03, 25 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hey Badger ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Badger.<br />
<br />
:Hi. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:42, 15 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
yo what up badger think i could get u to take a look at the mage of earthsea class again?? give me a few more pointers?<br />
<br />
==ty [[User:La Mortis|La Mortis]]==<br />
<br />
== Help (Campaign Settings) ==<br />
<br />
You asked if I wanted help, I do.<br />
I go straigh to the point.<br />
<br />
I would want to make an own:<br />
#make a page with the info about classes "and the world" and "how to make a class character".<br />
#Then put a link to it in the Classes.<br />
#make links that change pages adn scrolls down to an article. <br />
#learn to make footers<br />
#page for my classes that are adapted for my campaign setting.<br />
<br />
::I've numbered each of the questions you have, and I'll answer them in order. Let me know if you need more detail on any of them<br />
::1. If you want to make a page about classes for your Campaign Setting, just make a standard page for your Campaign setting. If you want, you can use the "Add New Campaign Setting Info" thing that I made [[User_talk:Badger#Help_.28Campaign_Creation.29|here]]. As far as I know there is no codified pre-load for this, so you can just model it off a page that you like, or do it on your own. <br />
::2. Putting a link to it is just like adding any other link. You simply type this code: <nowiki> [[Name_Of_Page | Display Text]]</nowiki>.<br />
::For example, you would probably make the pages named "Classes_(MyCampaign_Supplement)", so your code would say: <nowiki>[[Classes_(MyCampaign_Supplement) | Classes in MyCampaign]]</nowiki>. Naturally, you'll want to replace "MyCampaign" with whatever the name of your campaign is. <br />
::3. Making links that link to a specific section is also pretty easy. You use the same format that you used above for creating a link, and to link to a particular section, you put a #SectionName after the name of the page. For example, if you wanted to make a link to this section, you would write " <nowiki>[[User_Talk:Badger#Help_(Campaign Settings) | Display Text]]</nowiki>.<br />
::4. Making footers is as easy as making a page. First you make a page and put on it whatever you want the footer to say. Name the page something like "Navigation Footer (MyCampaign Supplement)". After that, you just have to include that page at the bottom of every page you want a footer. Only, this time, instead of using brackets like you normally use for a link (These: "[[]]"), use braces (These: "{{}}")<br />
::5. Again, just make a page that's name ends with (MyCampaign Supplement), and put a list of classes and changes. You may find it is easier to make full on tables to show changes, or just text lists of changes. It's up to you.<br />
::One last note, as helpful as I may be with this, [[User:Hooper]] is probably better. He is the one who rates most of the campaign settings, and he is the one who has one of the most complete campaign settings on this wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:47, 30 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== For Identification Purposes? ==<br />
<br />
Ok now i'm curious why you moved my page... made it loads of fun to try and find it through my simple input of the address it was sitting at without the variant 3.5 mumbo jumbo.<br />
<br />
I'm just curious why you did it, I understand that there WAS a Dragoon class that was made and deleted for whatever reason... That's why i made it a Dragoon Lancer, there was someone who made a Dragoon that i thought was totally whacked out on ADnD and well I felt it needed a do-over, pouring through the books i found a nice combination that is actually based on pre-existing 3.0 and 3.5 edition material, short of some attack/ Wings purposes it is all based on the rules. I think it works marvelously and when i find the actual balance i would really hope people start picking it up. It was one of my favorite classes in FF Tactics, short of the huge error in missing people because they moved while you were in the air (Huge disappointment there) but getting back on track. I would appreciate a simple explanation, and well some feedback would be nice since you seem to have been the ONLY person on here who has done anything of note to my Dragoon Lancer.<br />
<br />
James<br />
<br />
:Badger didn't mean any offense. All homebrew pages are (supposed to be) appended with an identifying tag such as (3.5e Creature) or (d20M Advanced Class). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:14, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yep, Jazzman summed it up. Sorry for any confusion it may have caused. There should have been a redirect from the old URL to the updated one, I don't know why that wasn't working (but it appears to be working now). I've not actually read the page, but since my vacation has just begun I'll get around to it (sooner or later) and leave some thoughts on the talk page. Once again, sorry for any confusion or trouble this may have caused; I was just following policy.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:24, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well i was really just curious as to the why... since it really didn't seem to have been a part of any of the other classes that i looked at. I have been going through and trying to reflect any changes i've come across and would really like some insight anyone has. [[User:Gainesja|Gainesja]] 04:34, 12 June 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::People are really, really, really, bad about adding those tags, so I'm sure there are many pages floating around that don't have them yet. Though more pages have them than not, so if you haven't seen any yet you must just be really lucky. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 07:40, 12 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I think on that day alone I moved like 3 or 4 other classes and deities. It's just something I do every so often, when I notice a few pages in the recent changes need it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:27, 12 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Admin Nomination==<br />
I hope that you accept the recent nomination for adminship that has been activated for you. Please go to [[Requests for Adminship/Badger]] to reply to the nominee questions. I look forward to seeing the community's thoughts! &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 06:10, 19 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Thank you for your nomination, as well as your support. I accept the nomination, and I look forward to continuing to contribute to the community, either as a administrator, or as a user. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:09, 19 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Welcome to Adminship. You are now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. Honestly, as you will notice, not much has been changed now that you are an admin. If anything, I would say more burden is placed on you. I recommend you take a look at [[Special:ListGroupRights]] if you have not already. Some of the the new features' uses pertaining to D&D Wiki follow. You can now delete pages, protect pages, rollback edits, block users and IP's, edit every page, patrol edits, and do a couple more minor things.<br />
::*Deleting pages is normally done through [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. Anything with a good reason to be deleted on that page should be deleted. The other time pages should be deleted is when someone makes a certain page and after a few edits they either blank the page or replace it with something like "Please delete this". If this page consisted of close to just the preload, just delete it.<br />
::*Protecting pages has quite a few different times when it should be used. Pages should be protected according to the author's wishes (with [[Template:Locked Page]] added to the top of the page in question), in case of conflict (with [[Template:Temp Locked Page]] added to the top of the page in question), in case of [[Help:FAQ#What are OGL, OGC, SRD, and GNU FPL?|OGC]] published materials (with [[Template:OGL Top]] added to the top of the page in question and [[Template:OGL Bottom]] added to the bottom), or finally if the page is a vital part of D&D Wiki's organization. If it deals with D&D Wiki's organization it either needs to be be protected from IP edits or all non-sysop edits. As a rule of thumb pages up to two tiers deep (up for discussion/rethinking) from the [[Main Page]] are normally locked to anyone but sysops and all the others are just protected from IP edits. For Example [[3.5e Homebrew]] is protected from all non-sysop edits whereas a deeper in page like [[LA 0 Races]] is only protected from IP edits. No template needs to be added to pages if they are part of D&D Wiki's organization (even though some do exist like [[Template:Admin Locked Page]])<br />
::*Blocking a user or IP should only be used after an IP or user vandalizes a certain page. To block someone just click "block" (found on [[Special:Recentchanges|RC]], the diff in question, the userpage, etc) and fill out the corresponding form. For a typical vandalism attack I normally block the user for two weeks. Certain things demand a longer block and others a shorter. No standards have been set for block lengths, use your best judgment.<br />
::*Editing every page on D&D Wiki mostly means you can now edit the [[SRD:System Reference Document|SRD]] and the [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|MSRD]]. Feel free to edit them if inaccuracies are found. If interested further please look at the [[SRD Talk:System Reference Document#SRD ToDo List|SRD ToDO List]] or the [[MSRD Talk:Modern System Reference Document#Tasks|MSRD tasks]]. Of course that is only the base. There is never enough help to get everything done, so I am sure your help would be appreciated.<br />
::*Patrolling edits should, in a nutshell, be used when you have looked over an edit and fixed everything that needs to be fixed (this includes reviewing the content with templates, answering questions, etc).<br />
::I know this is really long-winded, so I'll keep the rest short. You have more burden on yourself now that you are an admin because users will be looking at you for editing help, knowledge of the standards, etc. It's a bit more work, but I really hope you enjoy being an admin and I hope you decide to stay around on D&D Wiki for a while more to come. Welcome to Adminship, again you're now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:58, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Modifiers Added, But for future refrence, ==<br />
<br />
what are the modifiers to use? Class, Prestige Class, NPC, Monster, Equipment, Campaign, Quest, Deity, Trait, Flaw, Feat, Spell, Race are the ones i can think of, am i missing any? Also, Is there a way i can set a page to only accept changes that I approve?<br />
<br />
:I've corrected the spelling of the modifiers above (and added a few more). Those are all the ones I can think of off the top of my head (and all the major ones), but I am sure there are more obscure ones. As for your second question, no there is not. However, you can use the "watch" tab, at the top of each page, and any changes that are made to that page will show up in the "my watchlist" page linked in the top right corner of the page (when you're logged in). You can click on "diff" to see the changes made in each edit. This is about as close as you can get to what you want. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:26, 14 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hi I was interested in joining the D&D WIKI but it seams your create account is broken ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was trying to find the webmaster but didn't see a link to leave a message for one. Maybe you can forward this on to her/him/them.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I went to create an account and tried to make an account but it seams to be broken. A box keeps popping up saying type two words to in to prevent span but the silly thing just keeps cycling and won't go away to let you create the account. I tried at least a dozen times to get past it but always comes back. Very frustrating!<br />
<br />
And now the fool thing shows up trying to post this message.<br />
<br />
:Does it mention it is related to CloudFlare ([[D&D Wiki:General disclaimer]])? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:05, 30 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you can give me the exact error message you're getting, that would help immensely. What name are you trying to register? Is it possible that someone has already registered that name? Green Dragon, who responded above me, is the owner/operator of the website, so he's probably your best bet for a fix. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:37, 31 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank You ==<br />
<br />
I wished to thank you for your recent remarks on my page. And to acknowledge your intrinsic and direct approach.<br />
<br />
:Any time? But seriously, I have no idea who you are or what page you're talking about (I've been a whirlwind of edits these past few days), but you're welcome. Let me know if there's anything else you need. In the future, don't forget to sign your posts with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or by pressing the signature button. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:51, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Your deletion of a page was most appreciated.<br />
<br />
:::Oh, well, glad I could help. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:19, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Could you extend your gracious policy upon a few of my other incomplete works?<br />
<br />
:::::Policy says that we're supposed to wait at least 2 weeks before deleting anything. If I've deleted anything sooner than that, I apologize. Most of our to-be-deleted content is months, if not years old, though (so you should have plenty of time). If your content has a delete template, I'll check on the history, and if it looks like you're making progress on it, I'll give it time. If you give me the links you want me to keep an eye out for, I'll get around to checking on them later. Also, if I delete anything that you'd like back, I think can restore it easily (I've never tried, but I know I should be able to). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:29, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I understand. I would like 75% of all my work deleted (noting most is incomplete, and I have no wish to complete 75%). I have only a few articles here; and have a desire to complete the 25%. The other work only hurts my prestige.<br />
<br />
:::::::Right, well, place the code <nowiki>{{delete|~~~~~|Author has abandoned.}}</nowiki> to the top of every incomplete page you don't want to keep, and I'll delete them as I get around to them. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:45, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::It is finished.<br />
<br />
:::::::::Is there a reason that you're signing out and not signing your comments when leaving a message to me, but logging in to edit your pages? You're not trying to hide your identity, are you? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:00, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::No. I simply wanted to make sure you were interested before damming the pages. --[[User:Frankenkesey|Frankenkesey]] 20:12, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Well, it's not policy to delete pages just because the author doesn't want them anymore. Arguably you should be using the "abandoned" template instead, but I've never seen anyone adopt one of those pages and fix it up, so I don't know that it's a very useful template (although it's a good idea). It's my personal belief that we should just delete unfinished and unusable material, rather than letting it stick around as abandoned for years. If your pages don't have enough content for someone else to take and finish up, I'll delete them. However, if they have enough already, I'll swap out delete with abandoned. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:12, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::This maxim sounds fair. --[[User:Frankenkesey|Frankenkesey]] 20:15, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths ==<br />
<br />
Just created the "Master of the twin paths" for 3.5e custom prestige classes. It was moved to "formatting issues" soon after.<br />
<br />
My question is simple, is now officially removed or is it waiting to be checked? If it is removed, how may I improve it to have it added to the homebrew category it fits.<br />
<br />
Also how do I format it correctly?<br />
<br />
with many thanks,<br />
Ryulin18<br />
<br />
You're doing a great job<br />
<br />
:Right, well, good news! Master of the twin paths hasn't been removed, it was just moved (for a totally unrelated reason). You can find you creation [[Master_of_the_Twin_Paths_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|here]]. <br />
<br />
:First off, your page was moved to include an "identifer", which means I added "_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)" to the end of your class name. We use these to keep all our content straight, and every page is supposed to have one.<br />
<br />
:If you check out other Prestige classes, like [[Animal_Lord_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|this one]], you'll notice the bottom has a sort of footer that works as navigation, as well as some categories. You'll want to add those to your page (not those exact ones, but the ones that apply to your class). I'd search through other [[3.5e_Prestige_Classes|prestige classes]] until you find one that seems like yours, and check out what categories you'll want to include. Let me know if you need anything else. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:18, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Tavern ==<br />
<br />
If it existed, you should get on it right now. But it doesn't so... [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:37, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths - Part 2 ==<br />
<br />
Okay. I have added breadcrumbs and the categories! Is it okay now?<br />
<br />
Any advice to get it finished?<br />
<br />
much thanks, Ryulin<br />
<br />
:Alright, well, the cats and breadcrumbs look a lot better now. The next thing I'd say is fluff. Everything always needs more fluff. Well, almost everything. Check out a featured article like [[Deviant_(3.5e_Class)|this one]] for notes on making your page better. If you're committed enough, you can turn your page into a featured article. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:53, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Apologies ==<br />
<br />
Hi Badger,<br />
<br />
I realized that I took my trolling too far yesterday. Seriously, I'm not a jerk like that usually. I have just been using this website as out outlet, so to speak, which is pretty immature. Anyways, I've decided to quit my trolling here altogether and also to stop harboring resentment for Green Dragon and Hooper.<br />
<br />
In the case of Green Dragon, I realized that teasing him may have been fun, it really was a childish way to burn off steam over real life issues.<br />
<br />
In the case of Hooper, I realized that he's just like a lot of other D&D players I've met and gotten along with: he's got a strong personality and reflects that with strong opinions. And really, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Unfortunately, I let situations where I saw him butt horns with other users sway me to dislike him.<br />
<br />
I was logged into a chatroom that both of you were in last night (although I was afk), and although most of your conversation was cut off, I realized that I was being pretty stupid and you are decent guys.<br />
<br />
So, my apologies to you (and Hooper), for the nonsense I stirred up. Cheers. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:15, 31 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:From my administrator standpoint: That was mean, you shouldn't do that. I have half a mind to ban you here and now, regardless of policy.<br />
:From my human being standpoint: Ehh, just don't do it again. <s>At least, not on important pages.</s> I probably over-reacted in my message asking you to cut it out. It wasn't really that big of a deal. No hard feelings, at least on my end. It is my suspicion, though I can't speak for him, that Hooper also thought it was no big thing. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:02, 31 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths - Part 3 ==<br />
<br />
Added all the fluff I dare to. Can you give me an idea of what to do next before I can have this page legitimized (I'm an English teacher, so using a z there hurt) and sent to my DM?<br />
<br />
I really want this rated...Anyone want to do it?<br />
<br />
== Hey Badger ==<br />
<br />
I saw that you Changed the name of my raze Urgalz to Urgalz (3.5e Race) I forgot to do that and I just wanted to thank you for that. I looked at your the classes that you created and I do sai that the Hooker (3.5e class) is kinda funny at least i haven't lauged so much when I looked at some class. --Baharas 05:54, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, thank you; I'm pretty proud of that Hooker class, even though it's a April Fools class. Don't worry about missing that identifier, lot's people get it wrong the first few times, just try to include it for all the future pages you make. If you've already made pages without identifiers, you can use the "move" tab at the top of that page to move it to a page with the correct identifier. Welcome to the wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:09, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::yeah I noticed when you moved it how to change it and I just noticed that you were a admin so congratulation for that :P <br />
::and I want to ask you: I am creating a class named [[Guardian, Variant2 (3.5e Class)]] why does this look like this?<br />
<br />
:::When the page says "remove this entire line" it means that entire line of text from the edit window, not just everything after it says "remove this line" (so also delete the bit that says <nowiki><nowiki><!- REMOVE THIS ENTIRE LINE</nowiki>). I've fixed it for you, but you can see what I did by checking out [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Guardian,_Variant2_(3.5e_Class)&diff=next&oldid=535771 this diff]. Also, don't forget to sign your posts by typing <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> at the end of your message, or by hitting the signature button in the toolbar (the one that looks like a bunch of loops, second from the end).--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:59, 19 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::yeah sorry about that forgot and thanks for helping me :P --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 02:26, 20 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::No worries, that's why I'm here. Kinda. Mostly. It's why I enjoy being here at least. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 02:34, 20 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Patronage Featured Article? ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Badger. I've put in images on most of my pages for my [[Patronage (4e Campaign Setting)]]. Could you take a look and decide if more is needed to get your vote for Featured Article status?--[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 16:42, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Wow. Those pages look so much better now with pictures, in my opinion. I've changed my vote on the FA nomination accordingly. Good work. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:09, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Image ==<br />
<br />
I just wanted to ask you how can I put Image on my races pages I tryed but it doesent work? --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 05:05, 29 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Uh, well, let me first start by making sure the image you want to upload is legal. Assuming it is, what you have to do is type out <nowiki>[[File:Image_Name.jpg]]</nowiki> and save the changes. Once you've done that, your "image" will show up as a red link. Click on that link. It should take you to a page that will allow you to upload your chosen image. If you've already uploaded the image to our image server, it appear right away, rather than as a red link. If you can show me what image you want to upload, and where it needs to go, I can show you in more detail. As far as I know, that should work. Images tend to go a little wonky every so often, but they seem to be working just fine right now. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:40, 29 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::well I tryed that but it didn't work and here is a link to the pic [http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&q=barbarian#/d1k47mn] and I am trying to put it on [[Urgalz (3.5e Race)]] --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 03:53, 3 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::you don't have to do anything I found out what i was doing wrong and I finally uploaded pic on [[Urgalz (3.5e Race)]] and [[Knasari (3.5e Race)]] --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 05:51, 7 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copperwood permission ==<br />
<br />
Hi from new account.<br />
I came across this wiki by accident and just happened to notice a message saying "awaiting permission from copperwood" for a couple of articles.<br />
<br />
Well, I am the one and only copperwood. Those permissions have been waiting for about, ooh, 5 years ago! Bit of a long time, but I created the account on Wizards ages ago to submit those articles and haven't logged back in since they changed to 'D&D Insider'<br />
<br />
If it matters, and the articles are still available, then you have my permission!<br />
<br />
== Greetings Badger ==<br />
<br />
Greeting Badger, this is Lyrad8791. We have talked a bit before on some of my stuff that I have submitted a while back. I was wondering if you had the time to take a look at my sandbox and tell me what you think about my charts there. I also have a second sandbox, which I have dedicated to my world that I am creating. Since the charts didn't fit in with the world itself, I left them in their current location. Anyway, I was hoping I might get some opinions on them, as well as some ideas on how to progress from where I am currently at in my project. If you can think of anyone else who might like to help or would be interested to see what I have thus far, send them over and have them leave a message in the discussion area of either page. The link to the charts is [[User:Lyrad8791/sandbox1#Town_Placement_Charts|here]] and the page for what I currently have on my world is [[User:Lyrad8791/sandbox2|here]]. Thanks for the time you took in reading this, and I hope to hear from you again. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 02:22, 21 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Suggestions and rating help ==<br />
<br />
Ello Badger!<br />
<br />
(insert the badger song -> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI])<br />
<br />
Okay seriously, I need help with getting my custom prestige class rated and commented.<br />
I am a bit of an addict when it comes to feedback and I am having trouble finding the right places to create attention to my works.<br />
Also I have read the forms and guides to a good page but I am not sure I have every thing cowered.<br />
<br />
Could you go my work over? Especially the warhammer 40K boltgun. Cant figure out a nice and fitting way of presenting all the upgrades and ammunition options available.<br />
<br />
Thanks before hand from --<span style="font-family:albertus mt; font-variant:small-caps; margin-left:4px; border:2px solid #501010;"><span style="background:#CA2020; border:3px solid #7B0E0E; padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;">'''[[User:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;">ElvenKingSlave</span>]]'''&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[Exalted Wiki:Human|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="I will drown you in daggers!">Weapons Summoner</span>]]&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[User talk:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="Contact me">Talk</span></span>]]</span> 03:01, 28 November 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Weapon_Summoner_(3.5e_Class)#Class_Features Weapon Summoner(3.5 class)]]<br><br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Boltgun_(3.5e_Equipment) Boltgun(3.5 Equipment)]]<br><br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lasgun_(3.5e_Equipment) Lasgun(3.5 Equipment)]]<br><br />
<br />
:Right, well, where to begin... <br />
:I'm gonna let you know right now, there are a lot of people on this wiki making content, and virtually no one reviewing it. I'd recommend trying to make connections with other users who seem to be pretty active, and set up a sort of co-op where you keep each other in the loop with your stuff, and constantly rate one another's stuff. I'd give your class a once over, but I'm more than swamped at the moment with real world things. I'll be honest, I've been away for so long now that I'm not even sure who is still very active on the wiki.<br />
:A quick once over says to me that you've done pretty well at formatting most of your stuff. There are a few things, like the NPC on your [[Weapon_Summoner_(3.5e_Class)|Weapon Summoner]] is wonky. My first edit, however, will have to be striking out your rating because you aren't allowed to rate your own stuff. Sorry, it's the rules.<br />
:Other than that, I don't know what to tell you. I'll be free in about two weeks. Send me another message then and I'll see what I can do for you. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:44, 28 November 2011 (MST)<br />
::Thanks :D Thats all I am asking. --<span style="font-family:albertus mt; font-variant:small-caps; margin-left:4px; border:2px solid #501010;"><span style="background:#CA2020; border:3px solid #7B0E0E; padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;">'''[[User:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;">ElvenKingSlave</span>]]'''&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[Exalted Wiki:Human|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="I will drown you in daggers!">Weapons Summoner</span>]]&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[User talk:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="Contact me">Talk</span></span>]]</span> 07:15, 30 November 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== My created items ==<br />
<br />
Badger, could I get you to take a look at the Magic items I created and give me an opinion on them? My friends like them, but I think they are a bit biased. Any critiques would be welcome. They are all listed on my user page. Thanks again. --[[User:Irykyl| Irykyl]] 11:24, 6 March 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
== 2 things ==<br />
<br />
First i would like you to know that i've have added 2 feats under the 3e Feats section (Ambidexterity and Armor Proficiency (Heavy))<br />
<br />
also something seems to be wrong with sending a confirmation email to allow me to send messages to people.<br />
<br />
== Please remove all my material from this wiki ==<br />
<br />
I asked Green Dragon but he refuses. I would like all pages created by me to be deleted from this wiki. The reasons are personal and nobody's business but my own. Thank you for your cooperation. --<span style="font-size:90%;">[[User:ScryersEve|<span title="User page of Scryer's Eve"><span style="color:#006565;">Scryer's</span> <span style="color:#db6700;">Eve</span></span>]] <sup>([[User_talk:ScryersEve|<span style="color:#0053BF!important;" title="Talk page of Scryer's Eve">talk</span>]] | <span title="Contributions of Scryer's Eve">[[Special:Contributions/ScryersEve|<span style="small-caps;color:#0053BF!important;" title="Contributions of Scryer's Eve">contribs</span>]])</span></sup> 15:56, 26 March 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Sorry, but according to policy I'm not allowed to do that. Is it a silly policy? Probably. Do I like that policy? I can't think of a time I have. Do I have to follow it? Tragically. I'm not going to bother asking why you don't want your stuff on the wiki anymore, as it doesn't really matter, but there's nothing I can do. The way I see it, you have two options: First, you can stick around and try and petition the rule change so that your content can be removed. If you can show (through history) that no one else has modified the content you uploaded, that would go a long way to showing that you'd not be removing anyone else's contributions (in my mind at least). Option two is to just walk away angry. It's a pretty lame option, but it's what might happen anyway. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:47, 26 March 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Homebrew Race Formatting ==<br />
<br />
When submitting a homebrew race, may I format the top section (Race's name in plural) like a creature page and/or a SRD, or is the markup, or some version thereof, supplied at the edit/create page all that's accepted?[[User:Omegatiger121|Omegatiger121]] ([[User talk:Omegatiger121|talk]]) 13:34, 16 June 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Real-time human-moderated games ==<br />
<br />
hello. i was looking for a site that offers real-time human-moderated games. do you know of any?<br />
<br />
thank you.<br />
<br />
== Am I allowed to proceed? ==<br />
<br />
Hi badger, I'm sure this happens a lot but I just pulled your name first from the Admin list, hoping to get someone to talk to. Anyway, my question was aimed towards the lack of content that exists for 3.5 and has not been posted. While I understand that a lot of classes are not core, Psion as well as its including features are listed, and so I thought I might request to put up more classes, such as from the Magic of Incarnum book, or the Complete Warrior, Divine, Ect. I would love to punch in as much time as needed to get this done. My players love this wiki and I have no time to go fishing for spells in countless books. Please let me know. Thanks :)<br />
<br />
:Hi there. Welcome, and we're glad to see that you like the wiki, and want to contribute. Unfortunately, you aren't allowed to add just any content you want. Any content we have has to be licensed in a way that allows for free distribution. The complete warrior/divine, and many other books have not been licensed under the OGL (open gaming license). If you know of content that is licensed under the OGL (or a similar license), contact an admin, and we'll double check and then give you the go ahead to transcribe it.<br />
<br />
:There are plenty of other ways you can contribute, though! Here you can find a list of [[abandoned]] pages, each of which could use some work. An editorial eye could be used on just about any page here on the wiki, and there are tons of people who would love for you to read (and rate) their creations. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask me, or any other admin. Cheers. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] ([[User talk:Badger|talk]]) 20:12, 3 October 2012 (MDT)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Badger&diff=591332User talk:Badger2012-10-04T02:28:14Z<p>Badger: /* Am I allowed to proceed? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For your help with finding vandal's edits, removing vandal's work, and helping keep D&D Wiki clean, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:06, 4 November 2010 (MDT)}}<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archived messages 1-20<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Help (Creature Creation)==<br />
<br />
Hey, I made my creature as best as I can using the template you showed me. For some reason it was not giving me the code usage for the special qualities and such on the basic page so I went and found a page that was using it. From there things seemed to work out. It now has its own page in the Creatures section... not completely sure as to which section since I just pressed add new creature. Anyway, I figured you would like to know how far I have made it, and that if nothing else you will know where to find it. Also, since you mentioned you might chime in and give suggestions and such when you get to look at it. [[Dimidium_Troll_(3.5e_Creature)|Dimidium Troll]] Also, it seems that I have figured out how to link into pages as well. You are a good teacher, thanks for the instruction! --[[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 22:56, 4 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Question (Dealing with Spam)==<br />
<br />
I have left a similar message on Green Dragons Talk page but I figure I should be thorough with this. It seems there are a few Users that are posting spam and doing a redirect for their User page to the mentioned Spam. One instance is this link [[Best_Electronic_Cigarette_Review |here]]. I don't know the procedure for deleting spam so I am asking you and the owner. I was just wondering if I should just mention it and leave be or if I should delete the contents of the page since I don't know how I would delete the page itself. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 23:57, 8 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, the long and the short of it is you shouldn't probably bother to do anything. Only Admins can totally delete a page. Likewise, only admins can ban a user. Whenever I come across spam, I blank the page, and then add a delete template. After that, I save changes with something like "Delete this spam" in the edit summary. Usually Jazzman is pretty good about catching these and deleting them for real. I don't know the official site policy on users handling spam, but no one has asked me to stop, so I still do it. One thing, however, is to make sure that the page never had any content on it. We don't want to delete a page that once had content, just because it now has spam. Like I said, us users can't do much in the way of permanent change (that's the admin's job), so if you want to turn a blind eye, no one will blame you. However, if you delete a bunch, someone might give you a nifty little barnstar like I have at the top of this page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:02, 9 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (Creating an Animal) ==<br />
<br />
So... you mentioned something about tables and things like that? i did find what each thing means ( [[Template:d20M_Creature|d20M Creature]] ) but what i need is the stuff it lists in the examples please. -[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 11:06, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, [[d20_Modern_Creatures|here]] is a link to every homebrew d20M creature. One of them is bound to have examples of what you need. Jazzman left a comment on one of your messages with some suggestions of how he would do it. You might want to check that out. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:17, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Might [[Creature Types (MSRD)#Animal|this]] be what you are looking for? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:22, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It's exacly what I needed. Thanks for the help! --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 10:53, 25 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (4e Community) ==<br />
<br />
Hey Badger,<br />
Do you know anyone who's really good at making D&D 4e stuff, but is also good at changing 4e stuff (you know, like, changing monsters from the monster manual)? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:11, 1 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, I'll be honest, I don't know how active they are anymore, but [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] has done quite a bit of 4e work (and is an admin here, so he might still be active-ish). For some reason I want to say [[User:Sam_Kay|Sam Kay]] also knows 4e a bit, but I don't think he's active on this wiki much anymore (again, I could be wrong on both points). Those are the two names that spring to mind, but I want to be clear that I don't know how much (if any) help then can/will be. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:21, 1 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for trying to help. But the reason was actually to help me with my Pumped Up [[Pumped Up (4e Sourcebook)|sourcebook]]. But I'm deleting it now. Sorry for bothering you. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:30, 16 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::No problem, I'm here to help. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:54, 30 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Help (Sandboxes)==<br />
<br />
Hey badger it is Dj00345. I wanted to ask you if there is a way to create ur own sandbox? I wanted to create one myself and don't know how to?... Can u help me out and explain how to make one??<br />
[[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]].<br />
<br />
:It's really easy, just add a /sandbox after your username, for example [[User:Dj00345/sandbox]]. You can put anything on the page, so sandbox, or sandbox1, or ninja_of_the_winterlands, or whatever you want. If you go to that page you'll be prompted to make a new page with that name. It's easy. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:31, 1 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Help (Pictures)==<br />
hey badger. it is me Dj00345. i just added a image to one of my pages. and the picture is too big. how do i make it small enough to fit on the page??? can you help me at all??? the page is called [[Zendra (3.5e Deity)|Zendra]]. please help me..... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 17:42, 3 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I went ahead and changed the size. Check out the code and you can learn for next time. You can change the text by editing the code. You can change the size of the picture by increasing or decreasing the pixels. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:53, 3 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thx. Got it now! ;) [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 10:14, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Help (Stubs)==<br />
<br />
Hey one more question.... If I want to help finish a STUB page, do I just go ahead and edit it, or do I have to wait for someone to give me an answer??? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 10:14, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I usually check to see when the stub template was added, how long the page has gone un-edited, and if the original author is still around. If it looks like no one else is going to do it, just jump right in. On pages that are a little more complete, and just missing little things here and there, it might be better to leave a message on the talk pages with your suggested changes, and give the community a week or so to talk about it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:10, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::And if I finish what the stub template says needs to be fixed,, do i remove the template??? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 17:53, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I assume you're asking about Dhampir, which just needs another adventurer? Yeah, that you can just add whenever you think of one, and remove the stub template when you do. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:05, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Alrighty then. Thx again. And yes I am asking about dhampir [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 18:33, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I ended up removing [[Template:Stub]] from the [[Dhampir (4e Race)|dampir]]. See the history for what the edit was. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:39, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question (User Creation Log) ==<br />
<br />
hey badger. i was just looking around on the Wiki and ended up in the User Creation log. where it shows every account that has been created. i went down to the date i helped my friend get an account on this wiki and saw it. then i went to December dates to see if my account was there. (i was bored and wanted to see). Apparently, my account i guess doesn't exist... i didnt see my account name anywhere in there... '''Is That A Good Thing or A Bad Thing.???????''' Please answer..... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 20:15, 11 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Huh, that's interesting. Well, do you recall creating an account? It does appear that you never made one, but you are certainly logged in and making edits. To make an account you need to log in. If you log in and make edits, you should have an account. I don't know what's going on, I'd ask Green Dragon if you're concerned. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:36, 11 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Well see. I made an account. I guess it didn't recognize it. I didn't get the message that green dragon sends to you saying that you are now a dnd wikian. I never got that message... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 09:54, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::That's not an automated message, GD goes through and does those manually, so it's possible he just missed you. If you have an options menu at the top right corner of the screen that says "Dj00345, my talk, my preferences, my watchlist, my contributions, logout" you're probably a member and the site is just a little hinky. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:40, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Yeah I have all those. So it must be some sort of glitch maybe...? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 12:43, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Yeah, as far as I can tell you're a full-blooded wikian, and the wiki is just screwing up. If you're concerned you can leave a message on Green Dragon's talk page, either asking him there, or directing him to this conversation. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:46, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not really concerned. i was just making sure that the wiki wasn't screwed up or anything. i was just keeping an eye out. thx for the help badger! [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 14:57, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Oh, the wiki screws up all the time. This isn't anything major, so I wouldn't worry about it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:46, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question (Multi-classing) ==<br />
Alright, so I think I'm doing this right. And I suppose this will be the first question I will ask, is it possible to go back to a class that specifically says you can't after multiclassing? Even if the class you multiclass with says you can? (Sorry if you don't understand or if this seems stupid.)--[[User:Raem|Raem]] 17:35, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:First, yeah, you did everything correctly. Now, let me try to understand your question. I think if the 2nd class explicitly says "you can multi-class, even if your first class says you cannot" then you ''can''. However, if the 2nd class ''doesn't'' say that, you're out of luck. That said, it's really up to your DM. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:42, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (Campaign Creation) ==<br />
<br />
Hey badger! Dj00345. I have a question. I'm thinking of making my own campaign setting and was just wondering where to go in order to create the "Supplement" pages for it??? I took a look at the "Valgora" campaign setting and it's edit stuff. And noticed that the links said '''Valgora supplement'''. Where do I go to make one of those pages except under a different campaign setting of course... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 13:57, 5 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Oh, well, as far as I know there is no official formatting for creating campaign settings. This little box might make it easier to add to a campaign setting, just replace "MyPage" with the name of your page, and "MySetting" with the name of your setting:<br />
<br />
<!-----Campaign Setting-----><br />
<div style="text-align: left; width: 23.5em; margin: 2em;"><br />
<inputbox><br />
type=create<br />
break=no<br />
buttonlabel=Create New Page for Campaign Setting<br />
default=MyPage (MySetting Supplement)<br />
preload=<br />
</inputbox><br />
</div><br />
<br />
:If you'd like, I'm sure someone can help you making a footer/header for your campaign setting and using it as a preload. My guess is Hooper would be the guy to ask about that, as I think Valgora is his setting, and you seem to like that one. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:30, 5 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Help (Class Creation)==<br />
<br />
Hello it was recomended to me that you might be able to help me with a concept. You see me and my friends are planning to start a DnD 3.5 OP campaign (so crazy templates etc...) But im new to dnd so I have no idea how to make the class/template/race I wanted. the concept I came up with was a ''Prototype'' character based off of the game prototype for the xbox 360. Im not quite sure weither it would be a class a template or a race. So I was wondering if you could help me make it? (or make it for me)? -- [[User:Grunt|Grunt]] 17:03, 25 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, let me begin by saying I've never played Prototype, so I probably can't help you with much. However, here's how I'd recommend you try it. <br />
<br />
:If you want to use existing classes, here's what I'd suggest: I don't know if you're familiar with [[UA:Gestalt_Characters|gestalt characters]], but that's what I'd recommend. Basically, you combine the best parts of two classes into one super-class. I'd recommend something like a [[Psion]] with an emphasis in psychometabolism, or maybe psychokinesis. From there, I'd make your other class something that would work well with the abilities of your psion, so maybe rogue. I like rogues a lot, so maybe I'm just biased. It sounds like a barbarian might also work well. Since you're going for overpowered, I think a gestalt [[Psion]]/[[Barbarian,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome Barbarian]] would best approximate what you're looking for.<br />
<br />
:However, if you're looking to create your own homemade material, here's what I'd suggest: Start with a beefy Hit Die, like a d10, give yourself medium or good Base attack bonus(like the rogue or fighter), good fortitude and reflex saves (+12 at 20) and bad will saves (+6 at 20). After that, I'd give yourself a limited spell list, pulling your favorite spells from psionics, and use Constitution instead of Intelligence for the key ability. After that, add on a bunch of heavy hitting power class skills, using classes like [[Threat_(3.5e_Class)|Threat]], [[Barbarian,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome Barbarian]], and maybe even [[Death_Knight_(DnD_Prestige_Class)|Death Knight]] for ideas.<br />
<br />
:I hope this helps. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:03, 25 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hey Badger ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Badger.<br />
<br />
:Hi. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:42, 15 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
yo what up badger think i could get u to take a look at the mage of earthsea class again?? give me a few more pointers?<br />
<br />
==ty [[User:La Mortis|La Mortis]]==<br />
<br />
== Help (Campaign Settings) ==<br />
<br />
You asked if I wanted help, I do.<br />
I go straigh to the point.<br />
<br />
I would want to make an own:<br />
#make a page with the info about classes "and the world" and "how to make a class character".<br />
#Then put a link to it in the Classes.<br />
#make links that change pages adn scrolls down to an article. <br />
#learn to make footers<br />
#page for my classes that are adapted for my campaign setting.<br />
<br />
::I've numbered each of the questions you have, and I'll answer them in order. Let me know if you need more detail on any of them<br />
::1. If you want to make a page about classes for your Campaign Setting, just make a standard page for your Campaign setting. If you want, you can use the "Add New Campaign Setting Info" thing that I made [[User_talk:Badger#Help_.28Campaign_Creation.29|here]]. As far as I know there is no codified pre-load for this, so you can just model it off a page that you like, or do it on your own. <br />
::2. Putting a link to it is just like adding any other link. You simply type this code: <nowiki> [[Name_Of_Page | Display Text]]</nowiki>.<br />
::For example, you would probably make the pages named "Classes_(MyCampaign_Supplement)", so your code would say: <nowiki>[[Classes_(MyCampaign_Supplement) | Classes in MyCampaign]]</nowiki>. Naturally, you'll want to replace "MyCampaign" with whatever the name of your campaign is. <br />
::3. Making links that link to a specific section is also pretty easy. You use the same format that you used above for creating a link, and to link to a particular section, you put a #SectionName after the name of the page. For example, if you wanted to make a link to this section, you would write " <nowiki>[[User_Talk:Badger#Help_(Campaign Settings) | Display Text]]</nowiki>.<br />
::4. Making footers is as easy as making a page. First you make a page and put on it whatever you want the footer to say. Name the page something like "Navigation Footer (MyCampaign Supplement)". After that, you just have to include that page at the bottom of every page you want a footer. Only, this time, instead of using brackets like you normally use for a link (These: "[[]]"), use braces (These: "{{}}")<br />
::5. Again, just make a page that's name ends with (MyCampaign Supplement), and put a list of classes and changes. You may find it is easier to make full on tables to show changes, or just text lists of changes. It's up to you.<br />
::One last note, as helpful as I may be with this, [[User:Hooper]] is probably better. He is the one who rates most of the campaign settings, and he is the one who has one of the most complete campaign settings on this wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:47, 30 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== For Identification Purposes? ==<br />
<br />
Ok now i'm curious why you moved my page... made it loads of fun to try and find it through my simple input of the address it was sitting at without the variant 3.5 mumbo jumbo.<br />
<br />
I'm just curious why you did it, I understand that there WAS a Dragoon class that was made and deleted for whatever reason... That's why i made it a Dragoon Lancer, there was someone who made a Dragoon that i thought was totally whacked out on ADnD and well I felt it needed a do-over, pouring through the books i found a nice combination that is actually based on pre-existing 3.0 and 3.5 edition material, short of some attack/ Wings purposes it is all based on the rules. I think it works marvelously and when i find the actual balance i would really hope people start picking it up. It was one of my favorite classes in FF Tactics, short of the huge error in missing people because they moved while you were in the air (Huge disappointment there) but getting back on track. I would appreciate a simple explanation, and well some feedback would be nice since you seem to have been the ONLY person on here who has done anything of note to my Dragoon Lancer.<br />
<br />
James<br />
<br />
:Badger didn't mean any offense. All homebrew pages are (supposed to be) appended with an identifying tag such as (3.5e Creature) or (d20M Advanced Class). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:14, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yep, Jazzman summed it up. Sorry for any confusion it may have caused. There should have been a redirect from the old URL to the updated one, I don't know why that wasn't working (but it appears to be working now). I've not actually read the page, but since my vacation has just begun I'll get around to it (sooner or later) and leave some thoughts on the talk page. Once again, sorry for any confusion or trouble this may have caused; I was just following policy.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:24, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well i was really just curious as to the why... since it really didn't seem to have been a part of any of the other classes that i looked at. I have been going through and trying to reflect any changes i've come across and would really like some insight anyone has. [[User:Gainesja|Gainesja]] 04:34, 12 June 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::People are really, really, really, bad about adding those tags, so I'm sure there are many pages floating around that don't have them yet. Though more pages have them than not, so if you haven't seen any yet you must just be really lucky. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 07:40, 12 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I think on that day alone I moved like 3 or 4 other classes and deities. It's just something I do every so often, when I notice a few pages in the recent changes need it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:27, 12 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Admin Nomination==<br />
I hope that you accept the recent nomination for adminship that has been activated for you. Please go to [[Requests for Adminship/Badger]] to reply to the nominee questions. I look forward to seeing the community's thoughts! &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 06:10, 19 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Thank you for your nomination, as well as your support. I accept the nomination, and I look forward to continuing to contribute to the community, either as a administrator, or as a user. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:09, 19 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Welcome to Adminship. You are now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. Honestly, as you will notice, not much has been changed now that you are an admin. If anything, I would say more burden is placed on you. I recommend you take a look at [[Special:ListGroupRights]] if you have not already. Some of the the new features' uses pertaining to D&D Wiki follow. You can now delete pages, protect pages, rollback edits, block users and IP's, edit every page, patrol edits, and do a couple more minor things.<br />
::*Deleting pages is normally done through [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. Anything with a good reason to be deleted on that page should be deleted. The other time pages should be deleted is when someone makes a certain page and after a few edits they either blank the page or replace it with something like "Please delete this". If this page consisted of close to just the preload, just delete it.<br />
::*Protecting pages has quite a few different times when it should be used. Pages should be protected according to the author's wishes (with [[Template:Locked Page]] added to the top of the page in question), in case of conflict (with [[Template:Temp Locked Page]] added to the top of the page in question), in case of [[Help:FAQ#What are OGL, OGC, SRD, and GNU FPL?|OGC]] published materials (with [[Template:OGL Top]] added to the top of the page in question and [[Template:OGL Bottom]] added to the bottom), or finally if the page is a vital part of D&D Wiki's organization. If it deals with D&D Wiki's organization it either needs to be be protected from IP edits or all non-sysop edits. As a rule of thumb pages up to two tiers deep (up for discussion/rethinking) from the [[Main Page]] are normally locked to anyone but sysops and all the others are just protected from IP edits. For Example [[3.5e Homebrew]] is protected from all non-sysop edits whereas a deeper in page like [[LA 0 Races]] is only protected from IP edits. No template needs to be added to pages if they are part of D&D Wiki's organization (even though some do exist like [[Template:Admin Locked Page]])<br />
::*Blocking a user or IP should only be used after an IP or user vandalizes a certain page. To block someone just click "block" (found on [[Special:Recentchanges|RC]], the diff in question, the userpage, etc) and fill out the corresponding form. For a typical vandalism attack I normally block the user for two weeks. Certain things demand a longer block and others a shorter. No standards have been set for block lengths, use your best judgment.<br />
::*Editing every page on D&D Wiki mostly means you can now edit the [[SRD:System Reference Document|SRD]] and the [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|MSRD]]. Feel free to edit them if inaccuracies are found. If interested further please look at the [[SRD Talk:System Reference Document#SRD ToDo List|SRD ToDO List]] or the [[MSRD Talk:Modern System Reference Document#Tasks|MSRD tasks]]. Of course that is only the base. There is never enough help to get everything done, so I am sure your help would be appreciated.<br />
::*Patrolling edits should, in a nutshell, be used when you have looked over an edit and fixed everything that needs to be fixed (this includes reviewing the content with templates, answering questions, etc).<br />
::I know this is really long-winded, so I'll keep the rest short. You have more burden on yourself now that you are an admin because users will be looking at you for editing help, knowledge of the standards, etc. It's a bit more work, but I really hope you enjoy being an admin and I hope you decide to stay around on D&D Wiki for a while more to come. Welcome to Adminship, again you're now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:58, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Modifiers Added, But for future refrence, ==<br />
<br />
what are the modifiers to use? Class, Prestige Class, NPC, Monster, Equipment, Campaign, Quest, Deity, Trait, Flaw, Feat, Spell, Race are the ones i can think of, am i missing any? Also, Is there a way i can set a page to only accept changes that I approve?<br />
<br />
:I've corrected the spelling of the modifiers above (and added a few more). Those are all the ones I can think of off the top of my head (and all the major ones), but I am sure there are more obscure ones. As for your second question, no there is not. However, you can use the "watch" tab, at the top of each page, and any changes that are made to that page will show up in the "my watchlist" page linked in the top right corner of the page (when you're logged in). You can click on "diff" to see the changes made in each edit. This is about as close as you can get to what you want. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:26, 14 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hi I was interested in joining the D&D WIKI but it seams your create account is broken ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was trying to find the webmaster but didn't see a link to leave a message for one. Maybe you can forward this on to her/him/them.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I went to create an account and tried to make an account but it seams to be broken. A box keeps popping up saying type two words to in to prevent span but the silly thing just keeps cycling and won't go away to let you create the account. I tried at least a dozen times to get past it but always comes back. Very frustrating!<br />
<br />
And now the fool thing shows up trying to post this message.<br />
<br />
:Does it mention it is related to CloudFlare ([[D&D Wiki:General disclaimer]])? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:05, 30 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you can give me the exact error message you're getting, that would help immensely. What name are you trying to register? Is it possible that someone has already registered that name? Green Dragon, who responded above me, is the owner/operator of the website, so he's probably your best bet for a fix. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:37, 31 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank You ==<br />
<br />
I wished to thank you for your recent remarks on my page. And to acknowledge your intrinsic and direct approach.<br />
<br />
:Any time? But seriously, I have no idea who you are or what page you're talking about (I've been a whirlwind of edits these past few days), but you're welcome. Let me know if there's anything else you need. In the future, don't forget to sign your posts with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or by pressing the signature button. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:51, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Your deletion of a page was most appreciated.<br />
<br />
:::Oh, well, glad I could help. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:19, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Could you extend your gracious policy upon a few of my other incomplete works?<br />
<br />
:::::Policy says that we're supposed to wait at least 2 weeks before deleting anything. If I've deleted anything sooner than that, I apologize. Most of our to-be-deleted content is months, if not years old, though (so you should have plenty of time). If your content has a delete template, I'll check on the history, and if it looks like you're making progress on it, I'll give it time. If you give me the links you want me to keep an eye out for, I'll get around to checking on them later. Also, if I delete anything that you'd like back, I think can restore it easily (I've never tried, but I know I should be able to). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:29, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I understand. I would like 75% of all my work deleted (noting most is incomplete, and I have no wish to complete 75%). I have only a few articles here; and have a desire to complete the 25%. The other work only hurts my prestige.<br />
<br />
:::::::Right, well, place the code <nowiki>{{delete|~~~~~|Author has abandoned.}}</nowiki> to the top of every incomplete page you don't want to keep, and I'll delete them as I get around to them. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:45, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::It is finished.<br />
<br />
:::::::::Is there a reason that you're signing out and not signing your comments when leaving a message to me, but logging in to edit your pages? You're not trying to hide your identity, are you? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:00, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::No. I simply wanted to make sure you were interested before damming the pages. --[[User:Frankenkesey|Frankenkesey]] 20:12, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Well, it's not policy to delete pages just because the author doesn't want them anymore. Arguably you should be using the "abandoned" template instead, but I've never seen anyone adopt one of those pages and fix it up, so I don't know that it's a very useful template (although it's a good idea). It's my personal belief that we should just delete unfinished and unusable material, rather than letting it stick around as abandoned for years. If your pages don't have enough content for someone else to take and finish up, I'll delete them. However, if they have enough already, I'll swap out delete with abandoned. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:12, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::This maxim sounds fair. --[[User:Frankenkesey|Frankenkesey]] 20:15, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths ==<br />
<br />
Just created the "Master of the twin paths" for 3.5e custom prestige classes. It was moved to "formatting issues" soon after.<br />
<br />
My question is simple, is now officially removed or is it waiting to be checked? If it is removed, how may I improve it to have it added to the homebrew category it fits.<br />
<br />
Also how do I format it correctly?<br />
<br />
with many thanks,<br />
Ryulin18<br />
<br />
You're doing a great job<br />
<br />
:Right, well, good news! Master of the twin paths hasn't been removed, it was just moved (for a totally unrelated reason). You can find you creation [[Master_of_the_Twin_Paths_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|here]]. <br />
<br />
:First off, your page was moved to include an "identifer", which means I added "_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)" to the end of your class name. We use these to keep all our content straight, and every page is supposed to have one.<br />
<br />
:If you check out other Prestige classes, like [[Animal_Lord_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|this one]], you'll notice the bottom has a sort of footer that works as navigation, as well as some categories. You'll want to add those to your page (not those exact ones, but the ones that apply to your class). I'd search through other [[3.5e_Prestige_Classes|prestige classes]] until you find one that seems like yours, and check out what categories you'll want to include. Let me know if you need anything else. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:18, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Tavern ==<br />
<br />
If it existed, you should get on it right now. But it doesn't so... [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:37, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths - Part 2 ==<br />
<br />
Okay. I have added breadcrumbs and the categories! Is it okay now?<br />
<br />
Any advice to get it finished?<br />
<br />
much thanks, Ryulin<br />
<br />
:Alright, well, the cats and breadcrumbs look a lot better now. The next thing I'd say is fluff. Everything always needs more fluff. Well, almost everything. Check out a featured article like [[Deviant_(3.5e_Class)|this one]] for notes on making your page better. If you're committed enough, you can turn your page into a featured article. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:53, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Apologies ==<br />
<br />
Hi Badger,<br />
<br />
I realized that I took my trolling too far yesterday. Seriously, I'm not a jerk like that usually. I have just been using this website as out outlet, so to speak, which is pretty immature. Anyways, I've decided to quit my trolling here altogether and also to stop harboring resentment for Green Dragon and Hooper.<br />
<br />
In the case of Green Dragon, I realized that teasing him may have been fun, it really was a childish way to burn off steam over real life issues.<br />
<br />
In the case of Hooper, I realized that he's just like a lot of other D&D players I've met and gotten along with: he's got a strong personality and reflects that with strong opinions. And really, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Unfortunately, I let situations where I saw him butt horns with other users sway me to dislike him.<br />
<br />
I was logged into a chatroom that both of you were in last night (although I was afk), and although most of your conversation was cut off, I realized that I was being pretty stupid and you are decent guys.<br />
<br />
So, my apologies to you (and Hooper), for the nonsense I stirred up. Cheers. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:15, 31 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:From my administrator standpoint: That was mean, you shouldn't do that. I have half a mind to ban you here and now, regardless of policy.<br />
:From my human being standpoint: Ehh, just don't do it again. <s>At least, not on important pages.</s> I probably over-reacted in my message asking you to cut it out. It wasn't really that big of a deal. No hard feelings, at least on my end. It is my suspicion, though I can't speak for him, that Hooper also thought it was no big thing. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:02, 31 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths - Part 3 ==<br />
<br />
Added all the fluff I dare to. Can you give me an idea of what to do next before I can have this page legitimized (I'm an English teacher, so using a z there hurt) and sent to my DM?<br />
<br />
I really want this rated...Anyone want to do it?<br />
<br />
== Hey Badger ==<br />
<br />
I saw that you Changed the name of my raze Urgalz to Urgalz (3.5e Race) I forgot to do that and I just wanted to thank you for that. I looked at your the classes that you created and I do sai that the Hooker (3.5e class) is kinda funny at least i haven't lauged so much when I looked at some class. --Baharas 05:54, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, thank you; I'm pretty proud of that Hooker class, even though it's a April Fools class. Don't worry about missing that identifier, lot's people get it wrong the first few times, just try to include it for all the future pages you make. If you've already made pages without identifiers, you can use the "move" tab at the top of that page to move it to a page with the correct identifier. Welcome to the wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:09, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::yeah I noticed when you moved it how to change it and I just noticed that you were a admin so congratulation for that :P <br />
::and I want to ask you: I am creating a class named [[Guardian, Variant2 (3.5e Class)]] why does this look like this?<br />
<br />
:::When the page says "remove this entire line" it means that entire line of text from the edit window, not just everything after it says "remove this line" (so also delete the bit that says <nowiki><nowiki><!- REMOVE THIS ENTIRE LINE</nowiki>). I've fixed it for you, but you can see what I did by checking out [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Guardian,_Variant2_(3.5e_Class)&diff=next&oldid=535771 this diff]. Also, don't forget to sign your posts by typing <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> at the end of your message, or by hitting the signature button in the toolbar (the one that looks like a bunch of loops, second from the end).--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:59, 19 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::yeah sorry about that forgot and thanks for helping me :P --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 02:26, 20 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::No worries, that's why I'm here. Kinda. Mostly. It's why I enjoy being here at least. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 02:34, 20 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Patronage Featured Article? ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Badger. I've put in images on most of my pages for my [[Patronage (4e Campaign Setting)]]. Could you take a look and decide if more is needed to get your vote for Featured Article status?--[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 16:42, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Wow. Those pages look so much better now with pictures, in my opinion. I've changed my vote on the FA nomination accordingly. Good work. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:09, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Image ==<br />
<br />
I just wanted to ask you how can I put Image on my races pages I tryed but it doesent work? --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 05:05, 29 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Uh, well, let me first start by making sure the image you want to upload is legal. Assuming it is, what you have to do is type out <nowiki>[[File:Image_Name.jpg]]</nowiki> and save the changes. Once you've done that, your "image" will show up as a red link. Click on that link. It should take you to a page that will allow you to upload your chosen image. If you've already uploaded the image to our image server, it appear right away, rather than as a red link. If you can show me what image you want to upload, and where it needs to go, I can show you in more detail. As far as I know, that should work. Images tend to go a little wonky every so often, but they seem to be working just fine right now. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:40, 29 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::well I tryed that but it didn't work and here is a link to the pic [http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&q=barbarian#/d1k47mn] and I am trying to put it on [[Urgalz (3.5e Race)]] --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 03:53, 3 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::you don't have to do anything I found out what i was doing wrong and I finally uploaded pic on [[Urgalz (3.5e Race)]] and [[Knasari (3.5e Race)]] --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 05:51, 7 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copperwood permission ==<br />
<br />
Hi from new account.<br />
I came across this wiki by accident and just happened to notice a message saying "awaiting permission from copperwood" for a couple of articles.<br />
<br />
Well, I am the one and only copperwood. Those permissions have been waiting for about, ooh, 5 years ago! Bit of a long time, but I created the account on Wizards ages ago to submit those articles and haven't logged back in since they changed to 'D&D Insider'<br />
<br />
If it matters, and the articles are still available, then you have my permission!<br />
<br />
== Greetings Badger ==<br />
<br />
Greeting Badger, this is Lyrad8791. We have talked a bit before on some of my stuff that I have submitted a while back. I was wondering if you had the time to take a look at my sandbox and tell me what you think about my charts there. I also have a second sandbox, which I have dedicated to my world that I am creating. Since the charts didn't fit in with the world itself, I left them in their current location. Anyway, I was hoping I might get some opinions on them, as well as some ideas on how to progress from where I am currently at in my project. If you can think of anyone else who might like to help or would be interested to see what I have thus far, send them over and have them leave a message in the discussion area of either page. The link to the charts is [[User:Lyrad8791/sandbox1#Town_Placement_Charts|here]] and the page for what I currently have on my world is [[User:Lyrad8791/sandbox2|here]]. Thanks for the time you took in reading this, and I hope to hear from you again. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 02:22, 21 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Suggestions and rating help ==<br />
<br />
Ello Badger!<br />
<br />
(insert the badger song -> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI])<br />
<br />
Okay seriously, I need help with getting my custom prestige class rated and commented.<br />
I am a bit of an addict when it comes to feedback and I am having trouble finding the right places to create attention to my works.<br />
Also I have read the forms and guides to a good page but I am not sure I have every thing cowered.<br />
<br />
Could you go my work over? Especially the warhammer 40K boltgun. Cant figure out a nice and fitting way of presenting all the upgrades and ammunition options available.<br />
<br />
Thanks before hand from --<span style="font-family:albertus mt; font-variant:small-caps; margin-left:4px; border:2px solid #501010;"><span style="background:#CA2020; border:3px solid #7B0E0E; padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;">'''[[User:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;">ElvenKingSlave</span>]]'''&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[Exalted Wiki:Human|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="I will drown you in daggers!">Weapons Summoner</span>]]&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[User talk:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="Contact me">Talk</span></span>]]</span> 03:01, 28 November 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Weapon_Summoner_(3.5e_Class)#Class_Features Weapon Summoner(3.5 class)]]<br><br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Boltgun_(3.5e_Equipment) Boltgun(3.5 Equipment)]]<br><br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lasgun_(3.5e_Equipment) Lasgun(3.5 Equipment)]]<br><br />
<br />
:Right, well, where to begin... <br />
:I'm gonna let you know right now, there are a lot of people on this wiki making content, and virtually no one reviewing it. I'd recommend trying to make connections with other users who seem to be pretty active, and set up a sort of co-op where you keep each other in the loop with your stuff, and constantly rate one another's stuff. I'd give your class a once over, but I'm more than swamped at the moment with real world things. I'll be honest, I've been away for so long now that I'm not even sure who is still very active on the wiki.<br />
:A quick once over says to me that you've done pretty well at formatting most of your stuff. There are a few things, like the NPC on your [[Weapon_Summoner_(3.5e_Class)|Weapon Summoner]] is wonky. My first edit, however, will have to be striking out your rating because you aren't allowed to rate your own stuff. Sorry, it's the rules.<br />
:Other than that, I don't know what to tell you. I'll be free in about two weeks. Send me another message then and I'll see what I can do for you. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:44, 28 November 2011 (MST)<br />
::Thanks :D Thats all I am asking. --<span style="font-family:albertus mt; font-variant:small-caps; margin-left:4px; border:2px solid #501010;"><span style="background:#CA2020; border:3px solid #7B0E0E; padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;">'''[[User:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;">ElvenKingSlave</span>]]'''&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[Exalted Wiki:Human|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="I will drown you in daggers!">Weapons Summoner</span>]]&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[User talk:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="Contact me">Talk</span></span>]]</span> 07:15, 30 November 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== My created items ==<br />
<br />
Badger, could I get you to take a look at the Magic items I created and give me an opinion on them? My friends like them, but I think they are a bit biased. Any critiques would be welcome. They are all listed on my user page. Thanks again. --[[User:Irykyl| Irykyl]] 11:24, 6 March 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
== 2 things ==<br />
<br />
First i would like you to know that i've have added 2 feats under the 3e Feats section (Ambidexterity and Armor Proficiency (Heavy))<br />
<br />
also something seems to be wrong with sending a confirmation email to allow me to send messages to people.<br />
<br />
== Please remove all my material from this wiki ==<br />
<br />
I asked Green Dragon but he refuses. I would like all pages created by me to be deleted from this wiki. The reasons are personal and nobody's business but my own. Thank you for your cooperation. --<span style="font-size:90%;">[[User:ScryersEve|<span title="User page of Scryer's Eve"><span style="color:#006565;">Scryer's</span> <span style="color:#db6700;">Eve</span></span>]] <sup>([[User_talk:ScryersEve|<span style="color:#0053BF!important;" title="Talk page of Scryer's Eve">talk</span>]] | <span title="Contributions of Scryer's Eve">[[Special:Contributions/ScryersEve|<span style="small-caps;color:#0053BF!important;" title="Contributions of Scryer's Eve">contribs</span>]])</span></sup> 15:56, 26 March 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Sorry, but according to policy I'm not allowed to do that. Is it a silly policy? Probably. Do I like that policy? I can't think of a time I have. Do I have to follow it? Tragically. I'm not going to bother asking why you don't want your stuff on the wiki anymore, as it doesn't really matter, but there's nothing I can do. The way I see it, you have two options: First, you can stick around and try and petition the rule change so that your content can be removed. If you can show (through history) that no one else has modified the content you uploaded, that would go a long way to showing that you'd not be removing anyone else's contributions (in my mind at least). Option two is to just walk away angry. It's a pretty lame option, but it's what might happen anyway. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:47, 26 March 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Homebrew Race Formatting ==<br />
<br />
When submitting a homebrew race, may I format the top section (Race's name in plural) like a creature page and/or a SRD, or is the markup, or some version thereof, supplied at the edit/create page all that's accepted?[[User:Omegatiger121|Omegatiger121]] ([[User talk:Omegatiger121|talk]]) 13:34, 16 June 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Real-time human-moderated games ==<br />
<br />
hello. i was looking for a site that offers real-time human-moderated games. do you know of any?<br />
<br />
thank you.<br />
<br />
== Am I allowed to proceed? ==<br />
<br />
Hi badger, I'm sure this happens a lot but I just pulled your name first from the Admin list, hoping to get someone to talk to. Anyway, my question was aimed towards the lack of content that exists for 3.5 and has not been posted. While I understand that a lot of classes are not core, Psion as well as its including features are listed, and so I thought I might request to put up more classes, such as from the Magic of Incarnum book, or the Complete Warrior, Divine, Ect. I would love to punch in as much time as needed to get this done. My players love this wiki and I have no time to go fishing for spells in countless books. Please let me know. Thanks :)<br />
<br />
:Hi there. Welcome, and we're glad to see that you like the wiki, and want to contribute. Unfortunately, you aren't allowed to add just any content you want. Any content we have has to be licensed in a way that allows for free distribution. The complete warrior/divine, and many other books have not been licensed under the OGL (open gaming license). If you know of content that is licensed under the OGL (or a similar license), contact an admin, and we'll double check and then give you the go ahead to transcribe it.<br />
<br />
:There are plenty of other ways you can contribute, though! Here you can find a list of [[abandoned]], each of which could use some work. An editorial eye could be used on just about any page here on the wiki, and there are tons of people who would love for you to read (and rate) their creations. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask me, or any other admin. Cheers. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] ([[User talk:Badger|talk]]) 20:12, 3 October 2012 (MDT)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Badger&diff=591331User talk:Badger2012-10-04T02:12:04Z<p>Badger: /* Am I allowed to proceed? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For your help with finding vandal's edits, removing vandal's work, and helping keep D&D Wiki clean, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:06, 4 November 2010 (MDT)}}<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archived messages 1-20<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Help (Creature Creation)==<br />
<br />
Hey, I made my creature as best as I can using the template you showed me. For some reason it was not giving me the code usage for the special qualities and such on the basic page so I went and found a page that was using it. From there things seemed to work out. It now has its own page in the Creatures section... not completely sure as to which section since I just pressed add new creature. Anyway, I figured you would like to know how far I have made it, and that if nothing else you will know where to find it. Also, since you mentioned you might chime in and give suggestions and such when you get to look at it. [[Dimidium_Troll_(3.5e_Creature)|Dimidium Troll]] Also, it seems that I have figured out how to link into pages as well. You are a good teacher, thanks for the instruction! --[[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 22:56, 4 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Question (Dealing with Spam)==<br />
<br />
I have left a similar message on Green Dragons Talk page but I figure I should be thorough with this. It seems there are a few Users that are posting spam and doing a redirect for their User page to the mentioned Spam. One instance is this link [[Best_Electronic_Cigarette_Review |here]]. I don't know the procedure for deleting spam so I am asking you and the owner. I was just wondering if I should just mention it and leave be or if I should delete the contents of the page since I don't know how I would delete the page itself. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 23:57, 8 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, the long and the short of it is you shouldn't probably bother to do anything. Only Admins can totally delete a page. Likewise, only admins can ban a user. Whenever I come across spam, I blank the page, and then add a delete template. After that, I save changes with something like "Delete this spam" in the edit summary. Usually Jazzman is pretty good about catching these and deleting them for real. I don't know the official site policy on users handling spam, but no one has asked me to stop, so I still do it. One thing, however, is to make sure that the page never had any content on it. We don't want to delete a page that once had content, just because it now has spam. Like I said, us users can't do much in the way of permanent change (that's the admin's job), so if you want to turn a blind eye, no one will blame you. However, if you delete a bunch, someone might give you a nifty little barnstar like I have at the top of this page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:02, 9 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (Creating an Animal) ==<br />
<br />
So... you mentioned something about tables and things like that? i did find what each thing means ( [[Template:d20M_Creature|d20M Creature]] ) but what i need is the stuff it lists in the examples please. -[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 11:06, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, [[d20_Modern_Creatures|here]] is a link to every homebrew d20M creature. One of them is bound to have examples of what you need. Jazzman left a comment on one of your messages with some suggestions of how he would do it. You might want to check that out. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:17, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Might [[Creature Types (MSRD)#Animal|this]] be what you are looking for? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:22, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It's exacly what I needed. Thanks for the help! --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 10:53, 25 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (4e Community) ==<br />
<br />
Hey Badger,<br />
Do you know anyone who's really good at making D&D 4e stuff, but is also good at changing 4e stuff (you know, like, changing monsters from the monster manual)? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:11, 1 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, I'll be honest, I don't know how active they are anymore, but [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] has done quite a bit of 4e work (and is an admin here, so he might still be active-ish). For some reason I want to say [[User:Sam_Kay|Sam Kay]] also knows 4e a bit, but I don't think he's active on this wiki much anymore (again, I could be wrong on both points). Those are the two names that spring to mind, but I want to be clear that I don't know how much (if any) help then can/will be. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:21, 1 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for trying to help. But the reason was actually to help me with my Pumped Up [[Pumped Up (4e Sourcebook)|sourcebook]]. But I'm deleting it now. Sorry for bothering you. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:30, 16 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::No problem, I'm here to help. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:54, 30 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Help (Sandboxes)==<br />
<br />
Hey badger it is Dj00345. I wanted to ask you if there is a way to create ur own sandbox? I wanted to create one myself and don't know how to?... Can u help me out and explain how to make one??<br />
[[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]].<br />
<br />
:It's really easy, just add a /sandbox after your username, for example [[User:Dj00345/sandbox]]. You can put anything on the page, so sandbox, or sandbox1, or ninja_of_the_winterlands, or whatever you want. If you go to that page you'll be prompted to make a new page with that name. It's easy. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:31, 1 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Help (Pictures)==<br />
hey badger. it is me Dj00345. i just added a image to one of my pages. and the picture is too big. how do i make it small enough to fit on the page??? can you help me at all??? the page is called [[Zendra (3.5e Deity)|Zendra]]. please help me..... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 17:42, 3 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I went ahead and changed the size. Check out the code and you can learn for next time. You can change the text by editing the code. You can change the size of the picture by increasing or decreasing the pixels. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:53, 3 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thx. Got it now! ;) [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 10:14, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Help (Stubs)==<br />
<br />
Hey one more question.... If I want to help finish a STUB page, do I just go ahead and edit it, or do I have to wait for someone to give me an answer??? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 10:14, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I usually check to see when the stub template was added, how long the page has gone un-edited, and if the original author is still around. If it looks like no one else is going to do it, just jump right in. On pages that are a little more complete, and just missing little things here and there, it might be better to leave a message on the talk pages with your suggested changes, and give the community a week or so to talk about it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:10, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::And if I finish what the stub template says needs to be fixed,, do i remove the template??? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 17:53, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I assume you're asking about Dhampir, which just needs another adventurer? Yeah, that you can just add whenever you think of one, and remove the stub template when you do. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:05, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Alrighty then. Thx again. And yes I am asking about dhampir [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 18:33, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I ended up removing [[Template:Stub]] from the [[Dhampir (4e Race)|dampir]]. See the history for what the edit was. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:39, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question (User Creation Log) ==<br />
<br />
hey badger. i was just looking around on the Wiki and ended up in the User Creation log. where it shows every account that has been created. i went down to the date i helped my friend get an account on this wiki and saw it. then i went to December dates to see if my account was there. (i was bored and wanted to see). Apparently, my account i guess doesn't exist... i didnt see my account name anywhere in there... '''Is That A Good Thing or A Bad Thing.???????''' Please answer..... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 20:15, 11 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Huh, that's interesting. Well, do you recall creating an account? It does appear that you never made one, but you are certainly logged in and making edits. To make an account you need to log in. If you log in and make edits, you should have an account. I don't know what's going on, I'd ask Green Dragon if you're concerned. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:36, 11 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Well see. I made an account. I guess it didn't recognize it. I didn't get the message that green dragon sends to you saying that you are now a dnd wikian. I never got that message... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 09:54, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::That's not an automated message, GD goes through and does those manually, so it's possible he just missed you. If you have an options menu at the top right corner of the screen that says "Dj00345, my talk, my preferences, my watchlist, my contributions, logout" you're probably a member and the site is just a little hinky. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:40, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Yeah I have all those. So it must be some sort of glitch maybe...? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 12:43, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Yeah, as far as I can tell you're a full-blooded wikian, and the wiki is just screwing up. If you're concerned you can leave a message on Green Dragon's talk page, either asking him there, or directing him to this conversation. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:46, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not really concerned. i was just making sure that the wiki wasn't screwed up or anything. i was just keeping an eye out. thx for the help badger! [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 14:57, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Oh, the wiki screws up all the time. This isn't anything major, so I wouldn't worry about it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:46, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question (Multi-classing) ==<br />
Alright, so I think I'm doing this right. And I suppose this will be the first question I will ask, is it possible to go back to a class that specifically says you can't after multiclassing? Even if the class you multiclass with says you can? (Sorry if you don't understand or if this seems stupid.)--[[User:Raem|Raem]] 17:35, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:First, yeah, you did everything correctly. Now, let me try to understand your question. I think if the 2nd class explicitly says "you can multi-class, even if your first class says you cannot" then you ''can''. However, if the 2nd class ''doesn't'' say that, you're out of luck. That said, it's really up to your DM. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:42, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (Campaign Creation) ==<br />
<br />
Hey badger! Dj00345. I have a question. I'm thinking of making my own campaign setting and was just wondering where to go in order to create the "Supplement" pages for it??? I took a look at the "Valgora" campaign setting and it's edit stuff. And noticed that the links said '''Valgora supplement'''. Where do I go to make one of those pages except under a different campaign setting of course... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 13:57, 5 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Oh, well, as far as I know there is no official formatting for creating campaign settings. This little box might make it easier to add to a campaign setting, just replace "MyPage" with the name of your page, and "MySetting" with the name of your setting:<br />
<br />
<!-----Campaign Setting-----><br />
<div style="text-align: left; width: 23.5em; margin: 2em;"><br />
<inputbox><br />
type=create<br />
break=no<br />
buttonlabel=Create New Page for Campaign Setting<br />
default=MyPage (MySetting Supplement)<br />
preload=<br />
</inputbox><br />
</div><br />
<br />
:If you'd like, I'm sure someone can help you making a footer/header for your campaign setting and using it as a preload. My guess is Hooper would be the guy to ask about that, as I think Valgora is his setting, and you seem to like that one. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:30, 5 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Help (Class Creation)==<br />
<br />
Hello it was recomended to me that you might be able to help me with a concept. You see me and my friends are planning to start a DnD 3.5 OP campaign (so crazy templates etc...) But im new to dnd so I have no idea how to make the class/template/race I wanted. the concept I came up with was a ''Prototype'' character based off of the game prototype for the xbox 360. Im not quite sure weither it would be a class a template or a race. So I was wondering if you could help me make it? (or make it for me)? -- [[User:Grunt|Grunt]] 17:03, 25 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, let me begin by saying I've never played Prototype, so I probably can't help you with much. However, here's how I'd recommend you try it. <br />
<br />
:If you want to use existing classes, here's what I'd suggest: I don't know if you're familiar with [[UA:Gestalt_Characters|gestalt characters]], but that's what I'd recommend. Basically, you combine the best parts of two classes into one super-class. I'd recommend something like a [[Psion]] with an emphasis in psychometabolism, or maybe psychokinesis. From there, I'd make your other class something that would work well with the abilities of your psion, so maybe rogue. I like rogues a lot, so maybe I'm just biased. It sounds like a barbarian might also work well. Since you're going for overpowered, I think a gestalt [[Psion]]/[[Barbarian,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome Barbarian]] would best approximate what you're looking for.<br />
<br />
:However, if you're looking to create your own homemade material, here's what I'd suggest: Start with a beefy Hit Die, like a d10, give yourself medium or good Base attack bonus(like the rogue or fighter), good fortitude and reflex saves (+12 at 20) and bad will saves (+6 at 20). After that, I'd give yourself a limited spell list, pulling your favorite spells from psionics, and use Constitution instead of Intelligence for the key ability. After that, add on a bunch of heavy hitting power class skills, using classes like [[Threat_(3.5e_Class)|Threat]], [[Barbarian,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome Barbarian]], and maybe even [[Death_Knight_(DnD_Prestige_Class)|Death Knight]] for ideas.<br />
<br />
:I hope this helps. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:03, 25 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hey Badger ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Badger.<br />
<br />
:Hi. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:42, 15 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
yo what up badger think i could get u to take a look at the mage of earthsea class again?? give me a few more pointers?<br />
<br />
==ty [[User:La Mortis|La Mortis]]==<br />
<br />
== Help (Campaign Settings) ==<br />
<br />
You asked if I wanted help, I do.<br />
I go straigh to the point.<br />
<br />
I would want to make an own:<br />
#make a page with the info about classes "and the world" and "how to make a class character".<br />
#Then put a link to it in the Classes.<br />
#make links that change pages adn scrolls down to an article. <br />
#learn to make footers<br />
#page for my classes that are adapted for my campaign setting.<br />
<br />
::I've numbered each of the questions you have, and I'll answer them in order. Let me know if you need more detail on any of them<br />
::1. If you want to make a page about classes for your Campaign Setting, just make a standard page for your Campaign setting. If you want, you can use the "Add New Campaign Setting Info" thing that I made [[User_talk:Badger#Help_.28Campaign_Creation.29|here]]. As far as I know there is no codified pre-load for this, so you can just model it off a page that you like, or do it on your own. <br />
::2. Putting a link to it is just like adding any other link. You simply type this code: <nowiki> [[Name_Of_Page | Display Text]]</nowiki>.<br />
::For example, you would probably make the pages named "Classes_(MyCampaign_Supplement)", so your code would say: <nowiki>[[Classes_(MyCampaign_Supplement) | Classes in MyCampaign]]</nowiki>. Naturally, you'll want to replace "MyCampaign" with whatever the name of your campaign is. <br />
::3. Making links that link to a specific section is also pretty easy. You use the same format that you used above for creating a link, and to link to a particular section, you put a #SectionName after the name of the page. For example, if you wanted to make a link to this section, you would write " <nowiki>[[User_Talk:Badger#Help_(Campaign Settings) | Display Text]]</nowiki>.<br />
::4. Making footers is as easy as making a page. First you make a page and put on it whatever you want the footer to say. Name the page something like "Navigation Footer (MyCampaign Supplement)". After that, you just have to include that page at the bottom of every page you want a footer. Only, this time, instead of using brackets like you normally use for a link (These: "[[]]"), use braces (These: "{{}}")<br />
::5. Again, just make a page that's name ends with (MyCampaign Supplement), and put a list of classes and changes. You may find it is easier to make full on tables to show changes, or just text lists of changes. It's up to you.<br />
::One last note, as helpful as I may be with this, [[User:Hooper]] is probably better. He is the one who rates most of the campaign settings, and he is the one who has one of the most complete campaign settings on this wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:47, 30 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== For Identification Purposes? ==<br />
<br />
Ok now i'm curious why you moved my page... made it loads of fun to try and find it through my simple input of the address it was sitting at without the variant 3.5 mumbo jumbo.<br />
<br />
I'm just curious why you did it, I understand that there WAS a Dragoon class that was made and deleted for whatever reason... That's why i made it a Dragoon Lancer, there was someone who made a Dragoon that i thought was totally whacked out on ADnD and well I felt it needed a do-over, pouring through the books i found a nice combination that is actually based on pre-existing 3.0 and 3.5 edition material, short of some attack/ Wings purposes it is all based on the rules. I think it works marvelously and when i find the actual balance i would really hope people start picking it up. It was one of my favorite classes in FF Tactics, short of the huge error in missing people because they moved while you were in the air (Huge disappointment there) but getting back on track. I would appreciate a simple explanation, and well some feedback would be nice since you seem to have been the ONLY person on here who has done anything of note to my Dragoon Lancer.<br />
<br />
James<br />
<br />
:Badger didn't mean any offense. All homebrew pages are (supposed to be) appended with an identifying tag such as (3.5e Creature) or (d20M Advanced Class). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:14, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yep, Jazzman summed it up. Sorry for any confusion it may have caused. There should have been a redirect from the old URL to the updated one, I don't know why that wasn't working (but it appears to be working now). I've not actually read the page, but since my vacation has just begun I'll get around to it (sooner or later) and leave some thoughts on the talk page. Once again, sorry for any confusion or trouble this may have caused; I was just following policy.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:24, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well i was really just curious as to the why... since it really didn't seem to have been a part of any of the other classes that i looked at. I have been going through and trying to reflect any changes i've come across and would really like some insight anyone has. [[User:Gainesja|Gainesja]] 04:34, 12 June 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::People are really, really, really, bad about adding those tags, so I'm sure there are many pages floating around that don't have them yet. Though more pages have them than not, so if you haven't seen any yet you must just be really lucky. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 07:40, 12 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I think on that day alone I moved like 3 or 4 other classes and deities. It's just something I do every so often, when I notice a few pages in the recent changes need it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:27, 12 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Admin Nomination==<br />
I hope that you accept the recent nomination for adminship that has been activated for you. Please go to [[Requests for Adminship/Badger]] to reply to the nominee questions. I look forward to seeing the community's thoughts! &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 06:10, 19 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Thank you for your nomination, as well as your support. I accept the nomination, and I look forward to continuing to contribute to the community, either as a administrator, or as a user. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:09, 19 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Welcome to Adminship. You are now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. Honestly, as you will notice, not much has been changed now that you are an admin. If anything, I would say more burden is placed on you. I recommend you take a look at [[Special:ListGroupRights]] if you have not already. Some of the the new features' uses pertaining to D&D Wiki follow. You can now delete pages, protect pages, rollback edits, block users and IP's, edit every page, patrol edits, and do a couple more minor things.<br />
::*Deleting pages is normally done through [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. Anything with a good reason to be deleted on that page should be deleted. The other time pages should be deleted is when someone makes a certain page and after a few edits they either blank the page or replace it with something like "Please delete this". If this page consisted of close to just the preload, just delete it.<br />
::*Protecting pages has quite a few different times when it should be used. Pages should be protected according to the author's wishes (with [[Template:Locked Page]] added to the top of the page in question), in case of conflict (with [[Template:Temp Locked Page]] added to the top of the page in question), in case of [[Help:FAQ#What are OGL, OGC, SRD, and GNU FPL?|OGC]] published materials (with [[Template:OGL Top]] added to the top of the page in question and [[Template:OGL Bottom]] added to the bottom), or finally if the page is a vital part of D&D Wiki's organization. If it deals with D&D Wiki's organization it either needs to be be protected from IP edits or all non-sysop edits. As a rule of thumb pages up to two tiers deep (up for discussion/rethinking) from the [[Main Page]] are normally locked to anyone but sysops and all the others are just protected from IP edits. For Example [[3.5e Homebrew]] is protected from all non-sysop edits whereas a deeper in page like [[LA 0 Races]] is only protected from IP edits. No template needs to be added to pages if they are part of D&D Wiki's organization (even though some do exist like [[Template:Admin Locked Page]])<br />
::*Blocking a user or IP should only be used after an IP or user vandalizes a certain page. To block someone just click "block" (found on [[Special:Recentchanges|RC]], the diff in question, the userpage, etc) and fill out the corresponding form. For a typical vandalism attack I normally block the user for two weeks. Certain things demand a longer block and others a shorter. No standards have been set for block lengths, use your best judgment.<br />
::*Editing every page on D&D Wiki mostly means you can now edit the [[SRD:System Reference Document|SRD]] and the [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|MSRD]]. Feel free to edit them if inaccuracies are found. If interested further please look at the [[SRD Talk:System Reference Document#SRD ToDo List|SRD ToDO List]] or the [[MSRD Talk:Modern System Reference Document#Tasks|MSRD tasks]]. Of course that is only the base. There is never enough help to get everything done, so I am sure your help would be appreciated.<br />
::*Patrolling edits should, in a nutshell, be used when you have looked over an edit and fixed everything that needs to be fixed (this includes reviewing the content with templates, answering questions, etc).<br />
::I know this is really long-winded, so I'll keep the rest short. You have more burden on yourself now that you are an admin because users will be looking at you for editing help, knowledge of the standards, etc. It's a bit more work, but I really hope you enjoy being an admin and I hope you decide to stay around on D&D Wiki for a while more to come. Welcome to Adminship, again you're now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:58, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Modifiers Added, But for future refrence, ==<br />
<br />
what are the modifiers to use? Class, Prestige Class, NPC, Monster, Equipment, Campaign, Quest, Deity, Trait, Flaw, Feat, Spell, Race are the ones i can think of, am i missing any? Also, Is there a way i can set a page to only accept changes that I approve?<br />
<br />
:I've corrected the spelling of the modifiers above (and added a few more). Those are all the ones I can think of off the top of my head (and all the major ones), but I am sure there are more obscure ones. As for your second question, no there is not. However, you can use the "watch" tab, at the top of each page, and any changes that are made to that page will show up in the "my watchlist" page linked in the top right corner of the page (when you're logged in). You can click on "diff" to see the changes made in each edit. This is about as close as you can get to what you want. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:26, 14 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hi I was interested in joining the D&D WIKI but it seams your create account is broken ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was trying to find the webmaster but didn't see a link to leave a message for one. Maybe you can forward this on to her/him/them.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I went to create an account and tried to make an account but it seams to be broken. A box keeps popping up saying type two words to in to prevent span but the silly thing just keeps cycling and won't go away to let you create the account. I tried at least a dozen times to get past it but always comes back. Very frustrating!<br />
<br />
And now the fool thing shows up trying to post this message.<br />
<br />
:Does it mention it is related to CloudFlare ([[D&D Wiki:General disclaimer]])? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:05, 30 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you can give me the exact error message you're getting, that would help immensely. What name are you trying to register? Is it possible that someone has already registered that name? Green Dragon, who responded above me, is the owner/operator of the website, so he's probably your best bet for a fix. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:37, 31 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank You ==<br />
<br />
I wished to thank you for your recent remarks on my page. And to acknowledge your intrinsic and direct approach.<br />
<br />
:Any time? But seriously, I have no idea who you are or what page you're talking about (I've been a whirlwind of edits these past few days), but you're welcome. Let me know if there's anything else you need. In the future, don't forget to sign your posts with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or by pressing the signature button. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:51, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Your deletion of a page was most appreciated.<br />
<br />
:::Oh, well, glad I could help. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:19, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Could you extend your gracious policy upon a few of my other incomplete works?<br />
<br />
:::::Policy says that we're supposed to wait at least 2 weeks before deleting anything. If I've deleted anything sooner than that, I apologize. Most of our to-be-deleted content is months, if not years old, though (so you should have plenty of time). If your content has a delete template, I'll check on the history, and if it looks like you're making progress on it, I'll give it time. If you give me the links you want me to keep an eye out for, I'll get around to checking on them later. Also, if I delete anything that you'd like back, I think can restore it easily (I've never tried, but I know I should be able to). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:29, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I understand. I would like 75% of all my work deleted (noting most is incomplete, and I have no wish to complete 75%). I have only a few articles here; and have a desire to complete the 25%. The other work only hurts my prestige.<br />
<br />
:::::::Right, well, place the code <nowiki>{{delete|~~~~~|Author has abandoned.}}</nowiki> to the top of every incomplete page you don't want to keep, and I'll delete them as I get around to them. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:45, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::It is finished.<br />
<br />
:::::::::Is there a reason that you're signing out and not signing your comments when leaving a message to me, but logging in to edit your pages? You're not trying to hide your identity, are you? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:00, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::No. I simply wanted to make sure you were interested before damming the pages. --[[User:Frankenkesey|Frankenkesey]] 20:12, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Well, it's not policy to delete pages just because the author doesn't want them anymore. Arguably you should be using the "abandoned" template instead, but I've never seen anyone adopt one of those pages and fix it up, so I don't know that it's a very useful template (although it's a good idea). It's my personal belief that we should just delete unfinished and unusable material, rather than letting it stick around as abandoned for years. If your pages don't have enough content for someone else to take and finish up, I'll delete them. However, if they have enough already, I'll swap out delete with abandoned. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:12, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::This maxim sounds fair. --[[User:Frankenkesey|Frankenkesey]] 20:15, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths ==<br />
<br />
Just created the "Master of the twin paths" for 3.5e custom prestige classes. It was moved to "formatting issues" soon after.<br />
<br />
My question is simple, is now officially removed or is it waiting to be checked? If it is removed, how may I improve it to have it added to the homebrew category it fits.<br />
<br />
Also how do I format it correctly?<br />
<br />
with many thanks,<br />
Ryulin18<br />
<br />
You're doing a great job<br />
<br />
:Right, well, good news! Master of the twin paths hasn't been removed, it was just moved (for a totally unrelated reason). You can find you creation [[Master_of_the_Twin_Paths_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|here]]. <br />
<br />
:First off, your page was moved to include an "identifer", which means I added "_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)" to the end of your class name. We use these to keep all our content straight, and every page is supposed to have one.<br />
<br />
:If you check out other Prestige classes, like [[Animal_Lord_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|this one]], you'll notice the bottom has a sort of footer that works as navigation, as well as some categories. You'll want to add those to your page (not those exact ones, but the ones that apply to your class). I'd search through other [[3.5e_Prestige_Classes|prestige classes]] until you find one that seems like yours, and check out what categories you'll want to include. Let me know if you need anything else. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:18, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Tavern ==<br />
<br />
If it existed, you should get on it right now. But it doesn't so... [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:37, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths - Part 2 ==<br />
<br />
Okay. I have added breadcrumbs and the categories! Is it okay now?<br />
<br />
Any advice to get it finished?<br />
<br />
much thanks, Ryulin<br />
<br />
:Alright, well, the cats and breadcrumbs look a lot better now. The next thing I'd say is fluff. Everything always needs more fluff. Well, almost everything. Check out a featured article like [[Deviant_(3.5e_Class)|this one]] for notes on making your page better. If you're committed enough, you can turn your page into a featured article. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:53, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Apologies ==<br />
<br />
Hi Badger,<br />
<br />
I realized that I took my trolling too far yesterday. Seriously, I'm not a jerk like that usually. I have just been using this website as out outlet, so to speak, which is pretty immature. Anyways, I've decided to quit my trolling here altogether and also to stop harboring resentment for Green Dragon and Hooper.<br />
<br />
In the case of Green Dragon, I realized that teasing him may have been fun, it really was a childish way to burn off steam over real life issues.<br />
<br />
In the case of Hooper, I realized that he's just like a lot of other D&D players I've met and gotten along with: he's got a strong personality and reflects that with strong opinions. And really, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Unfortunately, I let situations where I saw him butt horns with other users sway me to dislike him.<br />
<br />
I was logged into a chatroom that both of you were in last night (although I was afk), and although most of your conversation was cut off, I realized that I was being pretty stupid and you are decent guys.<br />
<br />
So, my apologies to you (and Hooper), for the nonsense I stirred up. Cheers. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:15, 31 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:From my administrator standpoint: That was mean, you shouldn't do that. I have half a mind to ban you here and now, regardless of policy.<br />
:From my human being standpoint: Ehh, just don't do it again. <s>At least, not on important pages.</s> I probably over-reacted in my message asking you to cut it out. It wasn't really that big of a deal. No hard feelings, at least on my end. It is my suspicion, though I can't speak for him, that Hooper also thought it was no big thing. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:02, 31 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths - Part 3 ==<br />
<br />
Added all the fluff I dare to. Can you give me an idea of what to do next before I can have this page legitimized (I'm an English teacher, so using a z there hurt) and sent to my DM?<br />
<br />
I really want this rated...Anyone want to do it?<br />
<br />
== Hey Badger ==<br />
<br />
I saw that you Changed the name of my raze Urgalz to Urgalz (3.5e Race) I forgot to do that and I just wanted to thank you for that. I looked at your the classes that you created and I do sai that the Hooker (3.5e class) is kinda funny at least i haven't lauged so much when I looked at some class. --Baharas 05:54, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, thank you; I'm pretty proud of that Hooker class, even though it's a April Fools class. Don't worry about missing that identifier, lot's people get it wrong the first few times, just try to include it for all the future pages you make. If you've already made pages without identifiers, you can use the "move" tab at the top of that page to move it to a page with the correct identifier. Welcome to the wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:09, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::yeah I noticed when you moved it how to change it and I just noticed that you were a admin so congratulation for that :P <br />
::and I want to ask you: I am creating a class named [[Guardian, Variant2 (3.5e Class)]] why does this look like this?<br />
<br />
:::When the page says "remove this entire line" it means that entire line of text from the edit window, not just everything after it says "remove this line" (so also delete the bit that says <nowiki><nowiki><!- REMOVE THIS ENTIRE LINE</nowiki>). I've fixed it for you, but you can see what I did by checking out [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Guardian,_Variant2_(3.5e_Class)&diff=next&oldid=535771 this diff]. Also, don't forget to sign your posts by typing <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> at the end of your message, or by hitting the signature button in the toolbar (the one that looks like a bunch of loops, second from the end).--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:59, 19 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::yeah sorry about that forgot and thanks for helping me :P --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 02:26, 20 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::No worries, that's why I'm here. Kinda. Mostly. It's why I enjoy being here at least. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 02:34, 20 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Patronage Featured Article? ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Badger. I've put in images on most of my pages for my [[Patronage (4e Campaign Setting)]]. Could you take a look and decide if more is needed to get your vote for Featured Article status?--[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 16:42, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Wow. Those pages look so much better now with pictures, in my opinion. I've changed my vote on the FA nomination accordingly. Good work. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:09, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Image ==<br />
<br />
I just wanted to ask you how can I put Image on my races pages I tryed but it doesent work? --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 05:05, 29 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Uh, well, let me first start by making sure the image you want to upload is legal. Assuming it is, what you have to do is type out <nowiki>[[File:Image_Name.jpg]]</nowiki> and save the changes. Once you've done that, your "image" will show up as a red link. Click on that link. It should take you to a page that will allow you to upload your chosen image. If you've already uploaded the image to our image server, it appear right away, rather than as a red link. If you can show me what image you want to upload, and where it needs to go, I can show you in more detail. As far as I know, that should work. Images tend to go a little wonky every so often, but they seem to be working just fine right now. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:40, 29 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::well I tryed that but it didn't work and here is a link to the pic [http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&q=barbarian#/d1k47mn] and I am trying to put it on [[Urgalz (3.5e Race)]] --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 03:53, 3 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::you don't have to do anything I found out what i was doing wrong and I finally uploaded pic on [[Urgalz (3.5e Race)]] and [[Knasari (3.5e Race)]] --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 05:51, 7 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copperwood permission ==<br />
<br />
Hi from new account.<br />
I came across this wiki by accident and just happened to notice a message saying "awaiting permission from copperwood" for a couple of articles.<br />
<br />
Well, I am the one and only copperwood. Those permissions have been waiting for about, ooh, 5 years ago! Bit of a long time, but I created the account on Wizards ages ago to submit those articles and haven't logged back in since they changed to 'D&D Insider'<br />
<br />
If it matters, and the articles are still available, then you have my permission!<br />
<br />
== Greetings Badger ==<br />
<br />
Greeting Badger, this is Lyrad8791. We have talked a bit before on some of my stuff that I have submitted a while back. I was wondering if you had the time to take a look at my sandbox and tell me what you think about my charts there. I also have a second sandbox, which I have dedicated to my world that I am creating. Since the charts didn't fit in with the world itself, I left them in their current location. Anyway, I was hoping I might get some opinions on them, as well as some ideas on how to progress from where I am currently at in my project. If you can think of anyone else who might like to help or would be interested to see what I have thus far, send them over and have them leave a message in the discussion area of either page. The link to the charts is [[User:Lyrad8791/sandbox1#Town_Placement_Charts|here]] and the page for what I currently have on my world is [[User:Lyrad8791/sandbox2|here]]. Thanks for the time you took in reading this, and I hope to hear from you again. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 02:22, 21 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Suggestions and rating help ==<br />
<br />
Ello Badger!<br />
<br />
(insert the badger song -> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI])<br />
<br />
Okay seriously, I need help with getting my custom prestige class rated and commented.<br />
I am a bit of an addict when it comes to feedback and I am having trouble finding the right places to create attention to my works.<br />
Also I have read the forms and guides to a good page but I am not sure I have every thing cowered.<br />
<br />
Could you go my work over? Especially the warhammer 40K boltgun. Cant figure out a nice and fitting way of presenting all the upgrades and ammunition options available.<br />
<br />
Thanks before hand from --<span style="font-family:albertus mt; font-variant:small-caps; margin-left:4px; border:2px solid #501010;"><span style="background:#CA2020; border:3px solid #7B0E0E; padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;">'''[[User:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;">ElvenKingSlave</span>]]'''&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[Exalted Wiki:Human|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="I will drown you in daggers!">Weapons Summoner</span>]]&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[User talk:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="Contact me">Talk</span></span>]]</span> 03:01, 28 November 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Weapon_Summoner_(3.5e_Class)#Class_Features Weapon Summoner(3.5 class)]]<br><br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Boltgun_(3.5e_Equipment) Boltgun(3.5 Equipment)]]<br><br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lasgun_(3.5e_Equipment) Lasgun(3.5 Equipment)]]<br><br />
<br />
:Right, well, where to begin... <br />
:I'm gonna let you know right now, there are a lot of people on this wiki making content, and virtually no one reviewing it. I'd recommend trying to make connections with other users who seem to be pretty active, and set up a sort of co-op where you keep each other in the loop with your stuff, and constantly rate one another's stuff. I'd give your class a once over, but I'm more than swamped at the moment with real world things. I'll be honest, I've been away for so long now that I'm not even sure who is still very active on the wiki.<br />
:A quick once over says to me that you've done pretty well at formatting most of your stuff. There are a few things, like the NPC on your [[Weapon_Summoner_(3.5e_Class)|Weapon Summoner]] is wonky. My first edit, however, will have to be striking out your rating because you aren't allowed to rate your own stuff. Sorry, it's the rules.<br />
:Other than that, I don't know what to tell you. I'll be free in about two weeks. Send me another message then and I'll see what I can do for you. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:44, 28 November 2011 (MST)<br />
::Thanks :D Thats all I am asking. --<span style="font-family:albertus mt; font-variant:small-caps; margin-left:4px; border:2px solid #501010;"><span style="background:#CA2020; border:3px solid #7B0E0E; padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;">'''[[User:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;">ElvenKingSlave</span>]]'''&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[Exalted Wiki:Human|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="I will drown you in daggers!">Weapons Summoner</span>]]&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[User talk:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="Contact me">Talk</span></span>]]</span> 07:15, 30 November 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== My created items ==<br />
<br />
Badger, could I get you to take a look at the Magic items I created and give me an opinion on them? My friends like them, but I think they are a bit biased. Any critiques would be welcome. They are all listed on my user page. Thanks again. --[[User:Irykyl| Irykyl]] 11:24, 6 March 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
== 2 things ==<br />
<br />
First i would like you to know that i've have added 2 feats under the 3e Feats section (Ambidexterity and Armor Proficiency (Heavy))<br />
<br />
also something seems to be wrong with sending a confirmation email to allow me to send messages to people.<br />
<br />
== Please remove all my material from this wiki ==<br />
<br />
I asked Green Dragon but he refuses. I would like all pages created by me to be deleted from this wiki. The reasons are personal and nobody's business but my own. Thank you for your cooperation. --<span style="font-size:90%;">[[User:ScryersEve|<span title="User page of Scryer's Eve"><span style="color:#006565;">Scryer's</span> <span style="color:#db6700;">Eve</span></span>]] <sup>([[User_talk:ScryersEve|<span style="color:#0053BF!important;" title="Talk page of Scryer's Eve">talk</span>]] | <span title="Contributions of Scryer's Eve">[[Special:Contributions/ScryersEve|<span style="small-caps;color:#0053BF!important;" title="Contributions of Scryer's Eve">contribs</span>]])</span></sup> 15:56, 26 March 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Sorry, but according to policy I'm not allowed to do that. Is it a silly policy? Probably. Do I like that policy? I can't think of a time I have. Do I have to follow it? Tragically. I'm not going to bother asking why you don't want your stuff on the wiki anymore, as it doesn't really matter, but there's nothing I can do. The way I see it, you have two options: First, you can stick around and try and petition the rule change so that your content can be removed. If you can show (through history) that no one else has modified the content you uploaded, that would go a long way to showing that you'd not be removing anyone else's contributions (in my mind at least). Option two is to just walk away angry. It's a pretty lame option, but it's what might happen anyway. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:47, 26 March 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Homebrew Race Formatting ==<br />
<br />
When submitting a homebrew race, may I format the top section (Race's name in plural) like a creature page and/or a SRD, or is the markup, or some version thereof, supplied at the edit/create page all that's accepted?[[User:Omegatiger121|Omegatiger121]] ([[User talk:Omegatiger121|talk]]) 13:34, 16 June 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Real-time human-moderated games ==<br />
<br />
hello. i was looking for a site that offers real-time human-moderated games. do you know of any?<br />
<br />
thank you.<br />
<br />
== Am I allowed to proceed? ==<br />
<br />
Hi badger, I'm sure this happens a lot but I just pulled your name first from the Admin list, hoping to get someone to talk to. Anyway, my question was aimed towards the lack of content that exists for 3.5 and has not been posted. While I understand that a lot of classes are not core, Psion as well as its including features are listed, and so I thought I might request to put up more classes, such as from the Magic of Incarnum book, or the Complete Warrior, Divine, Ect. I would love to punch in as much time as needed to get this done. My players love this wiki and I have no time to go fishing for spells in countless books. Please let me know. Thanks :)<br />
<br />
:Hi there. Welcome, and we're glad to see that you like the wiki, and want to contribute. Unfortunately, you aren't allowed to add just any content you want. Any content we have has to be licensed in a way that allows for free distribution. The complete warrior/divine, and many other books have not been licensed under the OGL (open gaming license). If you know of content that is licensed under the OGL (or a similar license), contact an admin, and we'll double check and then give you the go ahead to transcribe it.<br />
<br />
:There are plenty of other ways you can contribute, though! You can find a link to a list of abandoned pages at the bottom of my user page, each of which could use some work. An editorial eye could be used on just about any page here on the wiki, and there are tons of people who would love for you to read (and rate) their creations. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask me, or any other admin. Cheers. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] ([[User talk:Badger|talk]]) 20:12, 3 October 2012 (MDT)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Badger&diff=556801User talk:Badger2012-03-26T23:00:31Z<p>Badger: Undo revision 556798 by Green Dragon: Clearly he had no idea what the rules were. I've written them clearly, as well as present new solutions. Also, you have no say what goes on my talk page</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For your help with finding vandal's edits, removing vandal's work, and helping keep D&D Wiki clean, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:06, 4 November 2010 (MDT)}}<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archived messages 1-20<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Help (Creature Creation)==<br />
<br />
Hey, I made my creature as best as I can using the template you showed me. For some reason it was not giving me the code usage for the special qualities and such on the basic page so I went and found a page that was using it. From there things seemed to work out. It now has its own page in the Creatures section... not completely sure as to which section since I just pressed add new creature. Anyway, I figured you would like to know how far I have made it, and that if nothing else you will know where to find it. Also, since you mentioned you might chime in and give suggestions and such when you get to look at it. [[Dimidium_Troll_(3.5e_Creature)|Dimidium Troll]] Also, it seems that I have figured out how to link into pages as well. You are a good teacher, thanks for the instruction! --[[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 22:56, 4 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Question (Dealing with Spam)==<br />
<br />
I have left a similar message on Green Dragons Talk page but I figure I should be thorough with this. It seems there are a few Users that are posting spam and doing a redirect for their User page to the mentioned Spam. One instance is this link [[Best_Electronic_Cigarette_Review |here]]. I don't know the procedure for deleting spam so I am asking you and the owner. I was just wondering if I should just mention it and leave be or if I should delete the contents of the page since I don't know how I would delete the page itself. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 23:57, 8 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, the long and the short of it is you shouldn't probably bother to do anything. Only Admins can totally delete a page. Likewise, only admins can ban a user. Whenever I come across spam, I blank the page, and then add a delete template. After that, I save changes with something like "Delete this spam" in the edit summary. Usually Jazzman is pretty good about catching these and deleting them for real. I don't know the official site policy on users handling spam, but no one has asked me to stop, so I still do it. One thing, however, is to make sure that the page never had any content on it. We don't want to delete a page that once had content, just because it now has spam. Like I said, us users can't do much in the way of permanent change (that's the admin's job), so if you want to turn a blind eye, no one will blame you. However, if you delete a bunch, someone might give you a nifty little barnstar like I have at the top of this page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:02, 9 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (Creating an Animal) ==<br />
<br />
So... you mentioned something about tables and things like that? i did find what each thing means ( [[Template:d20M_Creature|d20M Creature]] ) but what i need is the stuff it lists in the examples please. -[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 11:06, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, [[d20_Modern_Creatures|here]] is a link to every homebrew d20M creature. One of them is bound to have examples of what you need. Jazzman left a comment on one of your messages with some suggestions of how he would do it. You might want to check that out. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:17, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Might [[Creature Types (MSRD)#Animal|this]] be what you are looking for? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:22, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It's exacly what I needed. Thanks for the help! --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 10:53, 25 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (4e Community) ==<br />
<br />
Hey Badger,<br />
Do you know anyone who's really good at making D&D 4e stuff, but is also good at changing 4e stuff (you know, like, changing monsters from the monster manual)? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:11, 1 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, I'll be honest, I don't know how active they are anymore, but [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] has done quite a bit of 4e work (and is an admin here, so he might still be active-ish). For some reason I want to say [[User:Sam_Kay|Sam Kay]] also knows 4e a bit, but I don't think he's active on this wiki much anymore (again, I could be wrong on both points). Those are the two names that spring to mind, but I want to be clear that I don't know how much (if any) help then can/will be. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:21, 1 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for trying to help. But the reason was actually to help me with my Pumped Up [[Pumped Up (4e Sourcebook)|sourcebook]]. But I'm deleting it now. Sorry for bothering you. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:30, 16 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::No problem, I'm here to help. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:54, 30 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Help (Sandboxes)==<br />
<br />
Hey badger it is Dj00345. I wanted to ask you if there is a way to create ur own sandbox? I wanted to create one myself and don't know how to?... Can u help me out and explain how to make one??<br />
[[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]].<br />
<br />
:It's really easy, just add a /sandbox after your username, for example [[User:Dj00345/sandbox]]. You can put anything on the page, so sandbox, or sandbox1, or ninja_of_the_winterlands, or whatever you want. If you go to that page you'll be prompted to make a new page with that name. It's easy. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:31, 1 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Help (Pictures)==<br />
hey badger. it is me Dj00345. i just added a image to one of my pages. and the picture is too big. how do i make it small enough to fit on the page??? can you help me at all??? the page is called [[Zendra (3.5e Deity)|Zendra]]. please help me..... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 17:42, 3 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I went ahead and changed the size. Check out the code and you can learn for next time. You can change the text by editing the code. You can change the size of the picture by increasing or decreasing the pixels. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:53, 3 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thx. Got it now! ;) [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 10:14, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Help (Stubs)==<br />
<br />
Hey one more question.... If I want to help finish a STUB page, do I just go ahead and edit it, or do I have to wait for someone to give me an answer??? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 10:14, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I usually check to see when the stub template was added, how long the page has gone un-edited, and if the original author is still around. If it looks like no one else is going to do it, just jump right in. On pages that are a little more complete, and just missing little things here and there, it might be better to leave a message on the talk pages with your suggested changes, and give the community a week or so to talk about it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:10, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::And if I finish what the stub template says needs to be fixed,, do i remove the template??? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 17:53, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I assume you're asking about Dhampir, which just needs another adventurer? Yeah, that you can just add whenever you think of one, and remove the stub template when you do. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:05, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Alrighty then. Thx again. And yes I am asking about dhampir [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 18:33, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I ended up removing [[Template:Stub]] from the [[Dhampir (4e Race)|dampir]]. See the history for what the edit was. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:39, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question (User Creation Log) ==<br />
<br />
hey badger. i was just looking around on the Wiki and ended up in the User Creation log. where it shows every account that has been created. i went down to the date i helped my friend get an account on this wiki and saw it. then i went to December dates to see if my account was there. (i was bored and wanted to see). Apparently, my account i guess doesn't exist... i didnt see my account name anywhere in there... '''Is That A Good Thing or A Bad Thing.???????''' Please answer..... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 20:15, 11 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Huh, that's interesting. Well, do you recall creating an account? It does appear that you never made one, but you are certainly logged in and making edits. To make an account you need to log in. If you log in and make edits, you should have an account. I don't know what's going on, I'd ask Green Dragon if you're concerned. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:36, 11 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Well see. I made an account. I guess it didn't recognize it. I didn't get the message that green dragon sends to you saying that you are now a dnd wikian. I never got that message... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 09:54, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::That's not an automated message, GD goes through and does those manually, so it's possible he just missed you. If you have an options menu at the top right corner of the screen that says "Dj00345, my talk, my preferences, my watchlist, my contributions, logout" you're probably a member and the site is just a little hinky. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:40, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Yeah I have all those. So it must be some sort of glitch maybe...? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 12:43, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Yeah, as far as I can tell you're a full-blooded wikian, and the wiki is just screwing up. If you're concerned you can leave a message on Green Dragon's talk page, either asking him there, or directing him to this conversation. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:46, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not really concerned. i was just making sure that the wiki wasn't screwed up or anything. i was just keeping an eye out. thx for the help badger! [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 14:57, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Oh, the wiki screws up all the time. This isn't anything major, so I wouldn't worry about it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:46, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question (Multi-classing) ==<br />
Alright, so I think I'm doing this right. And I suppose this will be the first question I will ask, is it possible to go back to a class that specifically says you can't after multiclassing? Even if the class you multiclass with says you can? (Sorry if you don't understand or if this seems stupid.)--[[User:Raem|Raem]] 17:35, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:First, yeah, you did everything correctly. Now, let me try to understand your question. I think if the 2nd class explicitly says "you can multi-class, even if your first class says you cannot" then you ''can''. However, if the 2nd class ''doesn't'' say that, you're out of luck. That said, it's really up to your DM. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:42, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (Campaign Creation) ==<br />
<br />
Hey badger! Dj00345. I have a question. I'm thinking of making my own campaign setting and was just wondering where to go in order to create the "Supplement" pages for it??? I took a look at the "Valgora" campaign setting and it's edit stuff. And noticed that the links said '''Valgora supplement'''. Where do I go to make one of those pages except under a different campaign setting of course... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 13:57, 5 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Oh, well, as far as I know there is no official formatting for creating campaign settings. This little box might make it easier to add to a campaign setting, just replace "MyPage" with the name of your page, and "MySetting" with the name of your setting:<br />
<br />
<!-----Campaign Setting-----><br />
<div style="text-align: left; width: 23.5em; margin: 2em;"><br />
<inputbox><br />
type=create<br />
break=no<br />
buttonlabel=Create New Page for Campaign Setting<br />
default=MyPage (MySetting Supplement)<br />
preload=<br />
</inputbox><br />
</div><br />
<br />
:If you'd like, I'm sure someone can help you making a footer/header for your campaign setting and using it as a preload. My guess is Hooper would be the guy to ask about that, as I think Valgora is his setting, and you seem to like that one. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:30, 5 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Help (Class Creation)==<br />
<br />
Hello it was recomended to me that you might be able to help me with a concept. You see me and my friends are planning to start a DnD 3.5 OP campaign (so crazy templates etc...) But im new to dnd so I have no idea how to make the class/template/race I wanted. the concept I came up with was a ''Prototype'' character based off of the game prototype for the xbox 360. Im not quite sure weither it would be a class a template or a race. So I was wondering if you could help me make it? (or make it for me)? -- [[User:Grunt|Grunt]] 17:03, 25 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, let me begin by saying I've never played Prototype, so I probably can't help you with much. However, here's how I'd recommend you try it. <br />
<br />
:If you want to use existing classes, here's what I'd suggest: I don't know if you're familiar with [[UA:Gestalt_Characters|gestalt characters]], but that's what I'd recommend. Basically, you combine the best parts of two classes into one super-class. I'd recommend something like a [[Psion]] with an emphasis in psychometabolism, or maybe psychokinesis. From there, I'd make your other class something that would work well with the abilities of your psion, so maybe rogue. I like rogues a lot, so maybe I'm just biased. It sounds like a barbarian might also work well. Since you're going for overpowered, I think a gestalt [[Psion]]/[[Barbarian,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome Barbarian]] would best approximate what you're looking for.<br />
<br />
:However, if you're looking to create your own homemade material, here's what I'd suggest: Start with a beefy Hit Die, like a d10, give yourself medium or good Base attack bonus(like the rogue or fighter), good fortitude and reflex saves (+12 at 20) and bad will saves (+6 at 20). After that, I'd give yourself a limited spell list, pulling your favorite spells from psionics, and use Constitution instead of Intelligence for the key ability. After that, add on a bunch of heavy hitting power class skills, using classes like [[Threat_(3.5e_Class)|Threat]], [[Barbarian,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome Barbarian]], and maybe even [[Death_Knight_(DnD_Prestige_Class)|Death Knight]] for ideas.<br />
<br />
:I hope this helps. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:03, 25 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hey Badger ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Badger.<br />
<br />
:Hi. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:42, 15 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
yo what up badger think i could get u to take a look at the mage of earthsea class again?? give me a few more pointers?<br />
<br />
==ty [[User:La Mortis|La Mortis]]==<br />
<br />
== Help (Campaign Settings) ==<br />
<br />
You asked if I wanted help, I do.<br />
I go straigh to the point.<br />
<br />
I would want to make an own:<br />
#make a page with the info about classes "and the world" and "how to make a class character".<br />
#Then put a link to it in the Classes.<br />
#make links that change pages adn scrolls down to an article. <br />
#learn to make footers<br />
#page for my classes that are adapted for my campaign setting.<br />
<br />
::I've numbered each of the questions you have, and I'll answer them in order. Let me know if you need more detail on any of them<br />
::1. If you want to make a page about classes for your Campaign Setting, just make a standard page for your Campaign setting. If you want, you can use the "Add New Campaign Setting Info" thing that I made [[User_talk:Badger#Help_.28Campaign_Creation.29|here]]. As far as I know there is no codified pre-load for this, so you can just model it off a page that you like, or do it on your own. <br />
::2. Putting a link to it is just like adding any other link. You simply type this code: <nowiki> [[Name_Of_Page | Display Text]]</nowiki>.<br />
::For example, you would probably make the pages named "Classes_(MyCampaign_Supplement)", so your code would say: <nowiki>[[Classes_(MyCampaign_Supplement) | Classes in MyCampaign]]</nowiki>. Naturally, you'll want to replace "MyCampaign" with whatever the name of your campaign is. <br />
::3. Making links that link to a specific section is also pretty easy. You use the same format that you used above for creating a link, and to link to a particular section, you put a #SectionName after the name of the page. For example, if you wanted to make a link to this section, you would write " <nowiki>[[User_Talk:Badger#Help_(Campaign Settings) | Display Text]]</nowiki>.<br />
::4. Making footers is as easy as making a page. First you make a page and put on it whatever you want the footer to say. Name the page something like "Navigation Footer (MyCampaign Supplement)". After that, you just have to include that page at the bottom of every page you want a footer. Only, this time, instead of using brackets like you normally use for a link (These: "[[]]"), use braces (These: "{{}}")<br />
::5. Again, just make a page that's name ends with (MyCampaign Supplement), and put a list of classes and changes. You may find it is easier to make full on tables to show changes, or just text lists of changes. It's up to you.<br />
::One last note, as helpful as I may be with this, [[User:Hooper]] is probably better. He is the one who rates most of the campaign settings, and he is the one who has one of the most complete campaign settings on this wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:47, 30 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== For Identification Purposes? ==<br />
<br />
Ok now i'm curious why you moved my page... made it loads of fun to try and find it through my simple input of the address it was sitting at without the variant 3.5 mumbo jumbo.<br />
<br />
I'm just curious why you did it, I understand that there WAS a Dragoon class that was made and deleted for whatever reason... That's why i made it a Dragoon Lancer, there was someone who made a Dragoon that i thought was totally whacked out on ADnD and well I felt it needed a do-over, pouring through the books i found a nice combination that is actually based on pre-existing 3.0 and 3.5 edition material, short of some attack/ Wings purposes it is all based on the rules. I think it works marvelously and when i find the actual balance i would really hope people start picking it up. It was one of my favorite classes in FF Tactics, short of the huge error in missing people because they moved while you were in the air (Huge disappointment there) but getting back on track. I would appreciate a simple explanation, and well some feedback would be nice since you seem to have been the ONLY person on here who has done anything of note to my Dragoon Lancer.<br />
<br />
James<br />
<br />
:Badger didn't mean any offense. All homebrew pages are (supposed to be) appended with an identifying tag such as (3.5e Creature) or (d20M Advanced Class). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:14, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yep, Jazzman summed it up. Sorry for any confusion it may have caused. There should have been a redirect from the old URL to the updated one, I don't know why that wasn't working (but it appears to be working now). I've not actually read the page, but since my vacation has just begun I'll get around to it (sooner or later) and leave some thoughts on the talk page. Once again, sorry for any confusion or trouble this may have caused; I was just following policy.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:24, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well i was really just curious as to the why... since it really didn't seem to have been a part of any of the other classes that i looked at. I have been going through and trying to reflect any changes i've come across and would really like some insight anyone has. [[User:Gainesja|Gainesja]] 04:34, 12 June 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::People are really, really, really, bad about adding those tags, so I'm sure there are many pages floating around that don't have them yet. Though more pages have them than not, so if you haven't seen any yet you must just be really lucky. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 07:40, 12 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I think on that day alone I moved like 3 or 4 other classes and deities. It's just something I do every so often, when I notice a few pages in the recent changes need it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:27, 12 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Admin Nomination==<br />
I hope that you accept the recent nomination for adminship that has been activated for you. Please go to [[Requests for Adminship/Badger]] to reply to the nominee questions. I look forward to seeing the community's thoughts! &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 06:10, 19 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Thank you for your nomination, as well as your support. I accept the nomination, and I look forward to continuing to contribute to the community, either as a administrator, or as a user. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:09, 19 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Welcome to Adminship. You are now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. Honestly, as you will notice, not much has been changed now that you are an admin. If anything, I would say more burden is placed on you. I recommend you take a look at [[Special:ListGroupRights]] if you have not already. Some of the the new features' uses pertaining to D&D Wiki follow. You can now delete pages, protect pages, rollback edits, block users and IP's, edit every page, patrol edits, and do a couple more minor things.<br />
::*Deleting pages is normally done through [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. Anything with a good reason to be deleted on that page should be deleted. The other time pages should be deleted is when someone makes a certain page and after a few edits they either blank the page or replace it with something like "Please delete this". If this page consisted of close to just the preload, just delete it.<br />
::*Protecting pages has quite a few different times when it should be used. Pages should be protected according to the author's wishes (with [[Template:Locked Page]] added to the top of the page in question), in case of conflict (with [[Template:Temp Locked Page]] added to the top of the page in question), in case of [[Help:FAQ#What are OGL, OGC, SRD, and GNU FPL?|OGC]] published materials (with [[Template:OGL Top]] added to the top of the page in question and [[Template:OGL Bottom]] added to the bottom), or finally if the page is a vital part of D&D Wiki's organization. If it deals with D&D Wiki's organization it either needs to be be protected from IP edits or all non-sysop edits. As a rule of thumb pages up to two tiers deep (up for discussion/rethinking) from the [[Main Page]] are normally locked to anyone but sysops and all the others are just protected from IP edits. For Example [[3.5e Homebrew]] is protected from all non-sysop edits whereas a deeper in page like [[LA 0 Races]] is only protected from IP edits. No template needs to be added to pages if they are part of D&D Wiki's organization (even though some do exist like [[Template:Admin Locked Page]])<br />
::*Blocking a user or IP should only be used after an IP or user vandalizes a certain page. To block someone just click "block" (found on [[Special:Recentchanges|RC]], the diff in question, the userpage, etc) and fill out the corresponding form. For a typical vandalism attack I normally block the user for two weeks. Certain things demand a longer block and others a shorter. No standards have been set for block lengths, use your best judgment.<br />
::*Editing every page on D&D Wiki mostly means you can now edit the [[SRD:System Reference Document|SRD]] and the [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|MSRD]]. Feel free to edit them if inaccuracies are found. If interested further please look at the [[SRD Talk:System Reference Document#SRD ToDo List|SRD ToDO List]] or the [[MSRD Talk:Modern System Reference Document#Tasks|MSRD tasks]]. Of course that is only the base. There is never enough help to get everything done, so I am sure your help would be appreciated.<br />
::*Patrolling edits should, in a nutshell, be used when you have looked over an edit and fixed everything that needs to be fixed (this includes reviewing the content with templates, answering questions, etc).<br />
::I know this is really long-winded, so I'll keep the rest short. You have more burden on yourself now that you are an admin because users will be looking at you for editing help, knowledge of the standards, etc. It's a bit more work, but I really hope you enjoy being an admin and I hope you decide to stay around on D&D Wiki for a while more to come. Welcome to Adminship, again you're now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:58, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Modifiers Added, But for future refrence, ==<br />
<br />
what are the modifiers to use? Class, Prestige Class, NPC, Monster, Equipment, Campaign, Quest, Deity, Trait, Flaw, Feat, Spell, Race are the ones i can think of, am i missing any? Also, Is there a way i can set a page to only accept changes that I approve?<br />
<br />
:I've corrected the spelling of the modifiers above (and added a few more). Those are all the ones I can think of off the top of my head (and all the major ones), but I am sure there are more obscure ones. As for your second question, no there is not. However, you can use the "watch" tab, at the top of each page, and any changes that are made to that page will show up in the "my watchlist" page linked in the top right corner of the page (when you're logged in). You can click on "diff" to see the changes made in each edit. This is about as close as you can get to what you want. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:26, 14 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hi I was interested in joining the D&D WIKI but it seams your create account is broken ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was trying to find the webmaster but didn't see a link to leave a message for one. Maybe you can forward this on to her/him/them.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I went to create an account and tried to make an account but it seams to be broken. A box keeps popping up saying type two words to in to prevent span but the silly thing just keeps cycling and won't go away to let you create the account. I tried at least a dozen times to get past it but always comes back. Very frustrating!<br />
<br />
And now the fool thing shows up trying to post this message.<br />
<br />
:Does it mention it is related to CloudFlare ([[D&D Wiki:General disclaimer]])? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:05, 30 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you can give me the exact error message you're getting, that would help immensely. What name are you trying to register? Is it possible that someone has already registered that name? Green Dragon, who responded above me, is the owner/operator of the website, so he's probably your best bet for a fix. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:37, 31 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank You ==<br />
<br />
I wished to thank you for your recent remarks on my page. And to acknowledge your intrinsic and direct approach.<br />
<br />
:Any time? But seriously, I have no idea who you are or what page you're talking about (I've been a whirlwind of edits these past few days), but you're welcome. Let me know if there's anything else you need. In the future, don't forget to sign your posts with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or by pressing the signature button. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:51, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Your deletion of a page was most appreciated.<br />
<br />
:::Oh, well, glad I could help. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:19, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Could you extend your gracious policy upon a few of my other incomplete works?<br />
<br />
:::::Policy says that we're supposed to wait at least 2 weeks before deleting anything. If I've deleted anything sooner than that, I apologize. Most of our to-be-deleted content is months, if not years old, though (so you should have plenty of time). If your content has a delete template, I'll check on the history, and if it looks like you're making progress on it, I'll give it time. If you give me the links you want me to keep an eye out for, I'll get around to checking on them later. Also, if I delete anything that you'd like back, I think can restore it easily (I've never tried, but I know I should be able to). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:29, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I understand. I would like 75% of all my work deleted (noting most is incomplete, and I have no wish to complete 75%). I have only a few articles here; and have a desire to complete the 25%. The other work only hurts my prestige.<br />
<br />
:::::::Right, well, place the code <nowiki>{{delete|~~~~~|Author has abandoned.}}</nowiki> to the top of every incomplete page you don't want to keep, and I'll delete them as I get around to them. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:45, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::It is finished.<br />
<br />
:::::::::Is there a reason that you're signing out and not signing your comments when leaving a message to me, but logging in to edit your pages? You're not trying to hide your identity, are you? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:00, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::No. I simply wanted to make sure you were interested before damming the pages. --[[User:Frankenkesey|Frankenkesey]] 20:12, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Well, it's not policy to delete pages just because the author doesn't want them anymore. Arguably you should be using the "abandoned" template instead, but I've never seen anyone adopt one of those pages and fix it up, so I don't know that it's a very useful template (although it's a good idea). It's my personal belief that we should just delete unfinished and unusable material, rather than letting it stick around as abandoned for years. If your pages don't have enough content for someone else to take and finish up, I'll delete them. However, if they have enough already, I'll swap out delete with abandoned. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:12, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::This maxim sounds fair. --[[User:Frankenkesey|Frankenkesey]] 20:15, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths ==<br />
<br />
Just created the "Master of the twin paths" for 3.5e custom prestige classes. It was moved to "formatting issues" soon after.<br />
<br />
My question is simple, is now officially removed or is it waiting to be checked? If it is removed, how may I improve it to have it added to the homebrew category it fits.<br />
<br />
Also how do I format it correctly?<br />
<br />
with many thanks,<br />
Ryulin18<br />
<br />
You're doing a great job<br />
<br />
:Right, well, good news! Master of the twin paths hasn't been removed, it was just moved (for a totally unrelated reason). You can find you creation [[Master_of_the_Twin_Paths_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|here]]. <br />
<br />
:First off, your page was moved to include an "identifer", which means I added "_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)" to the end of your class name. We use these to keep all our content straight, and every page is supposed to have one.<br />
<br />
:If you check out other Prestige classes, like [[Animal_Lord_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|this one]], you'll notice the bottom has a sort of footer that works as navigation, as well as some categories. You'll want to add those to your page (not those exact ones, but the ones that apply to your class). I'd search through other [[3.5e_Prestige_Classes|prestige classes]] until you find one that seems like yours, and check out what categories you'll want to include. Let me know if you need anything else. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:18, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Tavern ==<br />
<br />
If it existed, you should get on it right now. But it doesn't so... [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:37, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths - Part 2 ==<br />
<br />
Okay. I have added breadcrumbs and the categories! Is it okay now?<br />
<br />
Any advice to get it finished?<br />
<br />
much thanks, Ryulin<br />
<br />
:Alright, well, the cats and breadcrumbs look a lot better now. The next thing I'd say is fluff. Everything always needs more fluff. Well, almost everything. Check out a featured article like [[Deviant_(3.5e_Class)|this one]] for notes on making your page better. If you're committed enough, you can turn your page into a featured article. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:53, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Apologies ==<br />
<br />
Hi Badger,<br />
<br />
I realized that I took my trolling too far yesterday. Seriously, I'm not a jerk like that usually. I have just been using this website as out outlet, so to speak, which is pretty immature. Anyways, I've decided to quit my trolling here altogether and also to stop harboring resentment for Green Dragon and Hooper.<br />
<br />
In the case of Green Dragon, I realized that teasing him may have been fun, it really was a childish way to burn off steam over real life issues.<br />
<br />
In the case of Hooper, I realized that he's just like a lot of other D&D players I've met and gotten along with: he's got a strong personality and reflects that with strong opinions. And really, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Unfortunately, I let situations where I saw him butt horns with other users sway me to dislike him.<br />
<br />
I was logged into a chatroom that both of you were in last night (although I was afk), and although most of your conversation was cut off, I realized that I was being pretty stupid and you are decent guys.<br />
<br />
So, my apologies to you (and Hooper), for the nonsense I stirred up. Cheers. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:15, 31 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:From my administrator standpoint: That was mean, you shouldn't do that. I have half a mind to ban you here and now, regardless of policy.<br />
:From my human being standpoint: Ehh, just don't do it again. <s>At least, not on important pages.</s> I probably over-reacted in my message asking you to cut it out. It wasn't really that big of a deal. No hard feelings, at least on my end. It is my suspicion, though I can't speak for him, that Hooper also thought it was no big thing. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:02, 31 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths - Part 3 ==<br />
<br />
Added all the fluff I dare to. Can you give me an idea of what to do next before I can have this page legitimized (I'm an English teacher, so using a z there hurt) and sent to my DM?<br />
<br />
I really want this rated...Anyone want to do it?<br />
<br />
== Hey Badger ==<br />
<br />
I saw that you Changed the name of my raze Urgalz to Urgalz (3.5e Race) I forgot to do that and I just wanted to thank you for that. I looked at your the classes that you created and I do sai that the Hooker (3.5e class) is kinda funny at least i haven't lauged so much when I looked at some class. --Baharas 05:54, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, thank you; I'm pretty proud of that Hooker class, even though it's a April Fools class. Don't worry about missing that identifier, lot's people get it wrong the first few times, just try to include it for all the future pages you make. If you've already made pages without identifiers, you can use the "move" tab at the top of that page to move it to a page with the correct identifier. Welcome to the wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:09, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::yeah I noticed when you moved it how to change it and I just noticed that you were a admin so congratulation for that :P <br />
::and I want to ask you: I am creating a class named [[Guardian, Variant2 (3.5e Class)]] why does this look like this?<br />
<br />
:::When the page says "remove this entire line" it means that entire line of text from the edit window, not just everything after it says "remove this line" (so also delete the bit that says <nowiki><nowiki><!- REMOVE THIS ENTIRE LINE</nowiki>). I've fixed it for you, but you can see what I did by checking out [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Guardian,_Variant2_(3.5e_Class)&diff=next&oldid=535771 this diff]. Also, don't forget to sign your posts by typing <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> at the end of your message, or by hitting the signature button in the toolbar (the one that looks like a bunch of loops, second from the end).--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:59, 19 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::yeah sorry about that forgot and thanks for helping me :P --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 02:26, 20 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::No worries, that's why I'm here. Kinda. Mostly. It's why I enjoy being here at least. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 02:34, 20 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Patronage Featured Article? ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Badger. I've put in images on most of my pages for my [[Patronage (4e Campaign Setting)]]. Could you take a look and decide if more is needed to get your vote for Featured Article status?--[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 16:42, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Wow. Those pages look so much better now with pictures, in my opinion. I've changed my vote on the FA nomination accordingly. Good work. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:09, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Image ==<br />
<br />
I just wanted to ask you how can I put Image on my races pages I tryed but it doesent work? --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 05:05, 29 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Uh, well, let me first start by making sure the image you want to upload is legal. Assuming it is, what you have to do is type out <nowiki>[[File:Image_Name.jpg]]</nowiki> and save the changes. Once you've done that, your "image" will show up as a red link. Click on that link. It should take you to a page that will allow you to upload your chosen image. If you've already uploaded the image to our image server, it appear right away, rather than as a red link. If you can show me what image you want to upload, and where it needs to go, I can show you in more detail. As far as I know, that should work. Images tend to go a little wonky every so often, but they seem to be working just fine right now. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:40, 29 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::well I tryed that but it didn't work and here is a link to the pic [http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&q=barbarian#/d1k47mn] and I am trying to put it on [[Urgalz (3.5e Race)]] --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 03:53, 3 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::you don't have to do anything I found out what i was doing wrong and I finally uploaded pic on [[Urgalz (3.5e Race)]] and [[Knasari (3.5e Race)]] --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 05:51, 7 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copperwood permission ==<br />
<br />
Hi from new account.<br />
I came across this wiki by accident and just happened to notice a message saying "awaiting permission from copperwood" for a couple of articles.<br />
<br />
Well, I am the one and only copperwood. Those permissions have been waiting for about, ooh, 5 years ago! Bit of a long time, but I created the account on Wizards ages ago to submit those articles and haven't logged back in since they changed to 'D&D Insider'<br />
<br />
If it matters, and the articles are still available, then you have my permission!<br />
<br />
== Greetings Badger ==<br />
<br />
Greeting Badger, this is Lyrad8791. We have talked a bit before on some of my stuff that I have submitted a while back. I was wondering if you had the time to take a look at my sandbox and tell me what you think about my charts there. I also have a second sandbox, which I have dedicated to my world that I am creating. Since the charts didn't fit in with the world itself, I left them in their current location. Anyway, I was hoping I might get some opinions on them, as well as some ideas on how to progress from where I am currently at in my project. If you can think of anyone else who might like to help or would be interested to see what I have thus far, send them over and have them leave a message in the discussion area of either page. The link to the charts is [[User:Lyrad8791/sandbox1#Town_Placement_Charts|here]] and the page for what I currently have on my world is [[User:Lyrad8791/sandbox2|here]]. Thanks for the time you took in reading this, and I hope to hear from you again. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 02:22, 21 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Suggestions and rating help ==<br />
<br />
Ello Badger!<br />
<br />
(insert the badger song -> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI])<br />
<br />
Okay seriously, I need help with getting my custom prestige class rated and commented.<br />
I am a bit of an addict when it comes to feedback and I am having trouble finding the right places to create attention to my works.<br />
Also I have read the forms and guides to a good page but I am not sure I have every thing cowered.<br />
<br />
Could you go my work over? Especially the warhammer 40K boltgun. Cant figure out a nice and fitting way of presenting all the upgrades and ammunition options available.<br />
<br />
Thanks before hand from --<span style="font-family:albertus mt; font-variant:small-caps; margin-left:4px; border:2px solid #501010;"><span style="background:#CA2020; border:3px solid #7B0E0E; padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;">'''[[User:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;">ElvenKingSlave</span>]]'''&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[Exalted Wiki:Human|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="I will drown you in daggers!">Weapons Summoner</span>]]&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[User talk:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="Contact me">Talk</span></span>]]</span> 03:01, 28 November 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Weapon_Summoner_(3.5e_Class)#Class_Features Weapon Summoner(3.5 class)]]<br><br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Boltgun_(3.5e_Equipment) Boltgun(3.5 Equipment)]]<br><br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lasgun_(3.5e_Equipment) Lasgun(3.5 Equipment)]]<br><br />
<br />
:Right, well, where to begin... <br />
:I'm gonna let you know right now, there are a lot of people on this wiki making content, and virtually no one reviewing it. I'd recommend trying to make connections with other users who seem to be pretty active, and set up a sort of co-op where you keep each other in the loop with your stuff, and constantly rate one another's stuff. I'd give your class a once over, but I'm more than swamped at the moment with real world things. I'll be honest, I've been away for so long now that I'm not even sure who is still very active on the wiki.<br />
:A quick once over says to me that you've done pretty well at formatting most of your stuff. There are a few things, like the NPC on your [[Weapon_Summoner_(3.5e_Class)|Weapon Summoner]] is wonky. My first edit, however, will have to be striking out your rating because you aren't allowed to rate your own stuff. Sorry, it's the rules.<br />
:Other than that, I don't know what to tell you. I'll be free in about two weeks. Send me another message then and I'll see what I can do for you. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:44, 28 November 2011 (MST)<br />
::Thanks :D Thats all I am asking. --<span style="font-family:albertus mt; font-variant:small-caps; margin-left:4px; border:2px solid #501010;"><span style="background:#CA2020; border:3px solid #7B0E0E; padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;">'''[[User:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;">ElvenKingSlave</span>]]'''&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[Exalted Wiki:Human|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="I will drown you in daggers!">Weapons Summoner</span>]]&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[User talk:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="Contact me">Talk</span></span>]]</span> 07:15, 30 November 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== My created items ==<br />
<br />
Badger, could I get you to take a look at the Magic items I created and give me an opinion on them? My friends like them, but I think they are a bit biased. Any critiques would be welcome. They are all listed on my user page. Thanks again. --[[User:Irykyl| Irykyl]] 11:24, 6 March 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
== 2 things ==<br />
<br />
First i would like you to know that i've have added 2 feats under the 3e Feats section (Ambidexterity and Armor Proficiency (Heavy))<br />
<br />
also something seems to be wrong with sending a confirmation email to allow me to send messages to people.<br />
<br />
== Please remove all my material from this wiki ==<br />
<br />
I asked Green Dragon but he refuses. I would like all pages created by me to be deleted from this wiki. The reasons are personal and nobody's business but my own. Thank you for your cooperation. --<span style="font-size:90%;">[[User:ScryersEve|<span title="User page of Scryer's Eve"><span style="color:#006565;">Scryer's</span> <span style="color:#db6700;">Eve</span></span>]] <sup>([[User_talk:ScryersEve|<span style="color:#0053BF!important;" title="Talk page of Scryer's Eve">talk</span>]] | <span title="Contributions of Scryer's Eve">[[Special:Contributions/ScryersEve|<span style="small-caps;color:#0053BF!important;" title="Contributions of Scryer's Eve">contribs</span>]])</span></sup> 15:56, 26 March 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Sorry, but according to policy I'm not allowed to do that. Is it a silly policy? Probably. Do I like that policy? I can't think of a time I have. Do I have to follow it? Tragically. I'm not going to bother asking why you don't want your stuff on the wiki anymore, as it doesn't really matter, but there's nothing I can do. The way I see it, you have two options: First, you can stick around and try and petition the rule change so that your content can be removed. If you can show (through history) that no one else has modified the content you uploaded, that would go a long way to showing that you'd not be removing anyone else's contributions (in my mind at least). Option two is to just walk away angry. It's a pretty lame option, but it's what might happen anyway. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:47, 26 March 2012 (MDT)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Badger&diff=556795User talk:Badger2012-03-26T22:47:36Z<p>Badger: Undo revision 556788 by Green Dragon (talk) Please refrain from removing content from my user page. We've been over this.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For your help with finding vandal's edits, removing vandal's work, and helping keep D&D Wiki clean, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:06, 4 November 2010 (MDT)}}<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archived messages 1-20<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Help (Creature Creation)==<br />
<br />
Hey, I made my creature as best as I can using the template you showed me. For some reason it was not giving me the code usage for the special qualities and such on the basic page so I went and found a page that was using it. From there things seemed to work out. It now has its own page in the Creatures section... not completely sure as to which section since I just pressed add new creature. Anyway, I figured you would like to know how far I have made it, and that if nothing else you will know where to find it. Also, since you mentioned you might chime in and give suggestions and such when you get to look at it. [[Dimidium_Troll_(3.5e_Creature)|Dimidium Troll]] Also, it seems that I have figured out how to link into pages as well. You are a good teacher, thanks for the instruction! --[[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 22:56, 4 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Question (Dealing with Spam)==<br />
<br />
I have left a similar message on Green Dragons Talk page but I figure I should be thorough with this. It seems there are a few Users that are posting spam and doing a redirect for their User page to the mentioned Spam. One instance is this link [[Best_Electronic_Cigarette_Review |here]]. I don't know the procedure for deleting spam so I am asking you and the owner. I was just wondering if I should just mention it and leave be or if I should delete the contents of the page since I don't know how I would delete the page itself. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 23:57, 8 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, the long and the short of it is you shouldn't probably bother to do anything. Only Admins can totally delete a page. Likewise, only admins can ban a user. Whenever I come across spam, I blank the page, and then add a delete template. After that, I save changes with something like "Delete this spam" in the edit summary. Usually Jazzman is pretty good about catching these and deleting them for real. I don't know the official site policy on users handling spam, but no one has asked me to stop, so I still do it. One thing, however, is to make sure that the page never had any content on it. We don't want to delete a page that once had content, just because it now has spam. Like I said, us users can't do much in the way of permanent change (that's the admin's job), so if you want to turn a blind eye, no one will blame you. However, if you delete a bunch, someone might give you a nifty little barnstar like I have at the top of this page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:02, 9 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (Creating an Animal) ==<br />
<br />
So... you mentioned something about tables and things like that? i did find what each thing means ( [[Template:d20M_Creature|d20M Creature]] ) but what i need is the stuff it lists in the examples please. -[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 11:06, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, [[d20_Modern_Creatures|here]] is a link to every homebrew d20M creature. One of them is bound to have examples of what you need. Jazzman left a comment on one of your messages with some suggestions of how he would do it. You might want to check that out. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:17, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Might [[Creature Types (MSRD)#Animal|this]] be what you are looking for? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:22, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It's exacly what I needed. Thanks for the help! --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 10:53, 25 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (4e Community) ==<br />
<br />
Hey Badger,<br />
Do you know anyone who's really good at making D&D 4e stuff, but is also good at changing 4e stuff (you know, like, changing monsters from the monster manual)? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:11, 1 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Well, I'll be honest, I don't know how active they are anymore, but [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] has done quite a bit of 4e work (and is an admin here, so he might still be active-ish). For some reason I want to say [[User:Sam_Kay|Sam Kay]] also knows 4e a bit, but I don't think he's active on this wiki much anymore (again, I could be wrong on both points). Those are the two names that spring to mind, but I want to be clear that I don't know how much (if any) help then can/will be. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:21, 1 February 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for trying to help. But the reason was actually to help me with my Pumped Up [[Pumped Up (4e Sourcebook)|sourcebook]]. But I'm deleting it now. Sorry for bothering you. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:30, 16 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::No problem, I'm here to help. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:54, 30 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Help (Sandboxes)==<br />
<br />
Hey badger it is Dj00345. I wanted to ask you if there is a way to create ur own sandbox? I wanted to create one myself and don't know how to?... Can u help me out and explain how to make one??<br />
[[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]].<br />
<br />
:It's really easy, just add a /sandbox after your username, for example [[User:Dj00345/sandbox]]. You can put anything on the page, so sandbox, or sandbox1, or ninja_of_the_winterlands, or whatever you want. If you go to that page you'll be prompted to make a new page with that name. It's easy. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:31, 1 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Help (Pictures)==<br />
hey badger. it is me Dj00345. i just added a image to one of my pages. and the picture is too big. how do i make it small enough to fit on the page??? can you help me at all??? the page is called [[Zendra (3.5e Deity)|Zendra]]. please help me..... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 17:42, 3 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I went ahead and changed the size. Check out the code and you can learn for next time. You can change the text by editing the code. You can change the size of the picture by increasing or decreasing the pixels. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:53, 3 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thx. Got it now! ;) [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 10:14, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Help (Stubs)==<br />
<br />
Hey one more question.... If I want to help finish a STUB page, do I just go ahead and edit it, or do I have to wait for someone to give me an answer??? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 10:14, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I usually check to see when the stub template was added, how long the page has gone un-edited, and if the original author is still around. If it looks like no one else is going to do it, just jump right in. On pages that are a little more complete, and just missing little things here and there, it might be better to leave a message on the talk pages with your suggested changes, and give the community a week or so to talk about it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:10, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::And if I finish what the stub template says needs to be fixed,, do i remove the template??? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 17:53, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I assume you're asking about Dhampir, which just needs another adventurer? Yeah, that you can just add whenever you think of one, and remove the stub template when you do. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:05, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Alrighty then. Thx again. And yes I am asking about dhampir [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 18:33, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I ended up removing [[Template:Stub]] from the [[Dhampir (4e Race)|dampir]]. See the history for what the edit was. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:39, 6 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question (User Creation Log) ==<br />
<br />
hey badger. i was just looking around on the Wiki and ended up in the User Creation log. where it shows every account that has been created. i went down to the date i helped my friend get an account on this wiki and saw it. then i went to December dates to see if my account was there. (i was bored and wanted to see). Apparently, my account i guess doesn't exist... i didnt see my account name anywhere in there... '''Is That A Good Thing or A Bad Thing.???????''' Please answer..... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 20:15, 11 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Huh, that's interesting. Well, do you recall creating an account? It does appear that you never made one, but you are certainly logged in and making edits. To make an account you need to log in. If you log in and make edits, you should have an account. I don't know what's going on, I'd ask Green Dragon if you're concerned. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:36, 11 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Well see. I made an account. I guess it didn't recognize it. I didn't get the message that green dragon sends to you saying that you are now a dnd wikian. I never got that message... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 09:54, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::That's not an automated message, GD goes through and does those manually, so it's possible he just missed you. If you have an options menu at the top right corner of the screen that says "Dj00345, my talk, my preferences, my watchlist, my contributions, logout" you're probably a member and the site is just a little hinky. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:40, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Yeah I have all those. So it must be some sort of glitch maybe...? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 12:43, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Yeah, as far as I can tell you're a full-blooded wikian, and the wiki is just screwing up. If you're concerned you can leave a message on Green Dragon's talk page, either asking him there, or directing him to this conversation. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:46, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not really concerned. i was just making sure that the wiki wasn't screwed up or anything. i was just keeping an eye out. thx for the help badger! [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 14:57, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Oh, the wiki screws up all the time. This isn't anything major, so I wouldn't worry about it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:46, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question (Multi-classing) ==<br />
Alright, so I think I'm doing this right. And I suppose this will be the first question I will ask, is it possible to go back to a class that specifically says you can't after multiclassing? Even if the class you multiclass with says you can? (Sorry if you don't understand or if this seems stupid.)--[[User:Raem|Raem]] 17:35, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:First, yeah, you did everything correctly. Now, let me try to understand your question. I think if the 2nd class explicitly says "you can multi-class, even if your first class says you cannot" then you ''can''. However, if the 2nd class ''doesn't'' say that, you're out of luck. That said, it's really up to your DM. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:42, 12 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help (Campaign Creation) ==<br />
<br />
Hey badger! Dj00345. I have a question. I'm thinking of making my own campaign setting and was just wondering where to go in order to create the "Supplement" pages for it??? I took a look at the "Valgora" campaign setting and it's edit stuff. And noticed that the links said '''Valgora supplement'''. Where do I go to make one of those pages except under a different campaign setting of course... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 13:57, 5 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Oh, well, as far as I know there is no official formatting for creating campaign settings. This little box might make it easier to add to a campaign setting, just replace "MyPage" with the name of your page, and "MySetting" with the name of your setting:<br />
<br />
<!-----Campaign Setting-----><br />
<div style="text-align: left; width: 23.5em; margin: 2em;"><br />
<inputbox><br />
type=create<br />
break=no<br />
buttonlabel=Create New Page for Campaign Setting<br />
default=MyPage (MySetting Supplement)<br />
preload=<br />
</inputbox><br />
</div><br />
<br />
:If you'd like, I'm sure someone can help you making a footer/header for your campaign setting and using it as a preload. My guess is Hooper would be the guy to ask about that, as I think Valgora is his setting, and you seem to like that one. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:30, 5 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Help (Class Creation)==<br />
<br />
Hello it was recomended to me that you might be able to help me with a concept. You see me and my friends are planning to start a DnD 3.5 OP campaign (so crazy templates etc...) But im new to dnd so I have no idea how to make the class/template/race I wanted. the concept I came up with was a ''Prototype'' character based off of the game prototype for the xbox 360. Im not quite sure weither it would be a class a template or a race. So I was wondering if you could help me make it? (or make it for me)? -- [[User:Grunt|Grunt]] 17:03, 25 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, let me begin by saying I've never played Prototype, so I probably can't help you with much. However, here's how I'd recommend you try it. <br />
<br />
:If you want to use existing classes, here's what I'd suggest: I don't know if you're familiar with [[UA:Gestalt_Characters|gestalt characters]], but that's what I'd recommend. Basically, you combine the best parts of two classes into one super-class. I'd recommend something like a [[Psion]] with an emphasis in psychometabolism, or maybe psychokinesis. From there, I'd make your other class something that would work well with the abilities of your psion, so maybe rogue. I like rogues a lot, so maybe I'm just biased. It sounds like a barbarian might also work well. Since you're going for overpowered, I think a gestalt [[Psion]]/[[Barbarian,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome Barbarian]] would best approximate what you're looking for.<br />
<br />
:However, if you're looking to create your own homemade material, here's what I'd suggest: Start with a beefy Hit Die, like a d10, give yourself medium or good Base attack bonus(like the rogue or fighter), good fortitude and reflex saves (+12 at 20) and bad will saves (+6 at 20). After that, I'd give yourself a limited spell list, pulling your favorite spells from psionics, and use Constitution instead of Intelligence for the key ability. After that, add on a bunch of heavy hitting power class skills, using classes like [[Threat_(3.5e_Class)|Threat]], [[Barbarian,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome Barbarian]], and maybe even [[Death_Knight_(DnD_Prestige_Class)|Death Knight]] for ideas.<br />
<br />
:I hope this helps. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:03, 25 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hey Badger ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Badger.<br />
<br />
:Hi. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:42, 15 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
yo what up badger think i could get u to take a look at the mage of earthsea class again?? give me a few more pointers?<br />
<br />
==ty [[User:La Mortis|La Mortis]]==<br />
<br />
== Help (Campaign Settings) ==<br />
<br />
You asked if I wanted help, I do.<br />
I go straigh to the point.<br />
<br />
I would want to make an own:<br />
#make a page with the info about classes "and the world" and "how to make a class character".<br />
#Then put a link to it in the Classes.<br />
#make links that change pages adn scrolls down to an article. <br />
#learn to make footers<br />
#page for my classes that are adapted for my campaign setting.<br />
<br />
::I've numbered each of the questions you have, and I'll answer them in order. Let me know if you need more detail on any of them<br />
::1. If you want to make a page about classes for your Campaign Setting, just make a standard page for your Campaign setting. If you want, you can use the "Add New Campaign Setting Info" thing that I made [[User_talk:Badger#Help_.28Campaign_Creation.29|here]]. As far as I know there is no codified pre-load for this, so you can just model it off a page that you like, or do it on your own. <br />
::2. Putting a link to it is just like adding any other link. You simply type this code: <nowiki> [[Name_Of_Page | Display Text]]</nowiki>.<br />
::For example, you would probably make the pages named "Classes_(MyCampaign_Supplement)", so your code would say: <nowiki>[[Classes_(MyCampaign_Supplement) | Classes in MyCampaign]]</nowiki>. Naturally, you'll want to replace "MyCampaign" with whatever the name of your campaign is. <br />
::3. Making links that link to a specific section is also pretty easy. You use the same format that you used above for creating a link, and to link to a particular section, you put a #SectionName after the name of the page. For example, if you wanted to make a link to this section, you would write " <nowiki>[[User_Talk:Badger#Help_(Campaign Settings) | Display Text]]</nowiki>.<br />
::4. Making footers is as easy as making a page. First you make a page and put on it whatever you want the footer to say. Name the page something like "Navigation Footer (MyCampaign Supplement)". After that, you just have to include that page at the bottom of every page you want a footer. Only, this time, instead of using brackets like you normally use for a link (These: "[[]]"), use braces (These: "{{}}")<br />
::5. Again, just make a page that's name ends with (MyCampaign Supplement), and put a list of classes and changes. You may find it is easier to make full on tables to show changes, or just text lists of changes. It's up to you.<br />
::One last note, as helpful as I may be with this, [[User:Hooper]] is probably better. He is the one who rates most of the campaign settings, and he is the one who has one of the most complete campaign settings on this wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:47, 30 May 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== For Identification Purposes? ==<br />
<br />
Ok now i'm curious why you moved my page... made it loads of fun to try and find it through my simple input of the address it was sitting at without the variant 3.5 mumbo jumbo.<br />
<br />
I'm just curious why you did it, I understand that there WAS a Dragoon class that was made and deleted for whatever reason... That's why i made it a Dragoon Lancer, there was someone who made a Dragoon that i thought was totally whacked out on ADnD and well I felt it needed a do-over, pouring through the books i found a nice combination that is actually based on pre-existing 3.0 and 3.5 edition material, short of some attack/ Wings purposes it is all based on the rules. I think it works marvelously and when i find the actual balance i would really hope people start picking it up. It was one of my favorite classes in FF Tactics, short of the huge error in missing people because they moved while you were in the air (Huge disappointment there) but getting back on track. I would appreciate a simple explanation, and well some feedback would be nice since you seem to have been the ONLY person on here who has done anything of note to my Dragoon Lancer.<br />
<br />
James<br />
<br />
:Badger didn't mean any offense. All homebrew pages are (supposed to be) appended with an identifying tag such as (3.5e Creature) or (d20M Advanced Class). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:14, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yep, Jazzman summed it up. Sorry for any confusion it may have caused. There should have been a redirect from the old URL to the updated one, I don't know why that wasn't working (but it appears to be working now). I've not actually read the page, but since my vacation has just begun I'll get around to it (sooner or later) and leave some thoughts on the talk page. Once again, sorry for any confusion or trouble this may have caused; I was just following policy.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:24, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well i was really just curious as to the why... since it really didn't seem to have been a part of any of the other classes that i looked at. I have been going through and trying to reflect any changes i've come across and would really like some insight anyone has. [[User:Gainesja|Gainesja]] 04:34, 12 June 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::People are really, really, really, bad about adding those tags, so I'm sure there are many pages floating around that don't have them yet. Though more pages have them than not, so if you haven't seen any yet you must just be really lucky. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 07:40, 12 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I think on that day alone I moved like 3 or 4 other classes and deities. It's just something I do every so often, when I notice a few pages in the recent changes need it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:27, 12 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Admin Nomination==<br />
I hope that you accept the recent nomination for adminship that has been activated for you. Please go to [[Requests for Adminship/Badger]] to reply to the nominee questions. I look forward to seeing the community's thoughts! &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 06:10, 19 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Thank you for your nomination, as well as your support. I accept the nomination, and I look forward to continuing to contribute to the community, either as a administrator, or as a user. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:09, 19 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Welcome to Adminship. You are now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. Honestly, as you will notice, not much has been changed now that you are an admin. If anything, I would say more burden is placed on you. I recommend you take a look at [[Special:ListGroupRights]] if you have not already. Some of the the new features' uses pertaining to D&D Wiki follow. You can now delete pages, protect pages, rollback edits, block users and IP's, edit every page, patrol edits, and do a couple more minor things.<br />
::*Deleting pages is normally done through [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. Anything with a good reason to be deleted on that page should be deleted. The other time pages should be deleted is when someone makes a certain page and after a few edits they either blank the page or replace it with something like "Please delete this". If this page consisted of close to just the preload, just delete it.<br />
::*Protecting pages has quite a few different times when it should be used. Pages should be protected according to the author's wishes (with [[Template:Locked Page]] added to the top of the page in question), in case of conflict (with [[Template:Temp Locked Page]] added to the top of the page in question), in case of [[Help:FAQ#What are OGL, OGC, SRD, and GNU FPL?|OGC]] published materials (with [[Template:OGL Top]] added to the top of the page in question and [[Template:OGL Bottom]] added to the bottom), or finally if the page is a vital part of D&D Wiki's organization. If it deals with D&D Wiki's organization it either needs to be be protected from IP edits or all non-sysop edits. As a rule of thumb pages up to two tiers deep (up for discussion/rethinking) from the [[Main Page]] are normally locked to anyone but sysops and all the others are just protected from IP edits. For Example [[3.5e Homebrew]] is protected from all non-sysop edits whereas a deeper in page like [[LA 0 Races]] is only protected from IP edits. No template needs to be added to pages if they are part of D&D Wiki's organization (even though some do exist like [[Template:Admin Locked Page]])<br />
::*Blocking a user or IP should only be used after an IP or user vandalizes a certain page. To block someone just click "block" (found on [[Special:Recentchanges|RC]], the diff in question, the userpage, etc) and fill out the corresponding form. For a typical vandalism attack I normally block the user for two weeks. Certain things demand a longer block and others a shorter. No standards have been set for block lengths, use your best judgment.<br />
::*Editing every page on D&D Wiki mostly means you can now edit the [[SRD:System Reference Document|SRD]] and the [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|MSRD]]. Feel free to edit them if inaccuracies are found. If interested further please look at the [[SRD Talk:System Reference Document#SRD ToDo List|SRD ToDO List]] or the [[MSRD Talk:Modern System Reference Document#Tasks|MSRD tasks]]. Of course that is only the base. There is never enough help to get everything done, so I am sure your help would be appreciated.<br />
::*Patrolling edits should, in a nutshell, be used when you have looked over an edit and fixed everything that needs to be fixed (this includes reviewing the content with templates, answering questions, etc).<br />
::I know this is really long-winded, so I'll keep the rest short. You have more burden on yourself now that you are an admin because users will be looking at you for editing help, knowledge of the standards, etc. It's a bit more work, but I really hope you enjoy being an admin and I hope you decide to stay around on D&D Wiki for a while more to come. Welcome to Adminship, again you're now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:58, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Modifiers Added, But for future refrence, ==<br />
<br />
what are the modifiers to use? Class, Prestige Class, NPC, Monster, Equipment, Campaign, Quest, Deity, Trait, Flaw, Feat, Spell, Race are the ones i can think of, am i missing any? Also, Is there a way i can set a page to only accept changes that I approve?<br />
<br />
:I've corrected the spelling of the modifiers above (and added a few more). Those are all the ones I can think of off the top of my head (and all the major ones), but I am sure there are more obscure ones. As for your second question, no there is not. However, you can use the "watch" tab, at the top of each page, and any changes that are made to that page will show up in the "my watchlist" page linked in the top right corner of the page (when you're logged in). You can click on "diff" to see the changes made in each edit. This is about as close as you can get to what you want. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:26, 14 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hi I was interested in joining the D&D WIKI but it seams your create account is broken ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was trying to find the webmaster but didn't see a link to leave a message for one. Maybe you can forward this on to her/him/them.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I went to create an account and tried to make an account but it seams to be broken. A box keeps popping up saying type two words to in to prevent span but the silly thing just keeps cycling and won't go away to let you create the account. I tried at least a dozen times to get past it but always comes back. Very frustrating!<br />
<br />
And now the fool thing shows up trying to post this message.<br />
<br />
:Does it mention it is related to CloudFlare ([[D&D Wiki:General disclaimer]])? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:05, 30 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you can give me the exact error message you're getting, that would help immensely. What name are you trying to register? Is it possible that someone has already registered that name? Green Dragon, who responded above me, is the owner/operator of the website, so he's probably your best bet for a fix. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:37, 31 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank You ==<br />
<br />
I wished to thank you for your recent remarks on my page. And to acknowledge your intrinsic and direct approach.<br />
<br />
:Any time? But seriously, I have no idea who you are or what page you're talking about (I've been a whirlwind of edits these past few days), but you're welcome. Let me know if there's anything else you need. In the future, don't forget to sign your posts with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or by pressing the signature button. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:51, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Your deletion of a page was most appreciated.<br />
<br />
:::Oh, well, glad I could help. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:19, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Could you extend your gracious policy upon a few of my other incomplete works?<br />
<br />
:::::Policy says that we're supposed to wait at least 2 weeks before deleting anything. If I've deleted anything sooner than that, I apologize. Most of our to-be-deleted content is months, if not years old, though (so you should have plenty of time). If your content has a delete template, I'll check on the history, and if it looks like you're making progress on it, I'll give it time. If you give me the links you want me to keep an eye out for, I'll get around to checking on them later. Also, if I delete anything that you'd like back, I think can restore it easily (I've never tried, but I know I should be able to). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:29, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I understand. I would like 75% of all my work deleted (noting most is incomplete, and I have no wish to complete 75%). I have only a few articles here; and have a desire to complete the 25%. The other work only hurts my prestige.<br />
<br />
:::::::Right, well, place the code <nowiki>{{delete|~~~~~|Author has abandoned.}}</nowiki> to the top of every incomplete page you don't want to keep, and I'll delete them as I get around to them. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:45, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::It is finished.<br />
<br />
:::::::::Is there a reason that you're signing out and not signing your comments when leaving a message to me, but logging in to edit your pages? You're not trying to hide your identity, are you? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:00, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::No. I simply wanted to make sure you were interested before damming the pages. --[[User:Frankenkesey|Frankenkesey]] 20:12, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Well, it's not policy to delete pages just because the author doesn't want them anymore. Arguably you should be using the "abandoned" template instead, but I've never seen anyone adopt one of those pages and fix it up, so I don't know that it's a very useful template (although it's a good idea). It's my personal belief that we should just delete unfinished and unusable material, rather than letting it stick around as abandoned for years. If your pages don't have enough content for someone else to take and finish up, I'll delete them. However, if they have enough already, I'll swap out delete with abandoned. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:12, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::This maxim sounds fair. --[[User:Frankenkesey|Frankenkesey]] 20:15, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths ==<br />
<br />
Just created the "Master of the twin paths" for 3.5e custom prestige classes. It was moved to "formatting issues" soon after.<br />
<br />
My question is simple, is now officially removed or is it waiting to be checked? If it is removed, how may I improve it to have it added to the homebrew category it fits.<br />
<br />
Also how do I format it correctly?<br />
<br />
with many thanks,<br />
Ryulin18<br />
<br />
You're doing a great job<br />
<br />
:Right, well, good news! Master of the twin paths hasn't been removed, it was just moved (for a totally unrelated reason). You can find you creation [[Master_of_the_Twin_Paths_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|here]]. <br />
<br />
:First off, your page was moved to include an "identifer", which means I added "_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)" to the end of your class name. We use these to keep all our content straight, and every page is supposed to have one.<br />
<br />
:If you check out other Prestige classes, like [[Animal_Lord_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|this one]], you'll notice the bottom has a sort of footer that works as navigation, as well as some categories. You'll want to add those to your page (not those exact ones, but the ones that apply to your class). I'd search through other [[3.5e_Prestige_Classes|prestige classes]] until you find one that seems like yours, and check out what categories you'll want to include. Let me know if you need anything else. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:18, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Tavern ==<br />
<br />
If it existed, you should get on it right now. But it doesn't so... [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:37, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths - Part 2 ==<br />
<br />
Okay. I have added breadcrumbs and the categories! Is it okay now?<br />
<br />
Any advice to get it finished?<br />
<br />
much thanks, Ryulin<br />
<br />
:Alright, well, the cats and breadcrumbs look a lot better now. The next thing I'd say is fluff. Everything always needs more fluff. Well, almost everything. Check out a featured article like [[Deviant_(3.5e_Class)|this one]] for notes on making your page better. If you're committed enough, you can turn your page into a featured article. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:53, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Apologies ==<br />
<br />
Hi Badger,<br />
<br />
I realized that I took my trolling too far yesterday. Seriously, I'm not a jerk like that usually. I have just been using this website as out outlet, so to speak, which is pretty immature. Anyways, I've decided to quit my trolling here altogether and also to stop harboring resentment for Green Dragon and Hooper.<br />
<br />
In the case of Green Dragon, I realized that teasing him may have been fun, it really was a childish way to burn off steam over real life issues.<br />
<br />
In the case of Hooper, I realized that he's just like a lot of other D&D players I've met and gotten along with: he's got a strong personality and reflects that with strong opinions. And really, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Unfortunately, I let situations where I saw him butt horns with other users sway me to dislike him.<br />
<br />
I was logged into a chatroom that both of you were in last night (although I was afk), and although most of your conversation was cut off, I realized that I was being pretty stupid and you are decent guys.<br />
<br />
So, my apologies to you (and Hooper), for the nonsense I stirred up. Cheers. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:15, 31 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:From my administrator standpoint: That was mean, you shouldn't do that. I have half a mind to ban you here and now, regardless of policy.<br />
:From my human being standpoint: Ehh, just don't do it again. <s>At least, not on important pages.</s> I probably over-reacted in my message asking you to cut it out. It wasn't really that big of a deal. No hard feelings, at least on my end. It is my suspicion, though I can't speak for him, that Hooper also thought it was no big thing. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:02, 31 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Master of the twin paths - Part 3 ==<br />
<br />
Added all the fluff I dare to. Can you give me an idea of what to do next before I can have this page legitimized (I'm an English teacher, so using a z there hurt) and sent to my DM?<br />
<br />
I really want this rated...Anyone want to do it?<br />
<br />
== Hey Badger ==<br />
<br />
I saw that you Changed the name of my raze Urgalz to Urgalz (3.5e Race) I forgot to do that and I just wanted to thank you for that. I looked at your the classes that you created and I do sai that the Hooker (3.5e class) is kinda funny at least i haven't lauged so much when I looked at some class. --Baharas 05:54, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, thank you; I'm pretty proud of that Hooker class, even though it's a April Fools class. Don't worry about missing that identifier, lot's people get it wrong the first few times, just try to include it for all the future pages you make. If you've already made pages without identifiers, you can use the "move" tab at the top of that page to move it to a page with the correct identifier. Welcome to the wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:09, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::yeah I noticed when you moved it how to change it and I just noticed that you were a admin so congratulation for that :P <br />
::and I want to ask you: I am creating a class named [[Guardian, Variant2 (3.5e Class)]] why does this look like this?<br />
<br />
:::When the page says "remove this entire line" it means that entire line of text from the edit window, not just everything after it says "remove this line" (so also delete the bit that says <nowiki><nowiki><!- REMOVE THIS ENTIRE LINE</nowiki>). I've fixed it for you, but you can see what I did by checking out [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Guardian,_Variant2_(3.5e_Class)&diff=next&oldid=535771 this diff]. Also, don't forget to sign your posts by typing <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> at the end of your message, or by hitting the signature button in the toolbar (the one that looks like a bunch of loops, second from the end).--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:59, 19 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::yeah sorry about that forgot and thanks for helping me :P --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 02:26, 20 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::No worries, that's why I'm here. Kinda. Mostly. It's why I enjoy being here at least. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 02:34, 20 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Patronage Featured Article? ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Badger. I've put in images on most of my pages for my [[Patronage (4e Campaign Setting)]]. Could you take a look and decide if more is needed to get your vote for Featured Article status?--[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 16:42, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Wow. Those pages look so much better now with pictures, in my opinion. I've changed my vote on the FA nomination accordingly. Good work. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:09, 16 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Image ==<br />
<br />
I just wanted to ask you how can I put Image on my races pages I tryed but it doesent work? --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 05:05, 29 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Uh, well, let me first start by making sure the image you want to upload is legal. Assuming it is, what you have to do is type out <nowiki>[[File:Image_Name.jpg]]</nowiki> and save the changes. Once you've done that, your "image" will show up as a red link. Click on that link. It should take you to a page that will allow you to upload your chosen image. If you've already uploaded the image to our image server, it appear right away, rather than as a red link. If you can show me what image you want to upload, and where it needs to go, I can show you in more detail. As far as I know, that should work. Images tend to go a little wonky every so often, but they seem to be working just fine right now. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:40, 29 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::well I tryed that but it didn't work and here is a link to the pic [http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&q=barbarian#/d1k47mn] and I am trying to put it on [[Urgalz (3.5e Race)]] --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 03:53, 3 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::you don't have to do anything I found out what i was doing wrong and I finally uploaded pic on [[Urgalz (3.5e Race)]] and [[Knasari (3.5e Race)]] --[[User:Baharas|Baharas]] 05:51, 7 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copperwood permission ==<br />
<br />
Hi from new account.<br />
I came across this wiki by accident and just happened to notice a message saying "awaiting permission from copperwood" for a couple of articles.<br />
<br />
Well, I am the one and only copperwood. Those permissions have been waiting for about, ooh, 5 years ago! Bit of a long time, but I created the account on Wizards ages ago to submit those articles and haven't logged back in since they changed to 'D&D Insider'<br />
<br />
If it matters, and the articles are still available, then you have my permission!<br />
<br />
== Greetings Badger ==<br />
<br />
Greeting Badger, this is Lyrad8791. We have talked a bit before on some of my stuff that I have submitted a while back. I was wondering if you had the time to take a look at my sandbox and tell me what you think about my charts there. I also have a second sandbox, which I have dedicated to my world that I am creating. Since the charts didn't fit in with the world itself, I left them in their current location. Anyway, I was hoping I might get some opinions on them, as well as some ideas on how to progress from where I am currently at in my project. If you can think of anyone else who might like to help or would be interested to see what I have thus far, send them over and have them leave a message in the discussion area of either page. The link to the charts is [[User:Lyrad8791/sandbox1#Town_Placement_Charts|here]] and the page for what I currently have on my world is [[User:Lyrad8791/sandbox2|here]]. Thanks for the time you took in reading this, and I hope to hear from you again. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 02:22, 21 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Suggestions and rating help ==<br />
<br />
Ello Badger!<br />
<br />
(insert the badger song -> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI])<br />
<br />
Okay seriously, I need help with getting my custom prestige class rated and commented.<br />
I am a bit of an addict when it comes to feedback and I am having trouble finding the right places to create attention to my works.<br />
Also I have read the forms and guides to a good page but I am not sure I have every thing cowered.<br />
<br />
Could you go my work over? Especially the warhammer 40K boltgun. Cant figure out a nice and fitting way of presenting all the upgrades and ammunition options available.<br />
<br />
Thanks before hand from --<span style="font-family:albertus mt; font-variant:small-caps; margin-left:4px; border:2px solid #501010;"><span style="background:#CA2020; border:3px solid #7B0E0E; padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;">'''[[User:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;">ElvenKingSlave</span>]]'''&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[Exalted Wiki:Human|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="I will drown you in daggers!">Weapons Summoner</span>]]&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[User talk:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="Contact me">Talk</span></span>]]</span> 03:01, 28 November 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Weapon_Summoner_(3.5e_Class)#Class_Features Weapon Summoner(3.5 class)]]<br><br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Boltgun_(3.5e_Equipment) Boltgun(3.5 Equipment)]]<br><br />
[[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lasgun_(3.5e_Equipment) Lasgun(3.5 Equipment)]]<br><br />
<br />
:Right, well, where to begin... <br />
:I'm gonna let you know right now, there are a lot of people on this wiki making content, and virtually no one reviewing it. I'd recommend trying to make connections with other users who seem to be pretty active, and set up a sort of co-op where you keep each other in the loop with your stuff, and constantly rate one another's stuff. I'd give your class a once over, but I'm more than swamped at the moment with real world things. I'll be honest, I've been away for so long now that I'm not even sure who is still very active on the wiki.<br />
:A quick once over says to me that you've done pretty well at formatting most of your stuff. There are a few things, like the NPC on your [[Weapon_Summoner_(3.5e_Class)|Weapon Summoner]] is wonky. My first edit, however, will have to be striking out your rating because you aren't allowed to rate your own stuff. Sorry, it's the rules.<br />
:Other than that, I don't know what to tell you. I'll be free in about two weeks. Send me another message then and I'll see what I can do for you. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:44, 28 November 2011 (MST)<br />
::Thanks :D Thats all I am asking. --<span style="font-family:albertus mt; font-variant:small-caps; margin-left:4px; border:2px solid #501010;"><span style="background:#CA2020; border:3px solid #7B0E0E; padding:0px 5px 0px 5px;">'''[[User:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;">ElvenKingSlave</span>]]'''&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[Exalted Wiki:Human|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="I will drown you in daggers!">Weapons Summoner</span>]]&nbsp;<font color="white">&middot;</font>&nbsp;[[User talk:ElvenKingSlave|<span style="color:gold; font-size:75%;" title="Contact me">Talk</span></span>]]</span> 07:15, 30 November 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== My created items ==<br />
<br />
Badger, could I get you to take a look at the Magic items I created and give me an opinion on them? My friends like them, but I think they are a bit biased. Any critiques would be welcome. They are all listed on my user page. Thanks again. --[[User:Irykyl| Irykyl]] 11:24, 6 March 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
== 2 things ==<br />
<br />
First i would like you to know that i've have added 2 feats under the 3e Feats section (Ambidexterity and Armor Proficiency (Heavy))<br />
<br />
also something seems to be wrong with sending a confirmation email to allow me to send messages to people.<br />
<br />
== Please remove all my material from this wiki ==<br />
<br />
I asked Green Dragon but he refuses. I would like all pages created by me to be deleted from this wiki. The reasons are personal and nobody's business but my own. Thank you for your cooperation. --<span style="font-size:90%;">[[User:ScryersEve|<span title="User page of Scryer's Eve"><span style="color:#006565;">Scryer's</span> <span style="color:#db6700;">Eve</span></span>]] <sup>([[User_talk:ScryersEve|<span style="color:#0053BF!important;" title="Talk page of Scryer's Eve">talk</span>]] | <span title="Contributions of Scryer's Eve">[[Special:Contributions/ScryersEve|<span style="small-caps;color:#0053BF!important;" title="Contributions of Scryer's Eve">contribs</span>]])</span></sup> 15:56, 26 March 2012 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Sorry, but according to policy I'm not allowed to do that. Is it a silly policy? Probably. Do I like that policy? I can't think of a time I have. Do I have to follow it? Tragically. I'm not going to bother asking why you don't want your stuff on the wiki anymore, as it doesn't really matter, but there's nothing I can do. The way I see it, you have two options: First, you can stick around and try and petition the rule change so that your content can be removed. If you can show (through history) that no one else has modified the content you uploaded, that would go a long way to showing that you'd not be removing anyone else's contributions (in my mind at least). Option two is to just walk away angry. It's a pretty lame option, but it's what might happen anyway. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:47, 26 March 2012 (MDT)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Badger/sandbox16&diff=548141User:Badger/sandbox162012-01-25T23:47:00Z<p>Badger: </p>
<hr />
<div>{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <div style="color: #000000;"><br />
<choose><br />
<option><br />
[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
===[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]===<br />
Reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]], the ultimate goal of the [[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]] is to avoid death, and the clutches of the Raven Queen. To this end, the Graveborn seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. <br />
<br />
Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, many graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Some try to drown out the voices with arcane music. Others still prefer the demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Graveborn often seem distant, or unapproachable, as they harbor no memories of their former lives, and even find it difficult to retain recent memories.<br />
<br />
'''Category:''' [[4e_Races|4e Race]]<br><br />
'''Keyword:''' [[:Category:Undead_Keyword|Undead]]<br><br />
'''First featured:''' Jan. 24, 2012<br><br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[File:Derro.jpg|250px|thumb|A [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|derro venomblade]] infiltrating the surface..]]<br />
===[[Derro (4e Creature)|Derro]]===<br />
Due either to their eccentric creator or to their unusual heritage, the Derro are naturally quite deviant. Actions of their ancestors caused the lands of the derro to lie in what is now known as the Underdark. Derro are worshipers of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]], the patron deity of betrayal, cruelty, insanity, knowledge, madness, and treachery.<br />
<br />
There exist many different sub-types of Derro, owing to the chaotic society in which most live. Some Derro overwhelm their opponents with vicious howls and shrieks, while others resort to magic they can barely control. Some more practiced spellcasters among the Derro can become incredibly powerful in the arcane arts, but others will become clerics of their twisted God, granting them even more power.<br />
<br />
'''Category:''' [[4e_Creatures|4e Creature]]<br><br />
'''See Also:''' [[Derro_(4e_Race)|Derro (4e Race)]]<br><br />
'''First featured:''' June 8, 2011<br><br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Blood Knight-2.jpg|350px|thumb|A [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knight]] sits atop his horse after the feast.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|Blood knights]]''' are an order of nongood knights dedicated to the service of vampirekind. Normally they can be found under a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire's]] servitude, acting as its assassins, battlefield commanders, battlefield guards, or sentries. By feasting on the fresh blood of fallen creatures [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knights]] gain use of special abilities that resemble those of the vampires. The blood knights' forefront combat-focus, servitude, and special actions make them valuable to those they cooperate with.<br />
<br />
'''Category:''' [[3.5e_Prestige_Classes|3.5e Prestige Class]]<br><br />
'''Descriptors:''' [[:Category:Combat-Focused|Combat Focused]], [[:Category:Bad_Guy|Bad Guy]]<br><br />
'''First featured:''' Jan 7, 2011<br><br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Rock Worm by Hall.jpg|215px|thumb|A gargantuan [[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|rock worm]] bursting out of the ground.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|Rock worms]]''' are subterranean dwellers. They are about 40 feet long, 5 feet in diameter, and weigh about 50 tons. They look like regular earthworms although they are exorbitantly larger and have an extremely tough hide composed from rock and calloused flesh, which covers them entirely. Rock worms can burrow through stone, but they are normally found in areas consisting of softer soils such as desert, beach sands, or grassland dirt.<br />
<br />
These creatures are sometimes carnivorous. Therefore they can be found burrowing and creating tunnel-networks around civilizations, destroying the built environments' support and making their eradication necessary. The problem for surface-dwellers is increased by the issue that, when they feel threatened, rock worms may create minor earthquakes around themselves, knocking down some buildings and damaging others.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Dire Celestial Lion by Wei-Che Juan.png|215px|thumb|A [[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lion]] on a vantage point in deep fog.]]<br />
A pride of '''[[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lions]]''' (lions) consists of related females and offspring and a small number of adult males. Groups of female lions typically hunt together, preying mostly on large ungulates. The lion is an apex and keystone predator, although they will scavenge if the opportunity arises. While lions do not typically hunt humans selectively, some have been known to become man-eaters and seek human prey.<br />
<br />
Lions spend much of their time resting and are inactive for about 20 hours per day. Although lions can be active at any time, their activity generally peaks after dusk with a period of socializing and grooming. Lionesses do most of the hunting; with each lioness having a favored position in the hunt, either stalking prey on the "wing" then attacking, or moving a smaller distance in the center of the group and capturing prey in flight from other lionesses.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Deviant.jpg|thumb|An old [[Deviant (3.5e Class)|deviant]], reading and mulling.]]<br />
'''[[Deviant (3.5e Class)|Deviants]]''' aren't combatants, nor are they handymen. They are observers of the highest tier, seeking patterns in life and distilling their experiences to gain knowledge. They devote their lives to study of the ever shifting universe, and through learning and experiences that may be religious, enlightening, ascetical or even purely for the self, the deviant gains unfathomable understanding of the world.<br />
<br />
Tellers, travelers, wanderers, ascetics, pacifists, chroniclers, loremasters, seekers and doers. The deviant is it all, using their profound perceptive qualities in order to help their comrades. A deviant sees many things that other people can't, and uses his innate emanations in order to strengthen or defend.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Elf1.jpg|thumb|A female sylvan [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elf]].]]<br />
'''[[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|Elves]]''' love and revere the natural world. This, combined with their eternal life spans, enables them to perceive much more in Nature than those of mortal birth could ever hope to. Some [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] dwell deep in the forests, others beside tranquil oceans, others ın mountain caves, and even others in ancient cities hewn of shining white stones. No matter where they may live, all [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] are graceful, emotional, fair and kind. They are one of a few races who are a great bastion against evil, as they are known to rise to the defense of the suffering far more than any other.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Living_Dead.JPG|thumb|The profile view of a slain [[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]].]]<br />
The '''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]]''' appear very similar to regular [[4e Index (4e Other)#Zombie|zombies]], however they are not [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]] in the standard sense. Instead of having died and then been re-animated, the living dead have been infected with ''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living death]]'', an extremely contagious disease and a virulent toxin to the already living.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:WolfSpider.jpg|thumb|A spider rider's mount]]<br />
Masters of mounted combat, [[Spider Rider (DnD Prestige Class)|spider riders]] are the favored servants of Lolth and Arachne. They are totally obsessed with spiders: their minds, bodies and souls are tied up to the arachnids.<br />
</option><br />
[[Image:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg|thumb|A once mighty temple that has fallen to ruin under the rein of [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]].]]<br />
[[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is a goddess of evil, sloth, selfishness, lust, and irresponsibility. She teaches that there is no right save for what makes one feel good and no wrong except for what prevents one from feeling good.<br />
</option><br />
</choose><br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
<!----- MAIN PAGE MODIFIED CODE -----><br />
<br />
<!-----<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; border: 1px solid #000000; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="65%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Welcome To D&D Wiki!</div><br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="column"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
;<big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
;4th Edition<br />
* [[4e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=4e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Revised 3rd Edition<br />
* [[3.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|category=DnD|allowcachedresults=true|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[3.5e Open Game Content|Open Game Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published under the OGL. A work in progress. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD¦Unearthed Arcana|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;3rd Edition<br />
* [[SRD3e:System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">A work in progress. Please help transcribe pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD|category=3e|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Acquired Advanced 2nd Edition<br />
* [[2.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=2.5e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Publications<br />
* [[Publication List]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Unfinished list of all d20 products in every edition. Please help compile pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=Publication|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=D20M|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published by WotC that are allowed to be on D&D Wiki. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=MSRD|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>Administration</big><br />
* [[Meta Pages]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.</div><br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
| width="35%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Featured Article</div><br />
<div style="color: #000000; text-align: center;">([[Featured Articles|all featured articles]] | [[Featured Articles#Featured Article Nominees|nominate an article]])</div><br />
{{User:Badger/sandbox16}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="2" |<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="50%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">[[Image:hp_news.gif|right]]Recent News:</div><br />
{{News}}<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
-----></div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Badger/sandbox16&diff=548140User:Badger/sandbox162012-01-25T23:46:08Z<p>Badger: done with the first three, I think...</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
<!-----<br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <div style="color: #000000;"><br />
<choose><br />
<option><br />
[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
===[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]===<br />
Reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]], the ultimate goal of the [[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]] is to avoid death, and the clutches of the Raven Queen. To this end, the Graveborn seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. <br />
<br />
Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, many graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Some try to drown out the voices with arcane music. Others still prefer the demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Graveborn often seem distant, or unapproachable, as they harbor no memories of their former lives, and even find it difficult to retain recent memories.<br />
<br />
'''Category:''' [[4e_Races|4e Race]]<br><br />
'''Keyword:''' [[:Category:Undead_Keyword|Undead]]<br><br />
'''First featured:''' Jan. 24, 2012<br><br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[File:Derro.jpg|250px|thumb|A [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|derro venomblade]] infiltrating the surface..]]<br />
===[[Derro (4e Creature)|Derro]]===<br />
Due either to their eccentric creator or to their unusual heritage, the Derro are naturally quite deviant. Actions of their ancestors caused the lands of the derro to lie in what is now known as the Underdark. Derro are worshipers of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]], the patron deity of betrayal, cruelty, insanity, knowledge, madness, and treachery.<br />
<br />
There exist many different sub-types of Derro, owing to the chaotic society in which most live. Some Derro overwhelm their opponents with vicious howls and shrieks, while others resort to magic they can barely control. Some more practiced spellcasters among the Derro can become incredibly powerful in the arcane arts, but others will become clerics of their twisted God, granting them even more power.<br />
<br />
'''Category:''' [[4e_Creatures|4e Creature]]<br><br />
'''See Also:''' [[Derro_(4e_Race)|Derro (4e Race)]]<br><br />
'''First featured:''' June 8, 2011<br><br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Blood Knight-2.jpg|350px|thumb|A [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knight]] sits atop his horse after the feast.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|Blood knights]]''' are an order of nongood knights dedicated to the service of vampirekind. Normally they can be found under a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire's]] servitude, acting as its assassins, battlefield commanders, battlefield guards, or sentries. By feasting on the fresh blood of fallen creatures [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knights]] gain use of special abilities that resemble those of the vampires. The blood knights' forefront combat-focus, servitude, and special actions make them valuable to those they cooperate with.<br />
<br />
'''Category:''' [[3.5e_Prestige_Classes|3.5e Prestige Class]]<br><br />
'''Descriptors:''' [[:Category:Combat-Focused|Combat Focused]], [[:Category:Bad_Guy|Bad Guy]]<br><br />
'''First featured:''' Jan 7, 2011<br><br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Rock Worm by Hall.jpg|215px|thumb|A gargantuan [[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|rock worm]] bursting out of the ground.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|Rock worms]]''' are subterranean dwellers. They are about 40 feet long, 5 feet in diameter, and weigh about 50 tons. They look like regular earthworms although they are exorbitantly larger and have an extremely tough hide composed from rock and calloused flesh, which covers them entirely. Rock worms can burrow through stone, but they are normally found in areas consisting of softer soils such as desert, beach sands, or grassland dirt.<br />
<br />
These creatures are sometimes carnivorous. Therefore they can be found burrowing and creating tunnel-networks around civilizations, destroying the built environments' support and making their eradication necessary. The problem for surface-dwellers is increased by the issue that, when they feel threatened, rock worms may create minor earthquakes around themselves, knocking down some buildings and damaging others.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Dire Celestial Lion by Wei-Che Juan.png|215px|thumb|A [[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lion]] on a vantage point in deep fog.]]<br />
A pride of '''[[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lions]]''' (lions) consists of related females and offspring and a small number of adult males. Groups of female lions typically hunt together, preying mostly on large ungulates. The lion is an apex and keystone predator, although they will scavenge if the opportunity arises. While lions do not typically hunt humans selectively, some have been known to become man-eaters and seek human prey.<br />
<br />
Lions spend much of their time resting and are inactive for about 20 hours per day. Although lions can be active at any time, their activity generally peaks after dusk with a period of socializing and grooming. Lionesses do most of the hunting; with each lioness having a favored position in the hunt, either stalking prey on the "wing" then attacking, or moving a smaller distance in the center of the group and capturing prey in flight from other lionesses.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Deviant.jpg|thumb|An old [[Deviant (3.5e Class)|deviant]], reading and mulling.]]<br />
'''[[Deviant (3.5e Class)|Deviants]]''' aren't combatants, nor are they handymen. They are observers of the highest tier, seeking patterns in life and distilling their experiences to gain knowledge. They devote their lives to study of the ever shifting universe, and through learning and experiences that may be religious, enlightening, ascetical or even purely for the self, the deviant gains unfathomable understanding of the world.<br />
<br />
Tellers, travelers, wanderers, ascetics, pacifists, chroniclers, loremasters, seekers and doers. The deviant is it all, using their profound perceptive qualities in order to help their comrades. A deviant sees many things that other people can't, and uses his innate emanations in order to strengthen or defend.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Elf1.jpg|thumb|A female sylvan [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elf]].]]<br />
'''[[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|Elves]]''' love and revere the natural world. This, combined with their eternal life spans, enables them to perceive much more in Nature than those of mortal birth could ever hope to. Some [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] dwell deep in the forests, others beside tranquil oceans, others ın mountain caves, and even others in ancient cities hewn of shining white stones. No matter where they may live, all [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] are graceful, emotional, fair and kind. They are one of a few races who are a great bastion against evil, as they are known to rise to the defense of the suffering far more than any other.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Living_Dead.JPG|thumb|The profile view of a slain [[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]].]]<br />
The '''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]]''' appear very similar to regular [[4e Index (4e Other)#Zombie|zombies]], however they are not [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]] in the standard sense. Instead of having died and then been re-animated, the living dead have been infected with ''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living death]]'', an extremely contagious disease and a virulent toxin to the already living.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:WolfSpider.jpg|thumb|A spider rider's mount]]<br />
Masters of mounted combat, [[Spider Rider (DnD Prestige Class)|spider riders]] are the favored servants of Lolth and Arachne. They are totally obsessed with spiders: their minds, bodies and souls are tied up to the arachnids.<br />
</option><br />
[[Image:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg|thumb|A once mighty temple that has fallen to ruin under the rein of [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]].]]<br />
[[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is a goddess of evil, sloth, selfishness, lust, and irresponsibility. She teaches that there is no right save for what makes one feel good and no wrong except for what prevents one from feeling good.<br />
</option><br />
</choose><br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
------><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<!----- MAIN PAGE MODIFIED CODE -----><br />
<br />
<!-----<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; border: 1px solid #000000; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="65%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Welcome To D&D Wiki!</div><br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="column"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
;<big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
;4th Edition<br />
* [[4e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=4e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Revised 3rd Edition<br />
* [[3.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|category=DnD|allowcachedresults=true|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[3.5e Open Game Content|Open Game Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published under the OGL. A work in progress. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD¦Unearthed Arcana|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;3rd Edition<br />
* [[SRD3e:System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">A work in progress. Please help transcribe pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD|category=3e|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Acquired Advanced 2nd Edition<br />
* [[2.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=2.5e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Publications<br />
* [[Publication List]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Unfinished list of all d20 products in every edition. Please help compile pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=Publication|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=D20M|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published by WotC that are allowed to be on D&D Wiki. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=MSRD|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>Administration</big><br />
* [[Meta Pages]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.</div><br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
| width="35%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Featured Article</div><br />
<div style="color: #000000; text-align: center;">([[Featured Articles|all featured articles]] | [[Featured Articles#Featured Article Nominees|nominate an article]])</div><br />
{{User:Badger/sandbox16}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="2" |<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="50%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">[[Image:hp_news.gif|right]]Recent News:</div><br />
{{News}}<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
-----></div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Badger/sandbox16&diff=548133User:Badger/sandbox162012-01-25T23:13:52Z<p>Badger: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
===[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]===<br />
Reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]], the ultimate goal of the [[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]] is to avoid death, and the clutches of the Raven Queen. To this end, the Graveborn seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. <br />
<br />
Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, many graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Some try to drown out the voices with arcane music. Others still prefer the demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Graveborn often seem distant, or unapproachable, as they harbor no memories of their former lives, and even find it difficult to retain recent memories.<br />
<br />
'''Category:''' [[4e_Races|4e Race]]<br><br />
'''Keyword:''' [[:Category:Undead_Keyword|Undead]]<br><br />
'''First featured:''' Jan. 24, 2012<br><br />
<br />
<!-----<br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <div style="color: #000000;"><br />
<choose><br />
<option><br />
[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]''' were reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]]. Their ultimate goal is to avoid what she once escaped, death and the clutches of the Raven Queen, and seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, some graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Others try to drown them out with arcane music or the more preferable, though demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Since they harbor no memories of their former lives and find it difficult to retain even recent memories graveborn are often distant and unapproachable, even to those who have known them for decades.<br />
<br />
As an [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]], [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] live differently than other races and have no need to eat, drink, or breathe. They are usually similar in appearance to human zombies, but occasionally resemble other [[4e Races|races]]. Their skin is almost always rotted. Graveborn are unnaturally gaunt and underweight, giving the impression of a withered or decaying corpse that shouldn't naturally be able to move, and they always smell somewhat stale. Even so they often wear concealing clothing such as cloaks and hooded robes, and it is not difficult to mistake one for a living person under the right disguise.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[File:Derro.jpg|250px|thumb|A [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|derro venomblade]] infiltrating the surface..]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Derro (4e Creature)|Derro]]''' are naturally deviant because of their unusual heritage and their creator. Actions of their ancestors caused the lands of the derro to lie in the Underdark today. Derro are worshipers of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]], the patron deity of betrayal, cruelty, insanity, knowledge, madness, and treachery.<br />
<br />
Since [[Derro (4e Creature)|derro]] are regarded as enemies by most other races, save for a few they may make agreements with, they are usually only accompanied by a handful of their kin. Often, the only races which accompany them are enslaved. The chaotic society they form precludes any orderly hierarchy, leading to one where all sorts of derro prevail. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Vocalist|Vocalists]] shriek and howl nearly constantly, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Madguard|madguards]] serve as heads of command for small groups of derro, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Mindscar|mindscars]] overpower and imitate opponents, and [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|venomblades]] perform subterfuge. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Savant, Variant|Savants']] power comes from the chaotic forces of their own minds while [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Lunatic Priest|lunatic priests]] are more concerned with spreading the mad word of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]] than their own lives.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Blood Knight-2.jpg|350px|thumb|A [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knight]] sits atop his horse after the feast.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|Blood knights]]''' are an order of nongood knights dedicated to the service of vampirekind. Normally they can be found under a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire's]] servitude, acting as its assassins, battlefield commanders, battlefield guards, sentries, or a source of its gathered information. Others can be found serving vampirekind.<br />
<br />
By feasting on the fresh blood of fallen creatures [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knights]] gain use of special abilities that resemble [[SRD:Vampire|vampires']] natures. Their forefront combat-focus, servitude, and special actions make them valuable to those they cooperate with. Others find them to have a quite frightening presence; wearing dark, blood-stained armor and surrounded by necromantic magic the first instinct of most ordinary people is to flee in terror. The most powerful blood knights are vampires.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Rock Worm by Hall.jpg|215px|thumb|A gargantuan [[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|rock worm]] bursting out of the ground.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|Rock worms]]''' are subterranean dwellers. They are about 40 feet long, 5 feet in diameter, and weigh about 50 tons. They look like regular earthworms although they are exorbitantly larger and have an extremely tough hide composed from rock and calloused flesh, which covers them entirely. Rock worms can burrow through stone, but they are normally found in areas consisting of softer soils such as desert, beach sands, or grassland dirt.<br />
<br />
These creatures are sometimes carnivorous. Therefore they can be found burrowing and creating tunnel-networks around civilizations, destroying the built environments' support and making their eradication necessary. The problem for surface-dwellers is increased by the issue that, when they feel threatened, rock worms may create minor earthquakes around themselves, knocking down some buildings and damaging others.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Dire Celestial Lion by Wei-Che Juan.png|215px|thumb|A [[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lion]] on a vantage point in deep fog.]]<br />
A pride of '''[[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lions]]''' (lions) consists of related females and offspring and a small number of adult males. Groups of female lions typically hunt together, preying mostly on large ungulates. The lion is an apex and keystone predator, although they will scavenge if the opportunity arises. While lions do not typically hunt humans selectively, some have been known to become man-eaters and seek human prey.<br />
<br />
Lions spend much of their time resting and are inactive for about 20 hours per day. Although lions can be active at any time, their activity generally peaks after dusk with a period of socializing and grooming. Lionesses do most of the hunting; with each lioness having a favored position in the hunt, either stalking prey on the "wing" then attacking, or moving a smaller distance in the center of the group and capturing prey in flight from other lionesses.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Deviant.jpg|thumb|An old [[Deviant (3.5e Class)|deviant]], reading and mulling.]]<br />
'''[[Deviant (3.5e Class)|Deviants]]''' aren't combatants, nor are they handymen. They are observers of the highest tier, seeking patterns in life and distilling their experiences to gain knowledge. They devote their lives to study of the ever shifting universe, and through learning and experiences that may be religious, enlightening, ascetical or even purely for the self, the deviant gains unfathomable understanding of the world.<br />
<br />
Tellers, travelers, wanderers, ascetics, pacifists, chroniclers, loremasters, seekers and doers. The deviant is it all, using their profound perceptive qualities in order to help their comrades. A deviant sees many things that other people can't, and uses his innate emanations in order to strengthen or defend.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Elf1.jpg|thumb|A female sylvan [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elf]].]]<br />
'''[[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|Elves]]''' love and revere the natural world. This, combined with their eternal life spans, enables them to perceive much more in Nature than those of mortal birth could ever hope to. Some [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] dwell deep in the forests, others beside tranquil oceans, others ın mountain caves, and even others in ancient cities hewn of shining white stones. No matter where they may live, all [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] are graceful, emotional, fair and kind. They are one of a few races who are a great bastion against evil, as they are known to rise to the defense of the suffering far more than any other.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Living_Dead.JPG|thumb|The profile view of a slain [[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]].]]<br />
The '''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]]''' appear very similar to regular [[4e Index (4e Other)#Zombie|zombies]], however they are not [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]] in the standard sense. Instead of having died and then been re-animated, the living dead have been infected with ''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living death]]'', an extremely contagious disease and a virulent toxin to the already living.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:WolfSpider.jpg|thumb|A spider rider's mount]]<br />
Masters of mounted combat, [[Spider Rider (DnD Prestige Class)|spider riders]] are the favored servants of Lolth and Arachne. They are totally obsessed with spiders: their minds, bodies and souls are tied up to the arachnids.<br />
</option><br />
[[Image:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg|thumb|A once mighty temple that has fallen to ruin under the rein of [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]].]]<br />
[[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is a goddess of evil, sloth, selfishness, lust, and irresponsibility. She teaches that there is no right save for what makes one feel good and no wrong except for what prevents one from feeling good.<br />
</option><br />
</choose><br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
------><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<!----- MAIN PAGE MODIFIED CODE -----><br />
<br />
<!-----<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; border: 1px solid #000000; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="65%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Welcome To D&D Wiki!</div><br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="column"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
;<big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
;4th Edition<br />
* [[4e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=4e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Revised 3rd Edition<br />
* [[3.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|category=DnD|allowcachedresults=true|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[3.5e Open Game Content|Open Game Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published under the OGL. A work in progress. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD¦Unearthed Arcana|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;3rd Edition<br />
* [[SRD3e:System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">A work in progress. Please help transcribe pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD|category=3e|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Acquired Advanced 2nd Edition<br />
* [[2.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=2.5e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Publications<br />
* [[Publication List]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Unfinished list of all d20 products in every edition. Please help compile pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=Publication|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=D20M|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published by WotC that are allowed to be on D&D Wiki. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=MSRD|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>Administration</big><br />
* [[Meta Pages]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.</div><br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
| width="35%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Featured Article</div><br />
<div style="color: #000000; text-align: center;">([[Featured Articles|all featured articles]] | [[Featured Articles#Featured Article Nominees|nominate an article]])</div><br />
{{User:Badger/sandbox16}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="2" |<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="50%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">[[Image:hp_news.gif|right]]Recent News:</div><br />
{{News}}<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
-----></div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=D%26D_Wiki:Sandbox&diff=548132D&D Wiki:Sandbox2012-01-25T23:12:05Z<p>Badger: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is a sandbox. It will be periodically cleaned. Play around in this sandbox to see how things look, however please do not edit above the line!<br />
<br />
<br />
''Last cleaned by [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] on 17:56, 15 January 2012 (MST)<br />
---- <!-- This is the line --><br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; border: 1px solid #000000; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="65%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Welcome To D&D Wiki!</div><br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="column"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
;<big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
;4th Edition<br />
* [[4e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=4e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Revised 3rd Edition<br />
* [[3.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|category=DnD|allowcachedresults=true|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[3.5e Open Game Content|Open Game Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published under the OGL. A work in progress. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD¦Unearthed Arcana|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;3rd Edition<br />
* [[SRD3e:System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">A work in progress. Please help transcribe pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD|category=3e|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Acquired Advanced 2nd Edition<br />
* [[2.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=2.5e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Publications<br />
* [[Publication List]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Unfinished list of all d20 products in every edition. Please help compile pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=Publication|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=D20M|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published by WotC that are allowed to be on D&D Wiki. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=MSRD|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>Administration</big><br />
* [[Meta Pages]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.</div><br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
| width="35%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Featured Article</div><br />
<div style="color: #000000; text-align: center;">([[Featured Articles|all featured articles]] | [[Featured Articles#Featured Article Nominees|nominate an article]])</div><br />
<div style="color: #000000;">{{User:Badger/sandbox16}}</div><br />
|-<br />
| colspan="2" |<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="50%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">[[Image:hp_news.gif|right]]Recent News:</div><br />
{{News}}<br />
|}<br />
|}</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=D%26D_Wiki:Sandbox&diff=548131D&D Wiki:Sandbox2012-01-25T23:09:44Z<p>Badger: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is a sandbox. It will be periodically cleaned. Play around in this sandbox to see how things look, however please do not edit above the line!<br />
<br />
<br />
''Last cleaned by [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] on 17:56, 15 January 2012 (MST)<br />
---- <!-- This is the line --><br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; border: 1px solid #000000; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="65%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Welcome To D&D Wiki!</div><br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="column"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
;<big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
;4th Edition<br />
* [[4e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=4e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Revised 3rd Edition<br />
* [[3.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|category=DnD|allowcachedresults=true|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[3.5e Open Game Content|Open Game Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published under the OGL. A work in progress. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD¦Unearthed Arcana|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;3rd Edition<br />
* [[SRD3e:System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">A work in progress. Please help transcribe pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD|category=3e|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Acquired Advanced 2nd Edition<br />
* [[2.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=2.5e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Publications<br />
* [[Publication List]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Unfinished list of all d20 products in every edition. Please help compile pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=Publication|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=D20M|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published by WotC that are allowed to be on D&D Wiki. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=MSRD|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>Administration</big><br />
* [[Meta Pages]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.</div><br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
| width="35%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Featured Article</div><br />
<div style="color: #000000; text-align: center;">([[Featured Articles|all featured articles]] | [[Featured Articles#Featured Article Nominees|nominate an article]])</div><br />
<div style="color: #000000;"{{User:Badger/sandbox16}}</div><br />
|-<br />
| colspan="2" |<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="50%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">[[Image:hp_news.gif|right]]Recent News:</div><br />
{{News}}<br />
|}<br />
|}</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Badger/sandbox16&diff=548130User:Badger/sandbox162012-01-25T23:08:44Z<p>Badger: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
===[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]===<br />
Reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]], the ultimate goal of the [[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]] is to avoid death, and the clutches of the Raven Queen. To this end, the Graveborn seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, many graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Some try to drown out the voices with arcane music. Others still prefer the demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Graveborn are often seem distant and unapproachable as they harbor no memories of their former lives, and find it difficult to retain even recent memories.<br />
<br />
'''Category:''' [[4e_Races|4e Race]]<br><br />
'''Keyword:''' [[:Category:Undead_Keyword|Undead]]<br><br />
'''First featured:''' Jan. 24, 2012<br><br />
<br />
<!-----<br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <div style="color: #000000;"><br />
<choose><br />
<option><br />
[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]''' were reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]]. Their ultimate goal is to avoid what she once escaped, death and the clutches of the Raven Queen, and seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, some graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Others try to drown them out with arcane music or the more preferable, though demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Since they harbor no memories of their former lives and find it difficult to retain even recent memories graveborn are often distant and unapproachable, even to those who have known them for decades.<br />
<br />
As an [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]], [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] live differently than other races and have no need to eat, drink, or breathe. They are usually similar in appearance to human zombies, but occasionally resemble other [[4e Races|races]]. Their skin is almost always rotted. Graveborn are unnaturally gaunt and underweight, giving the impression of a withered or decaying corpse that shouldn't naturally be able to move, and they always smell somewhat stale. Even so they often wear concealing clothing such as cloaks and hooded robes, and it is not difficult to mistake one for a living person under the right disguise.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[File:Derro.jpg|250px|thumb|A [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|derro venomblade]] infiltrating the surface..]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Derro (4e Creature)|Derro]]''' are naturally deviant because of their unusual heritage and their creator. Actions of their ancestors caused the lands of the derro to lie in the Underdark today. Derro are worshipers of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]], the patron deity of betrayal, cruelty, insanity, knowledge, madness, and treachery.<br />
<br />
Since [[Derro (4e Creature)|derro]] are regarded as enemies by most other races, save for a few they may make agreements with, they are usually only accompanied by a handful of their kin. Often, the only races which accompany them are enslaved. The chaotic society they form precludes any orderly hierarchy, leading to one where all sorts of derro prevail. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Vocalist|Vocalists]] shriek and howl nearly constantly, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Madguard|madguards]] serve as heads of command for small groups of derro, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Mindscar|mindscars]] overpower and imitate opponents, and [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|venomblades]] perform subterfuge. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Savant, Variant|Savants']] power comes from the chaotic forces of their own minds while [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Lunatic Priest|lunatic priests]] are more concerned with spreading the mad word of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]] than their own lives.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Blood Knight-2.jpg|350px|thumb|A [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knight]] sits atop his horse after the feast.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|Blood knights]]''' are an order of nongood knights dedicated to the service of vampirekind. Normally they can be found under a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire's]] servitude, acting as its assassins, battlefield commanders, battlefield guards, sentries, or a source of its gathered information. Others can be found serving vampirekind.<br />
<br />
By feasting on the fresh blood of fallen creatures [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knights]] gain use of special abilities that resemble [[SRD:Vampire|vampires']] natures. Their forefront combat-focus, servitude, and special actions make them valuable to those they cooperate with. Others find them to have a quite frightening presence; wearing dark, blood-stained armor and surrounded by necromantic magic the first instinct of most ordinary people is to flee in terror. The most powerful blood knights are vampires.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Rock Worm by Hall.jpg|215px|thumb|A gargantuan [[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|rock worm]] bursting out of the ground.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|Rock worms]]''' are subterranean dwellers. They are about 40 feet long, 5 feet in diameter, and weigh about 50 tons. They look like regular earthworms although they are exorbitantly larger and have an extremely tough hide composed from rock and calloused flesh, which covers them entirely. Rock worms can burrow through stone, but they are normally found in areas consisting of softer soils such as desert, beach sands, or grassland dirt.<br />
<br />
These creatures are sometimes carnivorous. Therefore they can be found burrowing and creating tunnel-networks around civilizations, destroying the built environments' support and making their eradication necessary. The problem for surface-dwellers is increased by the issue that, when they feel threatened, rock worms may create minor earthquakes around themselves, knocking down some buildings and damaging others.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Dire Celestial Lion by Wei-Che Juan.png|215px|thumb|A [[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lion]] on a vantage point in deep fog.]]<br />
A pride of '''[[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lions]]''' (lions) consists of related females and offspring and a small number of adult males. Groups of female lions typically hunt together, preying mostly on large ungulates. The lion is an apex and keystone predator, although they will scavenge if the opportunity arises. While lions do not typically hunt humans selectively, some have been known to become man-eaters and seek human prey.<br />
<br />
Lions spend much of their time resting and are inactive for about 20 hours per day. Although lions can be active at any time, their activity generally peaks after dusk with a period of socializing and grooming. Lionesses do most of the hunting; with each lioness having a favored position in the hunt, either stalking prey on the "wing" then attacking, or moving a smaller distance in the center of the group and capturing prey in flight from other lionesses.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Deviant.jpg|thumb|An old [[Deviant (3.5e Class)|deviant]], reading and mulling.]]<br />
'''[[Deviant (3.5e Class)|Deviants]]''' aren't combatants, nor are they handymen. They are observers of the highest tier, seeking patterns in life and distilling their experiences to gain knowledge. They devote their lives to study of the ever shifting universe, and through learning and experiences that may be religious, enlightening, ascetical or even purely for the self, the deviant gains unfathomable understanding of the world.<br />
<br />
Tellers, travelers, wanderers, ascetics, pacifists, chroniclers, loremasters, seekers and doers. The deviant is it all, using their profound perceptive qualities in order to help their comrades. A deviant sees many things that other people can't, and uses his innate emanations in order to strengthen or defend.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Elf1.jpg|thumb|A female sylvan [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elf]].]]<br />
'''[[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|Elves]]''' love and revere the natural world. This, combined with their eternal life spans, enables them to perceive much more in Nature than those of mortal birth could ever hope to. Some [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] dwell deep in the forests, others beside tranquil oceans, others ın mountain caves, and even others in ancient cities hewn of shining white stones. No matter where they may live, all [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] are graceful, emotional, fair and kind. They are one of a few races who are a great bastion against evil, as they are known to rise to the defense of the suffering far more than any other.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Living_Dead.JPG|thumb|The profile view of a slain [[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]].]]<br />
The '''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]]''' appear very similar to regular [[4e Index (4e Other)#Zombie|zombies]], however they are not [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]] in the standard sense. Instead of having died and then been re-animated, the living dead have been infected with ''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living death]]'', an extremely contagious disease and a virulent toxin to the already living.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:WolfSpider.jpg|thumb|A spider rider's mount]]<br />
Masters of mounted combat, [[Spider Rider (DnD Prestige Class)|spider riders]] are the favored servants of Lolth and Arachne. They are totally obsessed with spiders: their minds, bodies and souls are tied up to the arachnids.<br />
</option><br />
[[Image:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg|thumb|A once mighty temple that has fallen to ruin under the rein of [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]].]]<br />
[[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is a goddess of evil, sloth, selfishness, lust, and irresponsibility. She teaches that there is no right save for what makes one feel good and no wrong except for what prevents one from feeling good.<br />
</option><br />
</choose><br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
------><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<!----- MAIN PAGE MODIFIED CODE -----><br />
<br />
<!-----<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; border: 1px solid #000000; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="65%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Welcome To D&D Wiki!</div><br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="column"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
;<big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
;4th Edition<br />
* [[4e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=4e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Revised 3rd Edition<br />
* [[3.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|category=DnD|allowcachedresults=true|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[3.5e Open Game Content|Open Game Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published under the OGL. A work in progress. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD¦Unearthed Arcana|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;3rd Edition<br />
* [[SRD3e:System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">A work in progress. Please help transcribe pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD|category=3e|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Acquired Advanced 2nd Edition<br />
* [[2.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=2.5e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Publications<br />
* [[Publication List]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Unfinished list of all d20 products in every edition. Please help compile pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=Publication|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=D20M|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published by WotC that are allowed to be on D&D Wiki. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=MSRD|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>Administration</big><br />
* [[Meta Pages]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.</div><br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
| width="35%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Featured Article</div><br />
<div style="color: #000000; text-align: center;">([[Featured Articles|all featured articles]] | [[Featured Articles#Featured Article Nominees|nominate an article]])</div><br />
{{User:Badger/sandbox16}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="2" |<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="50%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">[[Image:hp_news.gif|right]]Recent News:</div><br />
{{News}}<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
-----></div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Badger/sandbox16&diff=548128User:Badger/sandbox162012-01-25T22:57:39Z<p>Badger: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
===[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]===<br />
'''4e Race'''<br><br />
'''First featured: Jan. 24, 2012'''<br><br />
Reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]], the ultimate goal of the [[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]] is to avoid death, and the clutches of the Raven Queen. To this end, the Graveborn seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, many graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Some try to drown out the voices with arcane music. Others still prefer the demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Graveborn are often seem distant and unapproachable as they harbor no memories of their former lives, and find it difficult to retain even recent memories.<br />
<br />
<!-----<br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <div style="color: #000000;"><br />
<choose><br />
<option><br />
[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]''' were reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]]. Their ultimate goal is to avoid what she once escaped, death and the clutches of the Raven Queen, and seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, some graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Others try to drown them out with arcane music or the more preferable, though demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Since they harbor no memories of their former lives and find it difficult to retain even recent memories graveborn are often distant and unapproachable, even to those who have known them for decades.<br />
<br />
As an [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]], [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] live differently than other races and have no need to eat, drink, or breathe. They are usually similar in appearance to human zombies, but occasionally resemble other [[4e Races|races]]. Their skin is almost always rotted. Graveborn are unnaturally gaunt and underweight, giving the impression of a withered or decaying corpse that shouldn't naturally be able to move, and they always smell somewhat stale. Even so they often wear concealing clothing such as cloaks and hooded robes, and it is not difficult to mistake one for a living person under the right disguise.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[File:Derro.jpg|250px|thumb|A [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|derro venomblade]] infiltrating the surface..]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Derro (4e Creature)|Derro]]''' are naturally deviant because of their unusual heritage and their creator. Actions of their ancestors caused the lands of the derro to lie in the Underdark today. Derro are worshipers of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]], the patron deity of betrayal, cruelty, insanity, knowledge, madness, and treachery.<br />
<br />
Since [[Derro (4e Creature)|derro]] are regarded as enemies by most other races, save for a few they may make agreements with, they are usually only accompanied by a handful of their kin. Often, the only races which accompany them are enslaved. The chaotic society they form precludes any orderly hierarchy, leading to one where all sorts of derro prevail. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Vocalist|Vocalists]] shriek and howl nearly constantly, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Madguard|madguards]] serve as heads of command for small groups of derro, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Mindscar|mindscars]] overpower and imitate opponents, and [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|venomblades]] perform subterfuge. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Savant, Variant|Savants']] power comes from the chaotic forces of their own minds while [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Lunatic Priest|lunatic priests]] are more concerned with spreading the mad word of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]] than their own lives.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Blood Knight-2.jpg|350px|thumb|A [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knight]] sits atop his horse after the feast.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|Blood knights]]''' are an order of nongood knights dedicated to the service of vampirekind. Normally they can be found under a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire's]] servitude, acting as its assassins, battlefield commanders, battlefield guards, sentries, or a source of its gathered information. Others can be found serving vampirekind.<br />
<br />
By feasting on the fresh blood of fallen creatures [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knights]] gain use of special abilities that resemble [[SRD:Vampire|vampires']] natures. Their forefront combat-focus, servitude, and special actions make them valuable to those they cooperate with. Others find them to have a quite frightening presence; wearing dark, blood-stained armor and surrounded by necromantic magic the first instinct of most ordinary people is to flee in terror. The most powerful blood knights are vampires.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Rock Worm by Hall.jpg|215px|thumb|A gargantuan [[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|rock worm]] bursting out of the ground.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|Rock worms]]''' are subterranean dwellers. They are about 40 feet long, 5 feet in diameter, and weigh about 50 tons. They look like regular earthworms although they are exorbitantly larger and have an extremely tough hide composed from rock and calloused flesh, which covers them entirely. Rock worms can burrow through stone, but they are normally found in areas consisting of softer soils such as desert, beach sands, or grassland dirt.<br />
<br />
These creatures are sometimes carnivorous. Therefore they can be found burrowing and creating tunnel-networks around civilizations, destroying the built environments' support and making their eradication necessary. The problem for surface-dwellers is increased by the issue that, when they feel threatened, rock worms may create minor earthquakes around themselves, knocking down some buildings and damaging others.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Dire Celestial Lion by Wei-Che Juan.png|215px|thumb|A [[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lion]] on a vantage point in deep fog.]]<br />
A pride of '''[[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lions]]''' (lions) consists of related females and offspring and a small number of adult males. Groups of female lions typically hunt together, preying mostly on large ungulates. The lion is an apex and keystone predator, although they will scavenge if the opportunity arises. While lions do not typically hunt humans selectively, some have been known to become man-eaters and seek human prey.<br />
<br />
Lions spend much of their time resting and are inactive for about 20 hours per day. Although lions can be active at any time, their activity generally peaks after dusk with a period of socializing and grooming. Lionesses do most of the hunting; with each lioness having a favored position in the hunt, either stalking prey on the "wing" then attacking, or moving a smaller distance in the center of the group and capturing prey in flight from other lionesses.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Deviant.jpg|thumb|An old [[Deviant (3.5e Class)|deviant]], reading and mulling.]]<br />
'''[[Deviant (3.5e Class)|Deviants]]''' aren't combatants, nor are they handymen. They are observers of the highest tier, seeking patterns in life and distilling their experiences to gain knowledge. They devote their lives to study of the ever shifting universe, and through learning and experiences that may be religious, enlightening, ascetical or even purely for the self, the deviant gains unfathomable understanding of the world.<br />
<br />
Tellers, travelers, wanderers, ascetics, pacifists, chroniclers, loremasters, seekers and doers. The deviant is it all, using their profound perceptive qualities in order to help their comrades. A deviant sees many things that other people can't, and uses his innate emanations in order to strengthen or defend.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Elf1.jpg|thumb|A female sylvan [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elf]].]]<br />
'''[[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|Elves]]''' love and revere the natural world. This, combined with their eternal life spans, enables them to perceive much more in Nature than those of mortal birth could ever hope to. Some [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] dwell deep in the forests, others beside tranquil oceans, others ın mountain caves, and even others in ancient cities hewn of shining white stones. No matter where they may live, all [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] are graceful, emotional, fair and kind. They are one of a few races who are a great bastion against evil, as they are known to rise to the defense of the suffering far more than any other.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Living_Dead.JPG|thumb|The profile view of a slain [[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]].]]<br />
The '''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]]''' appear very similar to regular [[4e Index (4e Other)#Zombie|zombies]], however they are not [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]] in the standard sense. Instead of having died and then been re-animated, the living dead have been infected with ''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living death]]'', an extremely contagious disease and a virulent toxin to the already living.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:WolfSpider.jpg|thumb|A spider rider's mount]]<br />
Masters of mounted combat, [[Spider Rider (DnD Prestige Class)|spider riders]] are the favored servants of Lolth and Arachne. They are totally obsessed with spiders: their minds, bodies and souls are tied up to the arachnids.<br />
</option><br />
[[Image:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg|thumb|A once mighty temple that has fallen to ruin under the rein of [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]].]]<br />
[[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is a goddess of evil, sloth, selfishness, lust, and irresponsibility. She teaches that there is no right save for what makes one feel good and no wrong except for what prevents one from feeling good.<br />
</option><br />
</choose><br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
------><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<!----- MAIN PAGE MODIFIED CODE -----><br />
<br />
<!-----<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; border: 1px solid #000000; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="65%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Welcome To D&D Wiki!</div><br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="column"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
;<big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
;4th Edition<br />
* [[4e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=4e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Revised 3rd Edition<br />
* [[3.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|category=DnD|allowcachedresults=true|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[3.5e Open Game Content|Open Game Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published under the OGL. A work in progress. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD¦Unearthed Arcana|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;3rd Edition<br />
* [[SRD3e:System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">A work in progress. Please help transcribe pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD|category=3e|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Acquired Advanced 2nd Edition<br />
* [[2.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=2.5e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Publications<br />
* [[Publication List]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Unfinished list of all d20 products in every edition. Please help compile pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=Publication|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=D20M|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published by WotC that are allowed to be on D&D Wiki. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=MSRD|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>Administration</big><br />
* [[Meta Pages]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.</div><br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
| width="35%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Featured Article</div><br />
<div style="color: #000000; text-align: center;">([[Featured Articles|all featured articles]] | [[Featured Articles#Featured Article Nominees|nominate an article]])</div><br />
{{User:Badger/sandbox16}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="2" |<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="50%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">[[Image:hp_news.gif|right]]Recent News:</div><br />
{{News}}<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
-----></div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Badger/sandbox16&diff=548126User:Badger/sandbox162012-01-25T22:56:11Z<p>Badger: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
===[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]===<br />
'''4e Race'''<br><br />
'''First featured: Jan. 24, 2012'''<br><br />
Reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]], the ultimate goal of the [[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]] is to avoid death, and the clutches of the Raven Queen. To this end, the Graveborn seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, many graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Some try to drown out the voices with arcane music. Others still prefer the demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Graveborn are often seem distant and unapproachable as they harbor no memories of their former lives, and find it difficult to retain even recent memories.<br />
<br />
As an [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]], [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] live differently than other races as they have no need to eat, drink, or breathe. Sometimes indistinguishable in appearance from human zombies, the skin of a graveborn is almost always rotted. Graveborn are unnaturally gaunt and underweight, giving the impression of a withered or decaying corpse that shouldn't naturally be able to move, and they always smell somewhat stale. A cloak or hooded robe can sometimes provide enough concealment to pass a graveborn off as their living counterparts.<br />
<br />
<!-----<br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <div style="color: #000000;"><br />
<choose><br />
<option><br />
[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]''' were reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]]. Their ultimate goal is to avoid what she once escaped, death and the clutches of the Raven Queen, and seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, some graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Others try to drown them out with arcane music or the more preferable, though demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Since they harbor no memories of their former lives and find it difficult to retain even recent memories graveborn are often distant and unapproachable, even to those who have known them for decades.<br />
<br />
As an [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]], [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] live differently than other races and have no need to eat, drink, or breathe. They are usually similar in appearance to human zombies, but occasionally resemble other [[4e Races|races]]. Their skin is almost always rotted. Graveborn are unnaturally gaunt and underweight, giving the impression of a withered or decaying corpse that shouldn't naturally be able to move, and they always smell somewhat stale. Even so they often wear concealing clothing such as cloaks and hooded robes, and it is not difficult to mistake one for a living person under the right disguise.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[File:Derro.jpg|250px|thumb|A [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|derro venomblade]] infiltrating the surface..]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Derro (4e Creature)|Derro]]''' are naturally deviant because of their unusual heritage and their creator. Actions of their ancestors caused the lands of the derro to lie in the Underdark today. Derro are worshipers of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]], the patron deity of betrayal, cruelty, insanity, knowledge, madness, and treachery.<br />
<br />
Since [[Derro (4e Creature)|derro]] are regarded as enemies by most other races, save for a few they may make agreements with, they are usually only accompanied by a handful of their kin. Often, the only races which accompany them are enslaved. The chaotic society they form precludes any orderly hierarchy, leading to one where all sorts of derro prevail. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Vocalist|Vocalists]] shriek and howl nearly constantly, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Madguard|madguards]] serve as heads of command for small groups of derro, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Mindscar|mindscars]] overpower and imitate opponents, and [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|venomblades]] perform subterfuge. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Savant, Variant|Savants']] power comes from the chaotic forces of their own minds while [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Lunatic Priest|lunatic priests]] are more concerned with spreading the mad word of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]] than their own lives.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Blood Knight-2.jpg|350px|thumb|A [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knight]] sits atop his horse after the feast.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|Blood knights]]''' are an order of nongood knights dedicated to the service of vampirekind. Normally they can be found under a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire's]] servitude, acting as its assassins, battlefield commanders, battlefield guards, sentries, or a source of its gathered information. Others can be found serving vampirekind.<br />
<br />
By feasting on the fresh blood of fallen creatures [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knights]] gain use of special abilities that resemble [[SRD:Vampire|vampires']] natures. Their forefront combat-focus, servitude, and special actions make them valuable to those they cooperate with. Others find them to have a quite frightening presence; wearing dark, blood-stained armor and surrounded by necromantic magic the first instinct of most ordinary people is to flee in terror. The most powerful blood knights are vampires.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Rock Worm by Hall.jpg|215px|thumb|A gargantuan [[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|rock worm]] bursting out of the ground.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|Rock worms]]''' are subterranean dwellers. They are about 40 feet long, 5 feet in diameter, and weigh about 50 tons. They look like regular earthworms although they are exorbitantly larger and have an extremely tough hide composed from rock and calloused flesh, which covers them entirely. Rock worms can burrow through stone, but they are normally found in areas consisting of softer soils such as desert, beach sands, or grassland dirt.<br />
<br />
These creatures are sometimes carnivorous. Therefore they can be found burrowing and creating tunnel-networks around civilizations, destroying the built environments' support and making their eradication necessary. The problem for surface-dwellers is increased by the issue that, when they feel threatened, rock worms may create minor earthquakes around themselves, knocking down some buildings and damaging others.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Dire Celestial Lion by Wei-Che Juan.png|215px|thumb|A [[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lion]] on a vantage point in deep fog.]]<br />
A pride of '''[[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lions]]''' (lions) consists of related females and offspring and a small number of adult males. Groups of female lions typically hunt together, preying mostly on large ungulates. The lion is an apex and keystone predator, although they will scavenge if the opportunity arises. While lions do not typically hunt humans selectively, some have been known to become man-eaters and seek human prey.<br />
<br />
Lions spend much of their time resting and are inactive for about 20 hours per day. Although lions can be active at any time, their activity generally peaks after dusk with a period of socializing and grooming. Lionesses do most of the hunting; with each lioness having a favored position in the hunt, either stalking prey on the "wing" then attacking, or moving a smaller distance in the center of the group and capturing prey in flight from other lionesses.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Deviant.jpg|thumb|An old [[Deviant (3.5e Class)|deviant]], reading and mulling.]]<br />
'''[[Deviant (3.5e Class)|Deviants]]''' aren't combatants, nor are they handymen. They are observers of the highest tier, seeking patterns in life and distilling their experiences to gain knowledge. They devote their lives to study of the ever shifting universe, and through learning and experiences that may be religious, enlightening, ascetical or even purely for the self, the deviant gains unfathomable understanding of the world.<br />
<br />
Tellers, travelers, wanderers, ascetics, pacifists, chroniclers, loremasters, seekers and doers. The deviant is it all, using their profound perceptive qualities in order to help their comrades. A deviant sees many things that other people can't, and uses his innate emanations in order to strengthen or defend.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Elf1.jpg|thumb|A female sylvan [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elf]].]]<br />
'''[[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|Elves]]''' love and revere the natural world. This, combined with their eternal life spans, enables them to perceive much more in Nature than those of mortal birth could ever hope to. Some [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] dwell deep in the forests, others beside tranquil oceans, others ın mountain caves, and even others in ancient cities hewn of shining white stones. No matter where they may live, all [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] are graceful, emotional, fair and kind. They are one of a few races who are a great bastion against evil, as they are known to rise to the defense of the suffering far more than any other.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Living_Dead.JPG|thumb|The profile view of a slain [[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]].]]<br />
The '''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]]''' appear very similar to regular [[4e Index (4e Other)#Zombie|zombies]], however they are not [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]] in the standard sense. Instead of having died and then been re-animated, the living dead have been infected with ''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living death]]'', an extremely contagious disease and a virulent toxin to the already living.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:WolfSpider.jpg|thumb|A spider rider's mount]]<br />
Masters of mounted combat, [[Spider Rider (DnD Prestige Class)|spider riders]] are the favored servants of Lolth and Arachne. They are totally obsessed with spiders: their minds, bodies and souls are tied up to the arachnids.<br />
</option><br />
[[Image:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg|thumb|A once mighty temple that has fallen to ruin under the rein of [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]].]]<br />
[[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is a goddess of evil, sloth, selfishness, lust, and irresponsibility. She teaches that there is no right save for what makes one feel good and no wrong except for what prevents one from feeling good.<br />
</option><br />
</choose><br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
------><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<!----- MAIN PAGE MODIFIED CODE -----><br />
<br />
<!-----<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; border: 1px solid #000000; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="65%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Welcome To D&D Wiki!</div><br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="column"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
;<big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
;4th Edition<br />
* [[4e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=4e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Revised 3rd Edition<br />
* [[3.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|category=DnD|allowcachedresults=true|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[3.5e Open Game Content|Open Game Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published under the OGL. A work in progress. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD¦Unearthed Arcana|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;3rd Edition<br />
* [[SRD3e:System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">A work in progress. Please help transcribe pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD|category=3e|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Acquired Advanced 2nd Edition<br />
* [[2.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=2.5e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Publications<br />
* [[Publication List]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Unfinished list of all d20 products in every edition. Please help compile pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=Publication|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=D20M|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published by WotC that are allowed to be on D&D Wiki. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=MSRD|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>Administration</big><br />
* [[Meta Pages]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.</div><br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
| width="35%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Featured Article</div><br />
<div style="color: #000000; text-align: center;">([[Featured Articles|all featured articles]] | [[Featured Articles#Featured Article Nominees|nominate an article]])</div><br />
{{User:Badger/sandbox16}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="2" |<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="50%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">[[Image:hp_news.gif|right]]Recent News:</div><br />
{{News}}<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
-----></div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Badger/sandbox16&diff=548125User:Badger/sandbox162012-01-25T22:54:26Z<p>Badger: </p>
<hr />
<div><div style="color: #000000;"><br />
[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
===[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]===<br />
'''4e Race'''<br><br />
'''First featured: Jan. 24, 2012'''<br><br />
Reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]], the ultimate goal of the [[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]] is to avoid death, and the clutches of the Raven Queen. To this end, the Graveborn seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, many graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Some try to drown out the voices with arcane music. Others still prefer the demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Graveborn are often seem distant and unapproachable as they harbor no memories of their former lives, and find it difficult to retain even recent memories.<br />
<br />
As an [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]], [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] live differently than other races as they have no need to eat, drink, or breathe. Sometimes indistinguishable in appearance from human zombies, the skin of a graveborn is almost always rotted. Graveborn are unnaturally gaunt and underweight, giving the impression of a withered or decaying corpse that shouldn't naturally be able to move, and they always smell somewhat stale. A cloak or hooded robe can sometimes provide enough concealment to pass a graveborn off as their living counterparts.<br />
</div><br />
<!-----<br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <div style="color: #000000;"><br />
<choose><br />
<option><br />
[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]''' were reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]]. Their ultimate goal is to avoid what she once escaped, death and the clutches of the Raven Queen, and seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, some graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Others try to drown them out with arcane music or the more preferable, though demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Since they harbor no memories of their former lives and find it difficult to retain even recent memories graveborn are often distant and unapproachable, even to those who have known them for decades.<br />
<br />
As an [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]], [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] live differently than other races and have no need to eat, drink, or breathe. They are usually similar in appearance to human zombies, but occasionally resemble other [[4e Races|races]]. Their skin is almost always rotted. Graveborn are unnaturally gaunt and underweight, giving the impression of a withered or decaying corpse that shouldn't naturally be able to move, and they always smell somewhat stale. Even so they often wear concealing clothing such as cloaks and hooded robes, and it is not difficult to mistake one for a living person under the right disguise.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[File:Derro.jpg|250px|thumb|A [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|derro venomblade]] infiltrating the surface..]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Derro (4e Creature)|Derro]]''' are naturally deviant because of their unusual heritage and their creator. Actions of their ancestors caused the lands of the derro to lie in the Underdark today. Derro are worshipers of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]], the patron deity of betrayal, cruelty, insanity, knowledge, madness, and treachery.<br />
<br />
Since [[Derro (4e Creature)|derro]] are regarded as enemies by most other races, save for a few they may make agreements with, they are usually only accompanied by a handful of their kin. Often, the only races which accompany them are enslaved. The chaotic society they form precludes any orderly hierarchy, leading to one where all sorts of derro prevail. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Vocalist|Vocalists]] shriek and howl nearly constantly, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Madguard|madguards]] serve as heads of command for small groups of derro, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Mindscar|mindscars]] overpower and imitate opponents, and [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|venomblades]] perform subterfuge. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Savant, Variant|Savants']] power comes from the chaotic forces of their own minds while [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Lunatic Priest|lunatic priests]] are more concerned with spreading the mad word of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]] than their own lives.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Blood Knight-2.jpg|350px|thumb|A [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knight]] sits atop his horse after the feast.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|Blood knights]]''' are an order of nongood knights dedicated to the service of vampirekind. Normally they can be found under a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire's]] servitude, acting as its assassins, battlefield commanders, battlefield guards, sentries, or a source of its gathered information. Others can be found serving vampirekind.<br />
<br />
By feasting on the fresh blood of fallen creatures [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knights]] gain use of special abilities that resemble [[SRD:Vampire|vampires']] natures. Their forefront combat-focus, servitude, and special actions make them valuable to those they cooperate with. Others find them to have a quite frightening presence; wearing dark, blood-stained armor and surrounded by necromantic magic the first instinct of most ordinary people is to flee in terror. The most powerful blood knights are vampires.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Rock Worm by Hall.jpg|215px|thumb|A gargantuan [[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|rock worm]] bursting out of the ground.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|Rock worms]]''' are subterranean dwellers. They are about 40 feet long, 5 feet in diameter, and weigh about 50 tons. They look like regular earthworms although they are exorbitantly larger and have an extremely tough hide composed from rock and calloused flesh, which covers them entirely. Rock worms can burrow through stone, but they are normally found in areas consisting of softer soils such as desert, beach sands, or grassland dirt.<br />
<br />
These creatures are sometimes carnivorous. Therefore they can be found burrowing and creating tunnel-networks around civilizations, destroying the built environments' support and making their eradication necessary. The problem for surface-dwellers is increased by the issue that, when they feel threatened, rock worms may create minor earthquakes around themselves, knocking down some buildings and damaging others.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Dire Celestial Lion by Wei-Che Juan.png|215px|thumb|A [[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lion]] on a vantage point in deep fog.]]<br />
A pride of '''[[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lions]]''' (lions) consists of related females and offspring and a small number of adult males. Groups of female lions typically hunt together, preying mostly on large ungulates. The lion is an apex and keystone predator, although they will scavenge if the opportunity arises. While lions do not typically hunt humans selectively, some have been known to become man-eaters and seek human prey.<br />
<br />
Lions spend much of their time resting and are inactive for about 20 hours per day. Although lions can be active at any time, their activity generally peaks after dusk with a period of socializing and grooming. Lionesses do most of the hunting; with each lioness having a favored position in the hunt, either stalking prey on the "wing" then attacking, or moving a smaller distance in the center of the group and capturing prey in flight from other lionesses.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Deviant.jpg|thumb|An old [[Deviant (3.5e Class)|deviant]], reading and mulling.]]<br />
'''[[Deviant (3.5e Class)|Deviants]]''' aren't combatants, nor are they handymen. They are observers of the highest tier, seeking patterns in life and distilling their experiences to gain knowledge. They devote their lives to study of the ever shifting universe, and through learning and experiences that may be religious, enlightening, ascetical or even purely for the self, the deviant gains unfathomable understanding of the world.<br />
<br />
Tellers, travelers, wanderers, ascetics, pacifists, chroniclers, loremasters, seekers and doers. The deviant is it all, using their profound perceptive qualities in order to help their comrades. A deviant sees many things that other people can't, and uses his innate emanations in order to strengthen or defend.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Elf1.jpg|thumb|A female sylvan [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elf]].]]<br />
'''[[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|Elves]]''' love and revere the natural world. This, combined with their eternal life spans, enables them to perceive much more in Nature than those of mortal birth could ever hope to. Some [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] dwell deep in the forests, others beside tranquil oceans, others ın mountain caves, and even others in ancient cities hewn of shining white stones. No matter where they may live, all [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] are graceful, emotional, fair and kind. They are one of a few races who are a great bastion against evil, as they are known to rise to the defense of the suffering far more than any other.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Living_Dead.JPG|thumb|The profile view of a slain [[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]].]]<br />
The '''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]]''' appear very similar to regular [[4e Index (4e Other)#Zombie|zombies]], however they are not [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]] in the standard sense. Instead of having died and then been re-animated, the living dead have been infected with ''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living death]]'', an extremely contagious disease and a virulent toxin to the already living.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:WolfSpider.jpg|thumb|A spider rider's mount]]<br />
Masters of mounted combat, [[Spider Rider (DnD Prestige Class)|spider riders]] are the favored servants of Lolth and Arachne. They are totally obsessed with spiders: their minds, bodies and souls are tied up to the arachnids.<br />
</option><br />
[[Image:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg|thumb|A once mighty temple that has fallen to ruin under the rein of [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]].]]<br />
[[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is a goddess of evil, sloth, selfishness, lust, and irresponsibility. She teaches that there is no right save for what makes one feel good and no wrong except for what prevents one from feeling good.<br />
</option><br />
</choose><br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
------><br />
<br />
<!-----<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; border: 1px solid #000000; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="65%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Welcome To D&D Wiki!</div><br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="column"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
;<big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
;4th Edition<br />
* [[4e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=4e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Revised 3rd Edition<br />
* [[3.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|category=DnD|allowcachedresults=true|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[3.5e Open Game Content|Open Game Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published under the OGL. A work in progress. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD¦Unearthed Arcana|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;3rd Edition<br />
* [[SRD3e:System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">A work in progress. Please help transcribe pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD|category=3e|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Acquired Advanced 2nd Edition<br />
* [[2.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=2.5e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Publications<br />
* [[Publication List]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Unfinished list of all d20 products in every edition. Please help compile pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=Publication|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=D20M|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published by WotC that are allowed to be on D&D Wiki. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=MSRD|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>Administration</big><br />
* [[Meta Pages]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.</div><br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
| width="35%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Featured Article</div><br />
<div style="color: #000000; text-align: center;">([[Featured Articles|all featured articles]] | [[Featured Articles#Featured Article Nominees|nominate an article]])</div><br />
{{User:Badger/sandbox16}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="2" |<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="50%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">[[Image:hp_news.gif|right]]Recent News:</div><br />
{{News}}<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
-----></div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Badger/sandbox16&diff=548124User:Badger/sandbox162012-01-25T22:52:24Z<p>Badger: This is how I'm thinking we should format every FA blurb.</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
===[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]===<br />
'''4e Race'''<br><br />
'''First featured: Jan. 24, 2012'''<br><br />
Reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]], the ultimate goal of the [[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]] is to avoid death, and the clutches of the Raven Queen. To this end, the Graveborn seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, many graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Some try to drown out the voices with arcane music. Others still prefer the demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Graveborn are often seem distant and unapproachable as they harbor no memories of their former lives, and find it difficult to retain even recent memories.<br />
<br />
As an [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]], [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] live differently than other races as they have no need to eat, drink, or breathe. Sometimes indistinguishable in appearance from human zombies, the skin of a graveborn is almost always rotted. Graveborn are unnaturally gaunt and underweight, giving the impression of a withered or decaying corpse that shouldn't naturally be able to move, and they always smell somewhat stale. A cloak or hooded robe can sometimes provide enough concealment to pass a graveborn off as their living counterparts.<br />
<br />
<!-----<br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <div style="color: #000000;"><br />
<choose><br />
<option><br />
[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]''' were reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]]. Their ultimate goal is to avoid what she once escaped, death and the clutches of the Raven Queen, and seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, some graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Others try to drown them out with arcane music or the more preferable, though demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Since they harbor no memories of their former lives and find it difficult to retain even recent memories graveborn are often distant and unapproachable, even to those who have known them for decades.<br />
<br />
As an [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]], [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] live differently than other races and have no need to eat, drink, or breathe. They are usually similar in appearance to human zombies, but occasionally resemble other [[4e Races|races]]. Their skin is almost always rotted. Graveborn are unnaturally gaunt and underweight, giving the impression of a withered or decaying corpse that shouldn't naturally be able to move, and they always smell somewhat stale. Even so they often wear concealing clothing such as cloaks and hooded robes, and it is not difficult to mistake one for a living person under the right disguise.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[File:Derro.jpg|250px|thumb|A [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|derro venomblade]] infiltrating the surface..]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Derro (4e Creature)|Derro]]''' are naturally deviant because of their unusual heritage and their creator. Actions of their ancestors caused the lands of the derro to lie in the Underdark today. Derro are worshipers of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]], the patron deity of betrayal, cruelty, insanity, knowledge, madness, and treachery.<br />
<br />
Since [[Derro (4e Creature)|derro]] are regarded as enemies by most other races, save for a few they may make agreements with, they are usually only accompanied by a handful of their kin. Often, the only races which accompany them are enslaved. The chaotic society they form precludes any orderly hierarchy, leading to one where all sorts of derro prevail. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Vocalist|Vocalists]] shriek and howl nearly constantly, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Madguard|madguards]] serve as heads of command for small groups of derro, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Mindscar|mindscars]] overpower and imitate opponents, and [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|venomblades]] perform subterfuge. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Savant, Variant|Savants']] power comes from the chaotic forces of their own minds while [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Lunatic Priest|lunatic priests]] are more concerned with spreading the mad word of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]] than their own lives.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Blood Knight-2.jpg|350px|thumb|A [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knight]] sits atop his horse after the feast.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|Blood knights]]''' are an order of nongood knights dedicated to the service of vampirekind. Normally they can be found under a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire's]] servitude, acting as its assassins, battlefield commanders, battlefield guards, sentries, or a source of its gathered information. Others can be found serving vampirekind.<br />
<br />
By feasting on the fresh blood of fallen creatures [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knights]] gain use of special abilities that resemble [[SRD:Vampire|vampires']] natures. Their forefront combat-focus, servitude, and special actions make them valuable to those they cooperate with. Others find them to have a quite frightening presence; wearing dark, blood-stained armor and surrounded by necromantic magic the first instinct of most ordinary people is to flee in terror. The most powerful blood knights are vampires.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Rock Worm by Hall.jpg|215px|thumb|A gargantuan [[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|rock worm]] bursting out of the ground.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|Rock worms]]''' are subterranean dwellers. They are about 40 feet long, 5 feet in diameter, and weigh about 50 tons. They look like regular earthworms although they are exorbitantly larger and have an extremely tough hide composed from rock and calloused flesh, which covers them entirely. Rock worms can burrow through stone, but they are normally found in areas consisting of softer soils such as desert, beach sands, or grassland dirt.<br />
<br />
These creatures are sometimes carnivorous. Therefore they can be found burrowing and creating tunnel-networks around civilizations, destroying the built environments' support and making their eradication necessary. The problem for surface-dwellers is increased by the issue that, when they feel threatened, rock worms may create minor earthquakes around themselves, knocking down some buildings and damaging others.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Dire Celestial Lion by Wei-Che Juan.png|215px|thumb|A [[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lion]] on a vantage point in deep fog.]]<br />
A pride of '''[[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lions]]''' (lions) consists of related females and offspring and a small number of adult males. Groups of female lions typically hunt together, preying mostly on large ungulates. The lion is an apex and keystone predator, although they will scavenge if the opportunity arises. While lions do not typically hunt humans selectively, some have been known to become man-eaters and seek human prey.<br />
<br />
Lions spend much of their time resting and are inactive for about 20 hours per day. Although lions can be active at any time, their activity generally peaks after dusk with a period of socializing and grooming. Lionesses do most of the hunting; with each lioness having a favored position in the hunt, either stalking prey on the "wing" then attacking, or moving a smaller distance in the center of the group and capturing prey in flight from other lionesses.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Deviant.jpg|thumb|An old [[Deviant (3.5e Class)|deviant]], reading and mulling.]]<br />
'''[[Deviant (3.5e Class)|Deviants]]''' aren't combatants, nor are they handymen. They are observers of the highest tier, seeking patterns in life and distilling their experiences to gain knowledge. They devote their lives to study of the ever shifting universe, and through learning and experiences that may be religious, enlightening, ascetical or even purely for the self, the deviant gains unfathomable understanding of the world.<br />
<br />
Tellers, travelers, wanderers, ascetics, pacifists, chroniclers, loremasters, seekers and doers. The deviant is it all, using their profound perceptive qualities in order to help their comrades. A deviant sees many things that other people can't, and uses his innate emanations in order to strengthen or defend.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Elf1.jpg|thumb|A female sylvan [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elf]].]]<br />
'''[[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|Elves]]''' love and revere the natural world. This, combined with their eternal life spans, enables them to perceive much more in Nature than those of mortal birth could ever hope to. Some [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] dwell deep in the forests, others beside tranquil oceans, others ın mountain caves, and even others in ancient cities hewn of shining white stones. No matter where they may live, all [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] are graceful, emotional, fair and kind. They are one of a few races who are a great bastion against evil, as they are known to rise to the defense of the suffering far more than any other.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Living_Dead.JPG|thumb|The profile view of a slain [[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]].]]<br />
The '''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]]''' appear very similar to regular [[4e Index (4e Other)#Zombie|zombies]], however they are not [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]] in the standard sense. Instead of having died and then been re-animated, the living dead have been infected with ''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living death]]'', an extremely contagious disease and a virulent toxin to the already living.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:WolfSpider.jpg|thumb|A spider rider's mount]]<br />
Masters of mounted combat, [[Spider Rider (DnD Prestige Class)|spider riders]] are the favored servants of Lolth and Arachne. They are totally obsessed with spiders: their minds, bodies and souls are tied up to the arachnids.<br />
</option><br />
[[Image:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg|thumb|A once mighty temple that has fallen to ruin under the rein of [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]].]]<br />
[[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is a goddess of evil, sloth, selfishness, lust, and irresponsibility. She teaches that there is no right save for what makes one feel good and no wrong except for what prevents one from feeling good.<br />
</option><br />
</choose><br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
------><br />
<br />
<!-----<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; border: 1px solid #000000; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="65%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Welcome To D&D Wiki!</div><br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="column"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
;<big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
;4th Edition<br />
* [[4e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=4e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Revised 3rd Edition<br />
* [[3.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|category=DnD|allowcachedresults=true|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[3.5e Open Game Content|Open Game Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published under the OGL. A work in progress. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD¦Unearthed Arcana|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;3rd Edition<br />
* [[SRD3e:System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">A work in progress. Please help transcribe pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD|category=3e|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Acquired Advanced 2nd Edition<br />
* [[2.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=2.5e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Publications<br />
* [[Publication List]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Unfinished list of all d20 products in every edition. Please help compile pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=Publication|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=D20M|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published by WotC that are allowed to be on D&D Wiki. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=MSRD|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>Administration</big><br />
* [[Meta Pages]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.</div><br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
| width="35%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Featured Article</div><br />
<div style="color: #000000; text-align: center;">([[Featured Articles|all featured articles]] | [[Featured Articles#Featured Article Nominees|nominate an article]])</div><br />
{{User:Badger/sandbox16}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="2" |<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="50%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">[[Image:hp_news.gif|right]]Recent News:</div><br />
{{News}}<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
-----></div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Badger/sandbox16&diff=548111User talk:Badger/sandbox162012-01-25T19:32:03Z<p>Badger: Anyone care to chime in?</p>
<hr />
<div>==To Do Before Implementing==<br />
*Get input from other admins and users<br />
*Write about 200 words for each description.<br />
**Considering this is going to remain static and appear on the front page, it should sell the page, rather than be the first two paragraphs<br />
*Check to make sure each of the 10 pages appear nice when loaded (this can be done by refreshing the sandbox, where the new template has been tested)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Badger/sandbox16&diff=548110User:Badger/sandbox162012-01-25T19:29:11Z<p>Badger: </p>
<hr />
<div>{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <div style="color: #000000;"><br />
<choose><br />
<option><br />
[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]''' were reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]]. Their ultimate goal is to avoid what she once escaped, death and the clutches of the Raven Queen, and seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, some graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Others try to drown them out with arcane music or the more preferable, though demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Since they harbor no memories of their former lives and find it difficult to retain even recent memories graveborn are often distant and unapproachable, even to those who have known them for decades.<br />
<br />
As an [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]], [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] live differently than other races and have no need to eat, drink, or breathe. They are usually similar in appearance to human zombies, but occasionally resemble other [[4e Races|races]]. Their skin is almost always rotted. Graveborn are unnaturally gaunt and underweight, giving the impression of a withered or decaying corpse that shouldn't naturally be able to move, and they always smell somewhat stale. Even so they often wear concealing clothing such as cloaks and hooded robes, and it is not difficult to mistake one for a living person under the right disguise.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[File:Derro.jpg|250px|thumb|A [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|derro venomblade]] infiltrating the surface..]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Derro (4e Creature)|Derro]]''' are naturally deviant because of their unusual heritage and their creator. Actions of their ancestors caused the lands of the derro to lie in the Underdark today. Derro are worshipers of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]], the patron deity of betrayal, cruelty, insanity, knowledge, madness, and treachery.<br />
<br />
Since [[Derro (4e Creature)|derro]] are regarded as enemies by most other races, save for a few they may make agreements with, they are usually only accompanied by a handful of their kin. Often, the only races which accompany them are enslaved. The chaotic society they form precludes any orderly hierarchy, leading to one where all sorts of derro prevail. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Vocalist|Vocalists]] shriek and howl nearly constantly, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Madguard|madguards]] serve as heads of command for small groups of derro, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Mindscar|mindscars]] overpower and imitate opponents, and [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|venomblades]] perform subterfuge. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Savant, Variant|Savants']] power comes from the chaotic forces of their own minds while [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Lunatic Priest|lunatic priests]] are more concerned with spreading the mad word of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]] than their own lives.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Blood Knight-2.jpg|350px|thumb|A [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knight]] sits atop his horse after the feast.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|Blood knights]]''' are an order of nongood knights dedicated to the service of vampirekind. Normally they can be found under a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire's]] servitude, acting as its assassins, battlefield commanders, battlefield guards, sentries, or a source of its gathered information. Others can be found serving vampirekind.<br />
<br />
By feasting on the fresh blood of fallen creatures [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knights]] gain use of special abilities that resemble [[SRD:Vampire|vampires']] natures. Their forefront combat-focus, servitude, and special actions make them valuable to those they cooperate with. Others find them to have a quite frightening presence; wearing dark, blood-stained armor and surrounded by necromantic magic the first instinct of most ordinary people is to flee in terror. The most powerful blood knights are vampires.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Rock Worm by Hall.jpg|215px|thumb|A gargantuan [[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|rock worm]] bursting out of the ground.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|Rock worms]]''' are subterranean dwellers. They are about 40 feet long, 5 feet in diameter, and weigh about 50 tons. They look like regular earthworms although they are exorbitantly larger and have an extremely tough hide composed from rock and calloused flesh, which covers them entirely. Rock worms can burrow through stone, but they are normally found in areas consisting of softer soils such as desert, beach sands, or grassland dirt.<br />
<br />
These creatures are sometimes carnivorous. Therefore they can be found burrowing and creating tunnel-networks around civilizations, destroying the built environments' support and making their eradication necessary. The problem for surface-dwellers is increased by the issue that, when they feel threatened, rock worms may create minor earthquakes around themselves, knocking down some buildings and damaging others.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Dire Celestial Lion by Wei-Che Juan.png|215px|thumb|A [[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lion]] on a vantage point in deep fog.]]<br />
A pride of '''[[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lions]]''' (lions) consists of related females and offspring and a small number of adult males. Groups of female lions typically hunt together, preying mostly on large ungulates. The lion is an apex and keystone predator, although they will scavenge if the opportunity arises. While lions do not typically hunt humans selectively, some have been known to become man-eaters and seek human prey.<br />
<br />
Lions spend much of their time resting and are inactive for about 20 hours per day. Although lions can be active at any time, their activity generally peaks after dusk with a period of socializing and grooming. Lionesses do most of the hunting; with each lioness having a favored position in the hunt, either stalking prey on the "wing" then attacking, or moving a smaller distance in the center of the group and capturing prey in flight from other lionesses.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Deviant.jpg|thumb|An old [[Deviant (3.5e Class)|deviant]], reading and mulling.]]<br />
'''[[Deviant (3.5e Class)|Deviants]]''' aren't combatants, nor are they handymen. They are observers of the highest tier, seeking patterns in life and distilling their experiences to gain knowledge. They devote their lives to study of the ever shifting universe, and through learning and experiences that may be religious, enlightening, ascetical or even purely for the self, the deviant gains unfathomable understanding of the world.<br />
<br />
Tellers, travelers, wanderers, ascetics, pacifists, chroniclers, loremasters, seekers and doers. The deviant is it all, using their profound perceptive qualities in order to help their comrades. A deviant sees many things that other people can't, and uses his innate emanations in order to strengthen or defend.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Elf1.jpg|thumb|A female sylvan [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elf]].]]<br />
'''[[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|Elves]]''' love and revere the natural world. This, combined with their eternal life spans, enables them to perceive much more in Nature than those of mortal birth could ever hope to. Some [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] dwell deep in the forests, others beside tranquil oceans, others ın mountain caves, and even others in ancient cities hewn of shining white stones. No matter where they may live, all [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] are graceful, emotional, fair and kind. They are one of a few races who are a great bastion against evil, as they are known to rise to the defense of the suffering far more than any other.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Living_Dead.JPG|thumb|The profile view of a slain [[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]].]]<br />
The '''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]]''' appear very similar to regular [[4e Index (4e Other)#Zombie|zombies]], however they are not [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]] in the standard sense. Instead of having died and then been re-animated, the living dead have been infected with ''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living death]]'', an extremely contagious disease and a virulent toxin to the already living.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:WolfSpider.jpg|thumb|A spider rider's mount]]<br />
Masters of mounted combat, [[Spider Rider (DnD Prestige Class)|spider riders]] are the favored servants of Lolth and Arachne. They are totally obsessed with spiders: their minds, bodies and souls are tied up to the arachnids.<br />
</option><br />
[[Image:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg|thumb|A once mighty temple that has fallen to ruin under the rein of [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]].]]<br />
[[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is a goddess of evil, sloth, selfishness, lust, and irresponsibility. She teaches that there is no right save for what makes one feel good and no wrong except for what prevents one from feeling good.<br />
</option><br />
</choose><br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
<!-----<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; border: 1px solid #000000; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="65%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Welcome To D&D Wiki!</div><br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="column"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
;<big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
;4th Edition<br />
* [[4e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=4e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Revised 3rd Edition<br />
* [[3.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|category=DnD|allowcachedresults=true|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[3.5e Open Game Content|Open Game Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published under the OGL. A work in progress. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD¦Unearthed Arcana|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;3rd Edition<br />
* [[SRD3e:System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">A work in progress. Please help transcribe pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD|category=3e|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Acquired Advanced 2nd Edition<br />
* [[2.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=2.5e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Publications<br />
* [[Publication List]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Unfinished list of all d20 products in every edition. Please help compile pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=Publication|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=D20M|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published by WotC that are allowed to be on D&D Wiki. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=MSRD|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>Administration</big><br />
* [[Meta Pages]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.</div><br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
| width="35%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Featured Article</div><br />
<div style="color: #000000; text-align: center;">([[Featured Articles|all featured articles]] | [[Featured Articles#Featured Article Nominees|nominate an article]])</div><br />
{{User:Badger/sandbox16}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="2" |<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="50%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">[[Image:hp_news.gif|right]]Recent News:</div><br />
{{News}}<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
-----></div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Badger/sandbox16&diff=548109User:Badger/sandbox162012-01-25T19:27:45Z<p>Badger: </p>
<hr />
<div>{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <div style="color: #000000;"><br />
<choose><br />
<option><br />
[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]''' were reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]]. Their ultimate goal is to avoid what she once escaped, death and the clutches of the Raven Queen, and seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, some graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Others try to drown them out with arcane music or the more preferable, though demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Since they harbor no memories of their former lives and find it difficult to retain even recent memories graveborn are often distant and unapproachable, even to those who have known them for decades.<br />
<br />
As an [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]], [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] live differently than other races and have no need to eat, drink, or breathe. They are usually similar in appearance to human zombies, but occasionally resemble other [[4e Races|races]]. Their skin is almost always rotted. Graveborn are unnaturally gaunt and underweight, giving the impression of a withered or decaying corpse that shouldn't naturally be able to move, and they always smell somewhat stale. Even so they often wear concealing clothing such as cloaks and hooded robes, and it is not difficult to mistake one for a living person under the right disguise.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[File:Derro.jpg|250px|thumb|A [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|derro venomblade]] infiltrating the surface..]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Derro (4e Creature)|Derro]]''' are naturally deviant because of their unusual heritage and their creator. Actions of their ancestors caused the lands of the derro to lie in the Underdark today. Derro are worshipers of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]], the patron deity of betrayal, cruelty, insanity, knowledge, madness, and treachery.<br />
<br />
Since [[Derro (4e Creature)|derro]] are regarded as enemies by most other races, save for a few they may make agreements with, they are usually only accompanied by a handful of their kin. Often, the only races which accompany them are enslaved. The chaotic society they form precludes any orderly hierarchy, leading to one where all sorts of derro prevail. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Vocalist|Vocalists]] shriek and howl nearly constantly, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Madguard|madguards]] serve as heads of command for small groups of derro, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Mindscar|mindscars]] overpower and imitate opponents, and [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|venomblades]] perform subterfuge. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Savant, Variant|Savants']] power comes from the chaotic forces of their own minds while [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Lunatic Priest|lunatic priests]] are more concerned with spreading the mad word of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]] than their own lives.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Blood Knight-2.jpg|350px|thumb|A [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knight]] sits atop his horse after the feast.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|Blood knights]]''' are an order of nongood knights dedicated to the service of vampirekind. Normally they can be found under a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire's]] servitude, acting as its assassins, battlefield commanders, battlefield guards, sentries, or a source of its gathered information. Others can be found serving vampirekind.<br />
<br />
By feasting on the fresh blood of fallen creatures [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knights]] gain use of special abilities that resemble [[SRD:Vampire|vampires']] natures. Their forefront combat-focus, servitude, and special actions make them valuable to those they cooperate with. Others find them to have a quite frightening presence; wearing dark, blood-stained armor and surrounded by necromantic magic the first instinct of most ordinary people is to flee in terror. The most powerful blood knights are vampires.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Rock Worm by Hall.jpg|215px|thumb|A gargantuan [[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|rock worm]] bursting out of the ground.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|Rock worms]]''' are subterranean dwellers. They are about 40 feet long, 5 feet in diameter, and weigh about 50 tons. They look like regular earthworms although they are exorbitantly larger and have an extremely tough hide composed from rock and calloused flesh, which covers them entirely. Rock worms can burrow through stone, but they are normally found in areas consisting of softer soils such as desert, beach sands, or grassland dirt.<br />
<br />
These creatures are sometimes carnivorous. Therefore they can be found burrowing and creating tunnel-networks around civilizations, destroying the built environments' support and making their eradication necessary. The problem for surface-dwellers is increased by the issue that, when they feel threatened, rock worms may create minor earthquakes around themselves, knocking down some buildings and damaging others.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Dire Celestial Lion by Wei-Che Juan.png|215px|thumb|A [[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lion]] on a vantage point in deep fog.]]<br />
A pride of '''[[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lions]]''' (lions) consists of related females and offspring and a small number of adult males. Groups of female lions typically hunt together, preying mostly on large ungulates. The lion is an apex and keystone predator, although they will scavenge if the opportunity arises. While lions do not typically hunt humans selectively, some have been known to become man-eaters and seek human prey.<br />
<br />
Lions spend much of their time resting and are inactive for about 20 hours per day. Although lions can be active at any time, their activity generally peaks after dusk with a period of socializing and grooming. Lionesses do most of the hunting; with each lioness having a favored position in the hunt, either stalking prey on the "wing" then attacking, or moving a smaller distance in the center of the group and capturing prey in flight from other lionesses.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Deviant.jpg|thumb|An old [[Deviant (3.5e Class)|deviant]], reading and mulling.]]<br />
'''[[Deviant (3.5e Class)|Deviants]]''' aren't combatants, nor are they handymen. They are observers of the highest tier, seeking patterns in life and distilling their experiences to gain knowledge. They devote their lives to study of the ever shifting universe, and through learning and experiences that may be religious, enlightening, ascetical or even purely for the self, the deviant gains unfathomable understanding of the world.<br />
<br />
Tellers, travelers, wanderers, ascetics, pacifists, chroniclers, loremasters, seekers and doers. The deviant is it all, using their profound perceptive qualities in order to help their comrades. A deviant sees many things that other people can't, and uses his innate emanations in order to strengthen or defend.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Elf1.jpg|thumb|A female sylvan [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elf]].]]<br />
'''[[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|Elves]]''' love and revere the natural world. This, combined with their eternal life spans, enables them to perceive much more in Nature than those of mortal birth could ever hope to. Some [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] dwell deep in the forests, others beside tranquil oceans, others ın mountain caves, and even others in ancient cities hewn of shining white stones. No matter where they may live, all [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] are graceful, emotional, fair and kind. They are one of a few races who are a great bastion against evil, as they are known to rise to the defense of the suffering far more than any other.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Living_Dead.JPG|thumb|The profile view of a slain [[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]].]]<br />
The '''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]]''' appear very similar to regular [[4e Index (4e Other)#Zombie|zombies]], however they are not [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]] in the standard sense. Instead of having died and then been re-animated, the living dead have been infected with ''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living death]]'', an extremely contagious disease and a virulent toxin to the already living.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:WolfSpider.jpg|thumb|A spider rider's mount]]<br />
Masters of mounted combat, [[Spider Rider (DnD Prestige Class)|spider riders]] are the favored servants of Lolth and Arachne. They are totally obsessed with spiders: their minds, bodies and souls are tied up to the arachnids.<br />
</option><br />
[[Image:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg|thumb|A once mighty temple that has fallen to ruin under the rein of [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]].]]<br />
[[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is a goddess of evil, sloth, selfishness, lust, and irresponsibility. She teaches that there is no right save for what makes one feel good and no wrong except for what prevents one from feeling good.<br />
</option><br />
</choose><br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
<!-----<br />
This is a sandbox. It will be periodically cleaned. Play around in this sandbox to see how things look, however please do not edit above the line!<br />
<br />
<br />
''Last cleaned by [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] on 17:56, 15 January 2012 (MST)<br />
---- <!-- This is the line --><br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; border: 1px solid #000000; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="65%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Welcome To D&D Wiki!</div><br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="column"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
;<big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
;4th Edition<br />
* [[4e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=4e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Revised 3rd Edition<br />
* [[3.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|category=DnD|allowcachedresults=true|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[3.5e Open Game Content|Open Game Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published under the OGL. A work in progress. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD¦Unearthed Arcana|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;3rd Edition<br />
* [[SRD3e:System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">A work in progress. Please help transcribe pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD|category=3e|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Acquired Advanced 2nd Edition<br />
* [[2.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=2.5e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Publications<br />
* [[Publication List]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Unfinished list of all d20 products in every edition. Please help compile pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=Publication|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=D20M|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published by WotC that are allowed to be on D&D Wiki. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=MSRD|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>Administration</big><br />
* [[Meta Pages]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.</div><br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
| width="35%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Featured Article</div><br />
<div style="color: #000000; text-align: center;">([[Featured Articles|all featured articles]] | [[Featured Articles#Featured Article Nominees|nominate an article]])</div><br />
{{User:Badger/sandbox16}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="2" |<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="50%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">[[Image:hp_news.gif|right]]Recent News:</div><br />
{{News}}<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
-----></div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=D%26D_Wiki:Sandbox&diff=548108D&D Wiki:Sandbox2012-01-25T19:26:49Z<p>Badger: Testing out a way to change the featured article that will appear on the front page with every page refresh</p>
<hr />
<div>This is a sandbox. It will be periodically cleaned. Play around in this sandbox to see how things look, however please do not edit above the line!<br />
<br />
<br />
''Last cleaned by [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] on 17:56, 15 January 2012 (MST)<br />
---- <!-- This is the line --><br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; border: 1px solid #000000; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="65%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Welcome To D&D Wiki!</div><br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="column"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
;<big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
;4th Edition<br />
* [[4e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=4e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Revised 3rd Edition<br />
* [[3.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|category=DnD|allowcachedresults=true|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[3.5e Open Game Content|Open Game Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published under the OGL. A work in progress. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD¦Unearthed Arcana|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;3rd Edition<br />
* [[SRD3e:System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">A work in progress. Please help transcribe pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=SRD|category=3e|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Acquired Advanced 2nd Edition<br />
* [[2.5e Homebrew|Homebrew Content]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=2.5e|notcategory=Publications|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;Publications<br />
* [[Publication List]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Unfinished list of all d20 products in every edition. Please help compile pages. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=Publication|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=D20M|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
* [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Pages published by WotC that are allowed to be on D&D Wiki. {{#dpl:debug=1|allowcachedresults=true|category=MSRD|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}</div><br />
;<big>Administration</big><br />
* [[Meta Pages]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.</div><br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
| width="35%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Featured Article</div><br />
<div style="color: #000000; text-align: center;">([[Featured Articles|all featured articles]] | [[Featured Articles#Featured Article Nominees|nominate an article]])</div><br />
{{User:Badger/sandbox16}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="2" |<br />
{| width="100%" style="margin: 0; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF;"<br />
| width="50%" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding: .5em .5em; margin: 1em;" |<br />
<div style="margin: 0; background:#663300; font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #e6d88d; text-align: left; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">[[Image:hp_news.gif|right]]Recent News:</div><br />
{{News}}<br />
|}<br />
|}</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Badger/sandbox16&diff=548105User:Badger/sandbox162012-01-25T19:10:46Z<p>Badger: Let's make Featured Articles a little more dynamic</p>
<hr />
<div>{|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top;"<br />
| <div style="color: #000000;"><br />
<choose><br />
<option><br />
[[File:4e Race Graveborn.jpg|115px|thumb|A [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] king in his ceremonial garb.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Graveborn (4e Race)|Graveborn]]''' were reborn in the [[4e Index (4e Other)#Shadowfell|Shadowfell]]. Their ultimate goal is to avoid what she once escaped, death and the clutches of the Raven Queen, and seek the power to defeat those who would threaten their survival. Haunted continually by the whispers of those who died and were buried in their vicinity, some graveborn seek to escape the voices by venturing into the wilds as barbarians. Others try to drown them out with arcane music or the more preferable, though demanding, voice of a [[4e Index (4e Other)#Warlock|warlock]] patron. Since they harbor no memories of their former lives and find it difficult to retain even recent memories graveborn are often distant and unapproachable, even to those who have known them for decades.<br />
<br />
As an [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]], [[Graveborn (4e Race)|graveborn]] live differently than other races and have no need to eat, drink, or breathe. They are usually similar in appearance to human zombies, but occasionally resemble other [[4e Races|races]]. Their skin is almost always rotted. Graveborn are unnaturally gaunt and underweight, giving the impression of a withered or decaying corpse that shouldn't naturally be able to move, and they always smell somewhat stale. Even so they often wear concealing clothing such as cloaks and hooded robes, and it is not difficult to mistake one for a living person under the right disguise.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[File:Derro.jpg|250px|thumb|A [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|derro venomblade]] infiltrating the surface..]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Derro (4e Creature)|Derro]]''' are naturally deviant because of their unusual heritage and their creator. Actions of their ancestors caused the lands of the derro to lie in the Underdark today. Derro are worshipers of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]], the patron deity of betrayal, cruelty, insanity, knowledge, madness, and treachery.<br />
<br />
Since [[Derro (4e Creature)|derro]] are regarded as enemies by most other races, save for a few they may make agreements with, they are usually only accompanied by a handful of their kin. Often, the only races which accompany them are enslaved. The chaotic society they form precludes any orderly hierarchy, leading to one where all sorts of derro prevail. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Vocalist|Vocalists]] shriek and howl nearly constantly, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Madguard|madguards]] serve as heads of command for small groups of derro, [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Mindscar|mindscars]] overpower and imitate opponents, and [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Venomblade|venomblades]] perform subterfuge. [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Savant, Variant|Savants']] power comes from the chaotic forces of their own minds while [[Derro (4e Creature)#Derro Lunatic Priest|lunatic priests]] are more concerned with spreading the mad word of [[Diirinka (4e Deity)|Diirinka]] than their own lives.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Blood Knight-2.jpg|350px|thumb|A [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knight]] sits atop his horse after the feast.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|Blood knights]]''' are an order of nongood knights dedicated to the service of vampirekind. Normally they can be found under a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire's]] servitude, acting as its assassins, battlefield commanders, battlefield guards, sentries, or a source of its gathered information. Others can be found serving vampirekind.<br />
<br />
By feasting on the fresh blood of fallen creatures [[Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)|blood knights]] gain use of special abilities that resemble [[SRD:Vampire|vampires']] natures. Their forefront combat-focus, servitude, and special actions make them valuable to those they cooperate with. Others find them to have a quite frightening presence; wearing dark, blood-stained armor and surrounded by necromantic magic the first instinct of most ordinary people is to flee in terror. The most powerful blood knights are vampires.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Rock Worm by Hall.jpg|215px|thumb|A gargantuan [[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|rock worm]] bursting out of the ground.]]<br />
<br />
'''[[Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)|Rock worms]]''' are subterranean dwellers. They are about 40 feet long, 5 feet in diameter, and weigh about 50 tons. They look like regular earthworms although they are exorbitantly larger and have an extremely tough hide composed from rock and calloused flesh, which covers them entirely. Rock worms can burrow through stone, but they are normally found in areas consisting of softer soils such as desert, beach sands, or grassland dirt.<br />
<br />
These creatures are sometimes carnivorous. Therefore they can be found burrowing and creating tunnel-networks around civilizations, destroying the built environments' support and making their eradication necessary. The problem for surface-dwellers is increased by the issue that, when they feel threatened, rock worms may create minor earthquakes around themselves, knocking down some buildings and damaging others.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Dire Celestial Lion by Wei-Che Juan.png|215px|thumb|A [[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lion]] on a vantage point in deep fog.]]<br />
A pride of '''[[Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)|celestial dire lions]]''' (lions) consists of related females and offspring and a small number of adult males. Groups of female lions typically hunt together, preying mostly on large ungulates. The lion is an apex and keystone predator, although they will scavenge if the opportunity arises. While lions do not typically hunt humans selectively, some have been known to become man-eaters and seek human prey.<br />
<br />
Lions spend much of their time resting and are inactive for about 20 hours per day. Although lions can be active at any time, their activity generally peaks after dusk with a period of socializing and grooming. Lionesses do most of the hunting; with each lioness having a favored position in the hunt, either stalking prey on the "wing" then attacking, or moving a smaller distance in the center of the group and capturing prey in flight from other lionesses.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Deviant.jpg|thumb|An old [[Deviant (3.5e Class)|deviant]], reading and mulling.]]<br />
'''[[Deviant (3.5e Class)|Deviants]]''' aren't combatants, nor are they handymen. They are observers of the highest tier, seeking patterns in life and distilling their experiences to gain knowledge. They devote their lives to study of the ever shifting universe, and through learning and experiences that may be religious, enlightening, ascetical or even purely for the self, the deviant gains unfathomable understanding of the world.<br />
<br />
Tellers, travelers, wanderers, ascetics, pacifists, chroniclers, loremasters, seekers and doers. The deviant is it all, using their profound perceptive qualities in order to help their comrades. A deviant sees many things that other people can't, and uses his innate emanations in order to strengthen or defend.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Elf1.jpg|thumb|A female sylvan [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elf]].]]<br />
'''[[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|Elves]]''' love and revere the natural world. This, combined with their eternal life spans, enables them to perceive much more in Nature than those of mortal birth could ever hope to. Some [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] dwell deep in the forests, others beside tranquil oceans, others ın mountain caves, and even others in ancient cities hewn of shining white stones. No matter where they may live, all [[Elf, Variant (4e Race)|elves]] are graceful, emotional, fair and kind. They are one of a few races who are a great bastion against evil, as they are known to rise to the defense of the suffering far more than any other.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:Living_Dead.JPG|thumb|The profile view of a slain [[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]].]]<br />
The '''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living dead]]''' appear very similar to regular [[4e Index (4e Other)#Zombie|zombies]], however they are not [[4e Index (4e Other)#Undead|undead]] in the standard sense. Instead of having died and then been re-animated, the living dead have been infected with ''[[Living Dead (4e Creature)|living death]]'', an extremely contagious disease and a virulent toxin to the already living.<br />
</option><br />
<option><br />
[[Image:WolfSpider.jpg|thumb|A spider rider's mount]]<br />
Masters of mounted combat, [[Spider Rider (DnD Prestige Class)|spider riders]] are the favored servants of Lolth and Arachne. They are totally obsessed with spiders: their minds, bodies and souls are tied up to the arachnids.<br />
</option><br />
[[Image:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg|thumb|A once mighty temple that has fallen to ruin under the rein of [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]].]]<br />
[[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is a goddess of evil, sloth, selfishness, lust, and irresponsibility. She teaches that there is no right save for what makes one feel good and no wrong except for what prevents one from feeling good.<br />
</option><br />
</choose><br />
</div><br />
|}</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=548063Talk:Main Page2012-01-25T01:19:47Z<p>Badger: /* Concerning edits to this page */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Praise for this site ==<br />
<br />
This is the most useful Wiki I have ever found on D&amp;amp;D, (and I've seen a LOT of on-line references). I am currently running an adventure and I keep this site open on my lap-top as I play. It saves me a great deal of time and speeds up play considerably. I almost never even open my Monster Manual anymore.<br />
<br />
Kudos to the WebMaster. --[[User:Gildavinor|Gildavinor]] 18:13, 25 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree very strongly with you, Gild! Though I didn't sign in very often previously, I absolutely adore this Wiki. It's the pinnacle of Dungeons and Dragons research and innovation. --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 18:42, 25 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Taking sides in any instance is a bad idea... Neutrality is a great observational instrument if one is not affiliated therein. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:51, 25 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Totally agree. --[[User:Lord Mattos|Lord Mattos]] 11:14, 29 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Two Millionth View! ==<br />
<br />
Looks like today was [[Special:Statistics|the day]] folks! 2 million views on the main page! &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 12:46, 14 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Yeah, now there are 2,299,388 views (Jan. 13,2010)! Wohoo! --[[User:Io|Io]] 16:52, 13 January 2010<br />
<br />
<br />
And now, in the november of 2010, we have 3,080,184 views!<br />
<br />
== Size ==<br />
<br />
how many Megabytes is this whole site? {{Unsigned|216.12.83.73|22:29, 15 November 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:Why? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 15 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I was thinking of copying the source code so i cant look at it offline--[[User:Lo-Chi|Lt.Dan]] 07:20, 16 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::You don't need the size of D&D Wiki as a whole when looking at the source code ("''View Page Source''" for Mozilla Firefox). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:12, 16 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
== The Tavern ==<br />
<br />
After a huge hiatus I'm finally back to D&D Wiki (and happy to return!) following a long period of being almost broke. I notice that the Tavern, which was gone when I first had to go...still isn't back. That was one of my favorite parts of the Wiki, and I hope I'm just being stupid and missing it somewhere. Is it gone for good? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 07:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It actually was discontinued. There is no "official" reason as to now however take a look at [[Discussion:The Tavern: use, expansion, and availability.]]. The main reason is "''...it is quite childish and immature at times and I feel at times it decreases the seriousness of D&D Wiki with childish behavior and immaturity.''" [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] "Discussion:The Tavern: use, expansion, and availability." 21:02, 20 November 2009 (MST). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Ah...oh well. That's a little sad to me, but I can see the reasoning behind it, it -was- rather vulgar at times. Thank you for replying. :) --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I'm coming back too and I too liked the tavern... I agree with the reasoning, but I still think we should have an effective way of conversation, since a wiki is not the best tool for talking...<br>Isn't there something that could be implemented in the place of the tavern (and maybe have some rules as to swearing and misbehaviour, making disrespectful users suspended/banned from using it)?--[[User:ElfsMaster|ElfsMaster]] 10:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::But this '''is''' a wiki, and by not having the sidetrack of a chat users may tend to rely more on the already established discussion tool. Or they can leave messages on talk pages of other users. It actually encourages the opening of discussions and talks between users on the wiki - which can lead to more wiki additions and improvements, instead of just idle chatter. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 14:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Appealing to people in real time is more effective than doing so passively, from what I've found. Also, just because serious discussion does not happen constantly doesn't mean it never does. I understand that a decision has been made however, so that's all I'll say on the matter. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Why not do something like what facebook has and when a user is logged in, they have a little chat bar? i know there are a lot of difficulties with that, including having "friends lists" and the like, but its an idea. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 07:21, 26 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Search Incapacitation ==<br />
The search function has been completely nonfunctional for me for a good few days, maybe half a week or more now. Once in a while I'll nail to a T an article's name, and it'll transport me there. Just hitting Search or mistyping anything causes it to utterly fail for me. Is this just a localized problem (which I don't think it is, I've used 3 different computers to try and access it, all were on different networks) or what's going on? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 05:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Is it actually giving you an error, or just pulling up the extended/advanced search function ''(which is normal when you don't type an article name perfectly)''?. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 13:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I'm having the same issues, the message "Query failed: connection to localhost:3312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused)" appears when I try to search for something.<br />
::I'm having a similar problem, mainly in that I can't browse things, I can only see things when I search for them, which, makes looking at the diffrent races, quite difficult [[User:Sevant|Sevant]] 18:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Search is working once again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:14, 22 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Official Content Designation ==<br />
<br />
Could a homebrew template be added? I keep coming here after a Google search and I keep finding overpowered homebrew things (like [[Paragon_of_Light/Darkness_%283.5e_Prestige_Class%29]]) and it usually takes me a moment to figure out that it's not official, just something some random person made up. I'd prefer to see some sort of note to that effect at the top of the page. [[User:Banaticus|Banaticus]] 02:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ummm... A template is already added on all official pages. This is a homebrew site, so all articles are automatically assumed to be homebrew unless they are specified otherwise.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::There already is a homebrew template. Look down at the bottom of that page you linked... see where it says "{{DnD Classes Breadcrumb}} &rarr; [[DnD Prestige Classes|Prestige Classes]]"? "Homebrew" is even in the wording of the template. If you are looking for ONLY SRD material then look for pages starting with "SRD:". They will all have OGL templates as well.<br />
::Additionally, much of our homebrew content has ratings by other users, so you should know right away if it's overpowered. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Pictures Down? ==<br />
<br />
While it might be my computer, it appears that something happened to the pictures on the site. They don't seem to be displaying. Am I wrong? Was there an announcement that I missed? [[User:Noname|Aristocles]] 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This question was already brought up on GD's talk page under [[User talk:Green Dragon#Images lost again|this header]]. However no clear answer was given by GD. All I know is that no, it is not your computer, and no there was no announcement. The pictures still exist on the media repository, however they are not linking properly. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 13:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Images have been fixed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:12, 22 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Are you sure? I dont see any- ANYWHERE!!! [[User:DragonFist|DragonFist]] 20:13, 17 December 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::This may have been a cache problem. I assume this is no longer a problem as they have been working for me for quite a while now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:13, 9 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Marking a page as homebrew ==<br />
<br />
How do we mark a page as homebrew? Take [Alon (3.5e Deity)] for instance. It turns out he's a homebrew god, although I don't see that anywhere on the page. It's sometimes difficult to tell the difference on this wiki between homebrew things and official things. [[Special:Contributions/97.93.94.242|97.93.94.242]] 12:42, 24 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Any properly-created page should have a clear breadcrumb at the bottom of the page which leads back to a homebrew page. In addition any user-created content belongs in [[:Category:User]]. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:22, 27 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::You can also just click "3.5e Open Game Content" on the sidebar to take you to the "official" material. Almost everything on this site is homebrew. Because of that, what we do is mark pages that are official. If you don't see a template that says "Open Game Content", then the page you are viewing is essentially guaranteed to be homebrew content. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:24, 27 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 3 Million View ==<br />
Just a quick pat on the back, as per Statistics the main page has hit 3 million views. Too bad our news is months behind. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 22:46, 3 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's ok, I'm months behind on reading --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:33, 17 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Advice on Creating Animal ==<br />
<br />
Ok so i have no clue how to do this but i want to make an Exploding Chicken animal for D20M and all i know is that its a regular chicken that explodes when within 15ft of any nonchaotic for 1d6 damage at a range of 20ft. they have a total health of 3. they also are weak and are just mobile... firecracker i guess would be the best way of puting it. my DM said to just put it on here cause he wants to see what others think. thanks! *EDIT* i ment D20M Apocolypse<br />
<br />
:I can't give you mechanical help with creating your creature, but I can give you wiki help. Go [[Add_a_New_D20M_Creature|here]] and replace "CreatureName" with "Exploding Chicken" or whatever you want to name it. Leave a space and (D20 Modern Creature) after the name, and then press "Create New Creature". It will take you to a page with a pre-load designed for creatures in the d20M universe (I don't know if that is the same as d20M Apocalypse, is it?). Like I said, I don't know anything about the d20M system, so I can't help you write your creature and balance it, but if you need help with tables or other wiki formatting, leave a message on my talk page. One last thing, don't forget to sign your posts by typing <nowiki> --~~~~ </nowiki>. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:44, 21 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks! and its pretty much the same as other systems. and i guess i ment that i needed tables for things like different sizes and their modifiers and things like that --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 10:54, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== April 1 ==<br />
<br />
Is there going to be another [[:Category:April Fools|April Fools]] thing this year? -[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 08:15, 28 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Well I'm going to add April Fool stuff. I don't know about other people though. --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 15:26, 28 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you're looking for ideas, try updating the random hooker table from the [[Dungeon Master's Guide (1e AD&D)|1e DMG]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've added the Chew'd Button and I'm going add Summon Potato this after noon.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 21:23, 31 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Sheild Bash? ==<br />
<br />
Hello ive been playing DnD 3.5 for a while now and I have a question a heavy sheild with spikes does 1d8 damage now when i enchanted it with "Bashing" my friends told me it now does 3d6 on a shield bash is this correct? {{unsigned|Grunt|2011-04-12 16:36}}<br />
<br />
: Not quite. A [[SRD:Heavy Shield#Enhancements|spiked heavy shield]] does 1d6, not 1d8. According to the 3.5 FAQ, the bashing quality stacks with a spiked shield which raises the damage to 2d6. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:22, 12 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Prototype... Class? Template? Race? Can someone help? ==<br />
<br />
Hello in my groups recent dnd sessions we decided to try for an OP campaign as in epic class's templates and races based off of movies, books, games, etc... so if anyone has ever played the game ''Prototype'' and know about "Alex Mercer" and his "powers" then you would know what kind of chacacter I want for our OP Campaign. unfortionatly I dont know anything about making class's/Races/templates. So i was wondering if somebody could either make one for me or help me with making it. It would be very much appreciated.<br />
DND 3.5 PLEASE!<br />
<br />
::The best person to ask, I believe, is [[User:Badger|Badger]]. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 09:25, 16 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Campaign Setting Help ==<br />
:''Discussion moved to [[User talk:Ohgren#I have a question]].'' <small>--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:31, 17 May 2011 (MDT)</small><br />
<br />
== Have an Idea ==<br />
:''Discussion moved to [[Discussion:Half-Demon_Combinations]].'' <small>--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:48, 14 June 2011 (MDT)</small><br />
<br />
== Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent ==<br />
<br />
:''Discussion moved to [[SRD Talk:Magic Items#Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent]].'' <small>—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:26, 18 July 2011 (MDT)</small><br />
<br />
== Site nominated for an Award ==<br />
<br />
[[File:Oggie statue trans small.png|thumb]]<br />
<br />
Just thought I would let you guys know: D&D Wiki has been nominated for an OGGIE. The OGGIEs are the industry awards thereby. Nowhere near as big as the ENnies or Origin awards, the OGGIEs reflect the games, people, and tools that our members appreciate. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:52, 14 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Unfortunately this may not be accepted at this time. See also [[Talk:DnD Links#Lifestyles]]. I hope for a difference next year (or next award period). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:40, 15 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't follow GD. This isn't a site, simply an award. One of the sites mentioned is that link is also up for it, but its not a link or anything. If you prefer to not accept the nomination, we can revert to one of the other nominees that had lesser votes. Not really sure what you mean by the above statement. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:08, 15 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I mean that the link is not acceptable at the moment because of licensing problems. As soon as it is this may be mentioned here. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:11, 15 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Wait, are you telling me we are refusing an award because the O.G.R.E. website uses a license that we don't? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:20, 16 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::What link? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 06:10, 16 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::No. Because they have [[:Category:Valgora Setting]] content licensed incorrectly. It is actually licensed under the GNU FDL v1.2. Were that to be changed then it would be no problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:15, 16 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Although that is wholly incorrect in regards to how licensing works when the original author publishes , its not what I'm asking. What link? Being nominated for an award has not resulted in a single link off site. So again, what link? <br />
:::::::Anyways, in the interest of not rearguing an argument you've already lost that has no bearing, if you're uncomfortable let me know and well invalidate the nomination and let the next site in line receive it. (Didn't mean for that to sound rude, dang text based conversations. I just have no interest in revisiting the license discussion, especially when I see no connection) {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:55, 16 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Well, Hooper, I'm willing to bet that the O.G.R.E.s aren't going to re-license their own material to make GD happy, so we're at an impasse here. I understand that our nomination for this award has no external links related to it at all, but apparently GD doesn't. On a personal note, totally unofficial in every way, thanks for the nomination. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:12, 16 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::It wasn't me actually. Since I was the contact point for members I abstained from nominating myself. We had about 300 unique nominators, and expect about 3k unique voters. I was really happy to see this site on the list. Well, maybe next year. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:22, 16 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I find myself rather disappointed with this response. I am aligned with Hooper and Badger on all regards. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 09:19, 18 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself irrelevant or subservient. Both these would rather be avoided if they are actually otherwise so. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:36, 18 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Anyone have a clue as to what Green Dragon's on about? Really, "considering itself irrelevant or subservient"? To ''what'', exactly? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 01:59, 19 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I am somewhat confused by this explanation. I am going to quote definitions to help spell out why, no offense intended. <br />
:::::::::::::"The Problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself 'irreverent' (an adjective used to describe something that is disrespectful, sarcastic, and/or lacking in overall seriousness.) or 'subservient' (an adjective used to describe something that is useful in an inferior capacity or is compliantly submissive)."<br />
:::::::::::::Are you attempting to say that accepting an award that praises the site for it's content (I presume this is what the reward is for, honestly) indicates either of these things? If anything, it appears to mean the opposite of the first definition, as we're being recognized for honors, and the second is unlikely, since, again, we're being recognized for honors, not complying to their whims or submitting to superiority. Another thing is I don't see how this deals with the licensing problem, above, which I find myself agreeing with Hooper, on that note, having read over a large amount of licensing information due to links to past discussions. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 12:11, 19 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Sorry I meant "irrelevant". I spelled it wrong initially and in Firefox the first spellcheck result turned up with "irreverent".<br />
:"Considering itself irrelevant or subservient" to its own functions was meant.<br />
:Not accepting anything, ''linking'' to a site out of respect which does considers D&D Wiki's functions irrelevant and subversive (through the link) makes D&D Wiki then consider itself also so (or recognize such a consideration). This is what I am talking about. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:07, 19 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Except that reason makes not a lick of sense and gives the impression that you do not understand the facts. Did you somehow got the Oggies confused with...what, the Internet Razzies? Is it Opposite Week? As near as I can tell, OGRE is a roleplaying organization which wishes to acknowledge the D&D wiki as a fine D&D resource upon the Internet. '''They nominated the wiki for an award'''. One would think you would at least crack a smile over the fact that at least a few people in an unaffiliated group nominated the wiki for one of their awards and allow the nomination to be acknowledged and claim the prize if you get it. By the way, Hooper, which award was it? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 00:22, 20 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'd link to it, but......... Its "Website of the Year." Other contestants include a project funding platform site, a community game development & playtest site, an RPG advocacy site, etc. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 09:57, 20 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Green Dragon, your previous comments can barely be considered English. I'm having a hard time understanding you. Are you suggesting that OGRE, through its licensing, is acting as though we exist to serve them? That is perhaps one of the silliest things I've ever heard on this wiki, and I've been part of some incredibly asinine discussions here. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:55, 20 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different. However implying that D&D Wiki's functions are nonexistent or irrelevant to others' functions is, by definition, an irrelevant or subservient consideration. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:01, 20 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What content or license? The award is not a license, its simply an award. The winners will be given fair use to display the appropriate award. That's the only license at all related to this. GD, everyone is having a very hard time understanding you. We're not trying to be rude, it just seems like you're making no sense.The award is simply an acknowledgement of appreciation, it has no other effect. To say an acknowledgements somehow equals irrelevance is hard to follow. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 12:10, 20 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::The mixing, picking, and matching going on here I cannot understand. A is to A as A is to A. See also [[Talk:DnD Links#Lifestyles]] for more information about the problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:54, 20 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Umm, what? I don't know if this is the worse, or best, conversation ever. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:06, 20 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Hooper, this is the exact same problem that we had with the other wiki. Content licensing and re-licensing. Green Dragon has one understanding of the law, and some people (a number that appears to include everyone else in the world) has a different understanding. This time, OGRE has licensed the Valgora setting under CC-BY-SA, and we have it under GNU FDL v1.2. Because these aren't the same license, GD feels (and correct me if I'm wrong) that we are being slighted/ignored/other bad things. Because of that, we here at D&Dwiki will pretend that they don't exist, until they begin to comply with GD's understanding of the law. It seems foolish for us to ask you to re-license your material under GNU FDL v1.2 (considering it is an out-dated license anyway), so I won't even bother asking you to consider it. And, to answer your last comment, having been in my fair share of conversations, I'm going to say this is neither the best or the worst. However, his last comment might go down in history alongside a few other gems of what I call EnGDlish. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:35, 20 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::<cite>Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different. <b>However implying that D&D Wiki's functions are nonexistent or irrelevant to others' functions is, by definition, an irrelevant or subservient consideration. --Green Dragon</b></cite><br />
::::::::::Green Dragon, I will presume this is your main and only prominent standing argument against accepting the award. I provide the following rebuttal: First, I wish to know, by link and explanation, preferably, when, where, and how O.G.R.E. has implied this, or that the award has implied this; These are the only subjects that would be considered relevant to your argument, on the subject at hand, as these appear to be the only subjects concerning our site, here. Second, the emboldened text is a bit of stretch, on your part: While you are incorrect regarding the 'by definition' part, since considering ''anything'' irrelevant or non-existent does not match the definition of subservient (I posted it earlier), and irrelevance references itself in irrelevant, I fail to see why this matters? The key point of '''Irrelevant''', by definition, is that there is no connection, no relation, unimportant in circumstance or consideration, etc., and therefore, the idea that the site uses a different, but entirely legal, correct, and appropriate license, is inconsequential to D&D Wiki in every way, since the two sites are not related. All that matters is the legality of each item, viewed separately from each site, on the level that we are, now. There is no conflict or relation. Because of these reasons, I fail to see why you argue this point, or how you believe this award is unacceptable. There is no subservience, at all, and there is no irrelevance in accepting the award (We accept the award based on the fact that it is award to our site, for our content, and is therefore relevant to the site), and the site is irrelevant in every other manner (licensing, members, etc.). [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 10:58, 21 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::It also appears that he specifically checks the license a particular thing is under. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 11:47, 21 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::''(a number that appears to include everyone else in the world)'' does not include people who need to care. People with authoritative knowledge on this subject has reaffirmed what I have been saying. This is just one of those "internet postings myths" that people seem to cling to. Humans are varied.<br />
:::::::::::::With my terminology I was just putting an opinion onto the subject. The fact comes from [[DnD Links]] (top text). This answers many of the questions about this subject.<br />
:::::::::::::''(considering it is an out-dated license anyway)'' does not include the fact that new MW installs still list it as a possibility. Whatever outdated means as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:21, 21 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Regardless of my unattended argument, I decided to do some research on my own. Google is great, praise it. I came up with a simple solution. Why don't we just upgrade our license to GNU FDL 1.3? It is a more up-to-date version of our current license, and 'lo and behold, it manages to get rid of the whole compability problem with CC-BY-SA. At this point, clinging to 1.2, an obsolete version of the license, only generates more problems and needless strife. This option allows us to not bicker over this obviously controversial issue (Of which I must comment, Green Dragon, that sometimes your replies are hard to understand and do not address presented issues, and can exacerbate that), an issue which has apparently been active for a good long time before this one, according to the many links that we've been presented.<br />
:To summarize, every bit of this can be avoid by simply upgrading to the new GNU Free Documentation License 1.3, which <i>does</i> allow usage under CC-BY-SA. No-one loses face, no-one argues about vague legalese, and we have a happy wiki. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 00:28, 22 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::That was mentioned during our last debate. Nothing came of it. Not sure why, as it does solve all our problems. I think it has something to do with we aren't legally allowed to update our license, if I recall correctly. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:51, 22 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::We could upgrade. Why? What is wrong with the GNU FDL v1.2? It is still offered on new MW installs. Is it because of a fear complex that we should? This is the only reason I can devise from such an idea, and one I would not like to pursue. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:44, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Why upgrade? Here is a page that explains the changes, and why we should consider it: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html] Basically, it says "We can play nicely with people who use different licenses". I see no reason why we shouldn't extend a metaphorical olive branch and say "You play D&D. I play D&D. Let's be friendly." --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:59, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Still, why? What is wrong with the GNU FDL v1.2? I have no idea why Wikipedia did what it did. The current license does not have any holes or flaws that I can think of, and creating an environment for licensing is ingrained in any case, so why create cross-dependency? Making things simpler is always better then more complex, and a cross-dependency is more complex for everyone. We allow CC-BY-NC-SA content (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]]). That is the current method&ndash; why a cross-dependency? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:46, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::How many novel-length debates do we need to have before you acknowledge that a large portion of the user base isn't satisfied with the current licensing arrangement? Sure, there may not be anything inherently ''wrong'' with v1.2, but v1.3 is ''specifically designed for wiki projects''. Also, there would be no "cross-dependency". Literally nothing would change, except for where we can link. It wouldn't be more complex. In fact, most people wouldn't notice a change, and those that do would notice an improvement, not a more complicated system! Did you get a chance to ask the GNU FDL people about allowing multiple licences of the same content yet? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:42, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Who actually cares about the current licensing situation, save a few (I can only list a few users) who care about making an annoying situation about a myth every time they can? It gets on my nerves, and it wastes my time. Maybe we can put a policy in about redundant discussions. The question remains: What is wrong with CC-BY-NC-SA content (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]])? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Nothing, Green Dragon. Nothing is wrong with CC-BY-NC-SA content. Here's what I don't get, though. You know at least a handful of people who don't like the current situation. Fixing their problem would be as simple as a half dozen edits, and no more than 15 minutes of your time. The question remains: If this is a recurring problem for you, why not address it, rather than make a policy that forces us to ignore it? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I imagine the flip side would get on many people's nerves. I know having multiple licenses (which is variable itself) and having them dependent on one another would be annoying for me. And when I say "''annoying situation''" I mean that users may be creating it for a number of reasons. I am not a psychiatrist, however I understand that people may be annoying for annoying's sake, have a reason behind it (hidden or not), or feel feelings about the situation. These, however, are not policy reasons. We are not in charge or anything really (D&D is D&D) except for how D&D Wiki's policies play out for it's users. Where a president may act on feelings (for example) there is no reason for us to. It accomplishes nothing. We must act on creating an environment where users understand their contributions (for the most part) and are okay with them. I find that creating multiple license dependency (where two separate licenses work just fine) does harm to our actions as administrators. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm not sure I understand most of what you've written there, but I think I got the gist of it. However, if we ''update'' to v1.3 of the GNU FDL we won't have to worry about multiple licenses. It would also allow us to "play nicely" with people who use CC-BY-SA, though ''we don't have to use it on our site''. Like I said, nothing would change in the eyes of 99% of the userbase. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:09, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Wikipedia is now dual licensed (or something like that), and we already have a solution for this (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]]) so I do not see a reason at all. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:38, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think you may be taking the issue in the wrong direction, Green Dragon. It's been stated multiple times: The argument lies in the fact that either you, or D&D Wiki's license policies, depending on who wants to direct blame at which party, have caused this confrontation regarding O.G.R.E.S.; I don't believe anyone here in the opposition has a problem with CC-BY-SA. Quite the opposite, it appears that you believe GNU FDL 1.2 conflicts with the idea derivative works that take up the license or different licenses, and while possibly justified (We've heard many arguments on each side of this), this is just making things complicated and frustrating.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::GNU FDL 1.2 was obsolete the moment 1.3 was released. This issue, and similar issues regarding license conflict, has divided the user-base of this wiki for far too long, and if that is not reason enough, then add in the factor that this allows us to accept wonderful awards and cooperate with other wikis, instead of reverting to another one of these large, drawn out arguments, and achieving nothing. Don't speak for the unspoken, but listen to those who have come forward to speak for themselves; You'll find that some of your greatest and most active remaining members are here, even if hundreds of numbers stay quiet, whether for or against the issue is unknown. This is not the time to be '''stubborn''', either. If anything, then why not have a vote, and be done with it? [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:41, 27 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
*'''The licensing discussion has been moved to [[Talk:GNU Free Documentation License 1.3#Updating]].''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 09:04, 27 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
===Comment===<br />
<br />
With this much bickering, I'm not sure that we deserve a "best of" anything award. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:55, 21 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We'd be a shoo-in for "Website with most internal strife", though. Any chance of that being a category next year, Hooper? ''':)''' --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:07, 21 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I think its all the ways of making things which are dealt with completely differently on other wikis (like Wikipedia) workable in a wiki environment. Who knew links were going to be selective? I had known for a while that something had to be done. Who knew that blocking was to be used in disjuncture? Who knows. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:17, 21 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm not really sure what that means, but I don't think that's it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:35, 21 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::It probably has to do with the administration or something. Who knows. It is all so mysterious. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.26|173.245.50.26]] 14:50, 22 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Umm... [[DnD Links]] and [[Warning Policy]] are so...? Read them please. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:10, 22 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Are so... what? You can't really blame them for anything, since we can change the policy to be whatever we want. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:05, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Hooper should win the "making up awards that mean nothing" award. Also the "most [[Discussion:Trust_Issues|chihuahua-like]]" award. Actually, Hooper should make up a million awards and give them to himself; he earned them! Green Dragon, I don't get why you would turn down such a prestigious award. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.206|173.245.55.206]] 19:11, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::They can change the policy as well. Policy is done though a wiki. Who says the current method is best? I don't know what they are like to some. Mysterious I guess (as mentioned above). It's the policy turning town the award. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:02, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Alright then Green Dragon, where should we go to discuss policy changes? Give me a link to a page, or make a discussion page or something, and let's have a policy discussion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:18, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::[[Help:Talk Pages]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Using_talk_pages Help:Using_talk_pages] should direct you where appropriately. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:25, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::You're kidding, right? I know how to sign a comment, I want to know where you want to hold a discussion about policy changes. If you give me a link, I'll know you'll know where to join the conversation. We've talked about policy choices in the past, and you've never weighed in, so we accomplish nothing (for example, [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|here]]). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:40, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ha, bad troll is bad. Welcome back "totally anonymous" "third party" user! I'm so excited about your opinion! Come back to me with it when you're helping run an awards program for a international non-profit with over 3,000 members across 15 states and three countries! Your posts give me such faith that you'll do it!<br />
::::::::::::Yawn, back to life (back to reality). Only our big categories (i.e. game of year, company of year, lifetime etc.) got tons of member nominations. Our smaller categories like website were based on just a handful (for instance, I have no qualms telling you that D&D Wiki made the last official nominee position with just 7 nominations) - so it really isn't upsetting anything on O.G.R.E.s end to move the next site up in the rank. However, as a longtime site user, speaking not from the O.G.R.E.s side but the D&D Wiki side - it is extremely disappointing that proven false interpretations and misunderstandings of licensing laws have stunted the growth rate of the site ''(though by no means killed it - yet)'', and to now even prevent recognition and appreciation and celebration of the site. Meh. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 23:00, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Things which require a technological advancement (not using something we have) are a different matter of course. I mean wiki policy changes.<br />
:::::::::::::Well, you can talk to people with authoritative knowledge about the licensing problems. We are not rejecting the award by no means, we are just not allowing it mentioned here (for the time being at least). How a site does something to D&D Wiki is not D&D Wiki's concern. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:41, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I can't find out how to contact "people with authoritative knowledge about licensing problems". Tell you what, can you just email them and ask them a simple question "is it legal to license the same content under multiple licenses, specifically GNU FDL v1.2 and CC-BY-SA?" Just that, that exact question. If they respond with "Yes" I hope you'll understand what we've all been saying this whole time. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:59, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Wait, wait, wait! We have a policy against receiving awards? Where is that one? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:31, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::We don't have a policy that says we can't take awards in general. We do, however, seem to have a policy that requires us to turn down this one. Personally, I'd rather lose out on an award because we suck, rather than because of licensing misunderstandings. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:21, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::So, GD - let me make sure I understand what you've said. You're okay being on the list, for possible voting - just not with making any back links (which we're not asking for). Is that correct? Just let me know before the 1st, when voting starts. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 16:45, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Everything is fine except that we may not give such a [[DnD Links|link]]. We could if (well, when) the licensing problems are resolved. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:46, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Where is ''that'' policy? The only thing on [[DnD Links]] is a link to [[Meta_Pages#Policies]], which, I don't think, says anything about (a) awards, (b) links to other sites, (c) copyright licensing, or (d) compatibility thereof. Unless I'm just missing it somewhere. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:50, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::It's the "''As per [[Meta Pages#Policies|policy]] the following external links are the only ones that may be referenced. However the external link reference does not have to be in the same format as the following external links.''" --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:56, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::So all we have to do to be able to add links to the OGRE site is to add links to the OGRE Site on DnD Links. There isn't a policy that says how we add links to DnD Links, though, so there's nothing stopping us from adding OGRES to DnD Links, then to this page, thus letting us accept the award. (None of this is actually referenced on the policies page it's linked to.) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:29, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::O.G.R.E.s doesn't want or need a link, though. Our site is for members or potential members, and we don't link whore. That isn't what our awards program is for either (its just one of many things we do). So, we don't require a back link at all. So, with that in mind, I guess GD is saying that the site can accept the award but never mention it outside talk pages, because we also host some of our Valgora stuff (which we have full legal right to do so...). Additionally, I don't think it's appropriate for O.G.R.E.s to be linked to from the Links site, because we're not a solely D&D or such club - we are very vocal about our All Tabletop Games/Systems/Companies/Setting/Etc. philosophy. So the average D&D Wiki browser probably isn't our core audience, though a RPGA link or Pathfinder Society link may be appropriate.<br />
<br />
:::::::::Anyways, back on topic - I suppose we'll leave that site on the vote. I don't know how, or if, GD wants to showcase a win if the site does get a gold or silver ''(possibly a userbox style code without a link just the info?)'', but that isn't my concern when I'm the me-who-works-for-OGREs. But as the me-who-is-a-site-member, it is. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 23:10, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Yes, Jazzman, all we have to do to allow the link is to add O.G.R.E to DnD_Links. However, GD has said we cannot add it to DnD_Links because of some licensing problem (be it real or imaginary). Personally, I'm all for following the first policy we have listed under policies: {{quote<br />
|If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining D&D Wiki, ignore it.<br />
|orig=[[Meta_Pages#Policies]]}} <br />
:::::::::::--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:35, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Oh, it's fine to host [[:Category:Valgora Setting|valgora]] content. It just must be licensed as it is. The [[DnD Links|link]] or no link discussion is for [[Talk:DnD Links]] (MW?). I am not for the policy mentioned above since it undermines D&D Wiki. That's insulting. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::How does doing something to improve or maintain D&D Wiki undermine it? Does it undermine some of the past decisions you've unilaterally set forth? Perhaps, but it doesn't undermine the wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Considering that Valgora originated on CBGwiki, which allows derivative copies under similar license - and that the OGREs hosted version came from there - this is a moot point. So its twice moot. Short story: lets keep with the times and update the license. Community vote first if you'd prefer. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 17:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The contributions date still point here. Thanks for the information though, I guess the same is with them. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've missed a couple points here, so I'm going to backtrack the discussion a bit. Firstly, if I can reiterate the "policy" issues, I see no reason why we can't link to OGRES. Here's the chain or logic:<br />
<br />
::::#You can only link to a site elsewhere on the wiki if it is first placed on DnD Links<br />
::::#You can only place a link on DnD links if it follows the general policies of the website<br />
::::#OGRES is not against any general policies of the website<br />
::::#Therefore you may add it to DnD links, per (2)<br />
::::#Therefore you may link to the site elsewhere per (1)<br />
::::QED.<br />
<br />
::::Is there a flaw in my logic? If so, with what step, what is the flaw, and where is the policy posted?<br />
<br />
::::On the topic of "undermining": if you read the full context of the text Badger quoted, you will see that the whole reason it is there is because we are too lazy to create our own rules, and instead link to Wikipedia. The effect of this is, we use Wikipedia's rules, except in cases where their rules are incompatible with our purpose. For example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR WP:OR] does not apply to custom content created on this wiki. It does not undermine D&D Wiki, but it does leave us with a problem: who gets to decide when we are better off ignoring a given rule? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:12, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::"''You can only place a link on DnD links if it follows the general policies of the website''"; which it does not. This is a discussion for [[DnD Links|links]].<br />
:::::None of this is determined by Wikipedia however. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:32, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Which policy? Can you please point to it? I'd argue that while this may also apply to DnD links, I'm ultimately discussing the award, not whether or not we can link. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:42, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:17, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::You didn't link to it, so I can only assume you are talking about the [[Warning Policy]]. Regardless of whether or not the website is doing those things (and I'll go out and say that they aren't), that policy applies to editors, not links. It's at best a huge stretch and at worst a gross misinterpretation to apply the warning policy to external websites. Unless you were talking about something else? I'll admit I have trouble navigating the policies. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:37, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::No, actually I was not. The [[Warning Policy]] has bases, however those bases are not exclusive. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:15, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Considering O.G.R.E.s has never contacted you ''(this message about the award I posted as a long time user here being the most official contact - ever)'', to say rudeness, belittling, or lying has been done is extremely uncivil on your part, GD. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 08:33, 27 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::''"Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:17, 26 August 2011 (MDT)"''<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Not to be too confrontational, but this really seems to indicate that you may have a personal experience with this site or it's users that could potentially influence your opinion. Honestly, I feel it would explain a lot, especially since you appear to oppose and reject even feasible solutions that don't challenge the definitions of the license we currently use, such as upgrading to the new, improved, and problem-solving v1.3.<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Back on topic, could you please be specific? Which policies does the award, or even O.G.R.E.S. violate, and please link or explain this, in detail. I cannot speak from the same position has Hooper regarding what O.G.R.E.S. has done in the past, as I lack the same status as a member, but I find that being vague is not going to help these matters. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:57, 27 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I'd love to know as well. But it is my understanding that GD simply believes that hosting [[:Category:Valgora Setting]] content on O.G.R.E.s wiki violated the licensing agreement for Valgora on this wiki ''(an argument proven wrong at [[Talk:GNU Free Documentation License 1.3#Updating]].'' With that in mind though, let's keep all licensing conversations there, to make this easier to follow and contribute to for all users. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 09:04, 27 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Even if that were the case, there's no policy keeping us from linking to a site with an incompatible license. Likewise, there's no policy keeping us from linking to a site that is rude or belittles us. GD, you stated that linking to O.G.R.E.s does not follow the general policy of this website. Can you please ''link'' to the policy we would be violating? If it's not Warning Policy, I just don't know what it is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:10, 27 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:It cannot be [[Warning Policy]] ("''When one does not edit''" just doesn't apply). I said it once and I'll say it again "''Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki).''" If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:49, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::''I've'' said it before, and ''I'll'' say it again: show me a link. I know very well what those words mean, I just don't know where you're coming up with them. If it's policy, it's on this website somewhere. If it's not on this website (or within Wikipedia's policies, though I don't think they have any that apply in this instance because they have significantly looser requirements to posting outside links), then it's not policy. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:52, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I have to admit, that comment makes me feel a little belittled. That being said, I can't find the policy which says we can't link to sites that are rude, belittling, uncivil, or lie to us. And neither could [http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7hhEn1pOvkQA9wZXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDUCMyNzY2Njc5BF9yAzIEYW8DMARjc3JjcHZpZANXM0tYeGtvRzd2N1hhMDNMVGtLZW5nQXdybVdmRFU1YW4wUUFDdEo3BGZyA3lmcC10LTcwMQRmcjIDc2J0bgRuX2dwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDc2l0ZTpkYW5kd2lraS5jb20gInJ1ZGVuZXNzOyBiZWxpdHRsaW5nIgRzYW8DMQR2dGVzdGlkA1NNRTAzNg--?p=site%3Adandwiki.com+%22rudeness%3B+belittling%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=&rd=pref Yahoo!] [http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7kz9oFpOLF8AnPxXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDUCMyNzY2Njc5BF9yAzIEYW8DMARjc3JjcHZpZANaNm1MY1VvRzd2N1hhMDNMVGtLZW5nZG1ybVdmRFU1YW9QMEFBNmJOBGZyA3lmcC10LTcwMQRmcjIDc2J0bgRuX2dwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDc2l0ZTpkYW5kd2lraS5jb20gImx5aW5nIHRvIHRoZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBlbnRpdHkiBHNhbwMxBHZ0ZXN0aWQDU01FMDM2?p=site%3Adandwiki.com+%22lying+to+the+appropriate+entity%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=&rd=pref] [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:20, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::"''When one does not edit''" is a play on words. Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a [[Warning Policy]]). They must fix the problem or get banned. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:44, 30 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::As much as I love wordplay, official policy should not include puns. In the future, please be more clear about what you mean. We were all confused for some time by your wording. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:46, 30 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I'm not really sure this violates any WikiP policies, either. If you treat a website like a "user", then "banning" said "user" would mean not allowing him to edit. OGREs isn't editing D&D Wiki, we are. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:34, 31 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Though it seems pointless, voting is open. Figure out the link if you wish. The site is currently way behind in it's category, however. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Digital D&D Books ==<br />
<br />
a digital copy of one of the books with [OEF] or [OCR] at the end means what? they are pdf files and im not sure what it stands for --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 09:19, 10 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Those terms are not associated with D&D, but rather with PDFs in general. OEF stands for "Original Electronic Format" which means it is the document they send to the printers, not a scan of the physical book's pages. OCR stands for Optical Character Recognition, which means you can use the search function of a PDF viewer to search for text. If a PDF is not OCR it essentially treats each page as a picture, so you can't copy/paste text, or search for words. On a related note, piracy is bad. I know buying books is stupid expensive (and fills up a lot of space, and less convenient, and less functional), but it is one of the best ways to show support, especially for indie developers and smaller publishing groups. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 11:31, 10 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::"less convenient, and less functional"? i dont know what your talking about. i prefer hardcopies over pdf, cause i can stick my fingers in the pages and flip through half the book in a few seconds. [[User:Zau|Zau]] 14:35, 10 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I agree that paper is nicer to read then pdfs. I find that reading is much more enjoyable in a non-digital format because no screen must be read the entire time, it normally is more comfortable, it's less effort, etc. Also, there are websites (not sure how they work with piracy) which host D&D books. One may be able to download pdfs from them for a membership price. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:40, 10 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Have you ever brought 50 books to a table to play D&D? Nope, but you can instantly pull open a new PDF. As for less functional, I could go either way with that one. Assuming you have a decent PDF viewer, you can make annotations, add bookmarks, highlight, and search entire books for phrases, rather than have to use an index. I know I'm the only one at my table that prefers a hard copy, and these are the reasons they usually cite. Hosting D&D books is almost certainly illegal. If it's not uploaded by something like "DNDWizards" or whatever else, odds are it isn't released by WotC. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:01, 10 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks Badger! And I agree, paper is better in my opinion. I just need my own physical copies rather than copies at a friends house 2 hours away. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 08:57, 21 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Glitch? ==<br />
<br />
Is this a glitch? I tried to make a new mundane weapon, however when the editing page came up it said something like "wikify| could not load" or something like that. Please look into it. --[[User:Reddragonl33t|Reddragonl33t]]<br />
<br />
:With so little information, there's no way to tell if it was a glitch. I kind of doubt it was, though. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:00, 18 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Was the page name already in use? I tried to make a weapon page (per [[Add New 3.5e Equipment]]) and it worked fine. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:28, 18 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Just a bit of a problem ==<br />
<br />
I just want to say that I love the site and I am currently using a homebrew race for my character but Me and my DM have come to an impass...<br />
<br />
I chose the geode for my race but I want to play a dragonfire adept and as such class I need to breath, any idea how we could get around this? [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 16:01, 15 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:This question would fit better in the [[DnD Discussion|discussion section]] of the site.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 01:48, 16 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Frustration ==<br />
<br />
I had to go through a catraphrase thing, GAH! How I would like to ring the neck of who did what they did to this site... I mean that they need to be more mature and not spam/upload things to this site that can harm it.... Sorry, just wish I could find who was responsible... [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 05:59, 9 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
And if this is unnessesary I am sorry... [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 06:01, 9 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:What are you talking about? What is "''a catraphrase thing''"? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:57, 9 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Probably got snagged by cloudflare. Happened to me for about a week in November/December. --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 12:03, 9 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I have been asked to turn up the cloudflare security options on [[User talk:Green Dragon#Spam (again/still)]]. Are you saying it is too strict? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:09, 9 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Sorry, the catraphrase thing is the type the 2 above words thing to get into things. [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 18:59, 9 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't think it is too strict, but i think it needs to be targeted to edits, not just viewing. --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 08:14, 10 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::[https://www.cloudflare.com/plans Here] are their options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:35, 10 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Which plan do we currently use? What are our settings? I don't know how to tell if the settings aren't high enough, if the software isn't working, or if spammers are just finding a way around it. Really, if these spammers are just a bunch of Chinese people with proxied IP addresses, theree's nothing stopping them from spamming. AFAICT, cloudflare only protects us from automatically generated spam (aka bot spam), correct? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:25, 20 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
== 5th Edition ==<br />
<br />
This might be a bit premature(it's never happened to me before, I swear!), but apparently, WotC has announced 5th ed. Should we open a section up on the wiki, or is it too soon? --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 12:19, 9 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Do you know where their official release information is? I can't seem to find it in their news section. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:50, 9 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I am not sure if this is okay to post, as it is an external link: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4ll%2F20120109 --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 14:42, 9 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::You are fine to post the external links on [[DnD Links]] (see the top) anywhere and in any manner.<br />
:::The next edition will be treated like 4e (and 2.5e, etc). Would you be interested in spear-heading this new edition as the game is finalized? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:26, 9 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I would be, if it doesn't suck... --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 08:11, 10 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Glad to hear it. As soon as there is information about how things are done feel free to start. If/when you need help I am more then willing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:33, 10 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Cloudflare Issue==<br />
<br />
Over the past couple weeks, I've been occasionally getting an error message from Cloudflare indicating that the site is down. Can anyone explain what's going on with that? -[[User:Silverkin|Silverkin]] 07:51, 16 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:One time may have been when I deleted my talk page, since I put my password on it, and I could not restore it without the site having to go down because of setup issues. How often has this cloudflare issue been happening? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:05, 16 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::It's happened to me three times, on different days each time. I can say with confidence that all three were within the last month or two. -[[User:Silverkin|Silverkin]] 16:12, 16 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It happened to me several times last year and once yesterday.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 17:14, 16 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I have this problem from time to time, but it was not until recently that I discovered I am exacerbating the problem. When the site goes down I usually keep a window open and click refresh periodically until the page loads. Last time the site went down I thought it had been down for days, but then I noticed that there is a link to click if you think the site is back up and you are getting the page in error (in other words, it forces the page to load fresh, instead of from your cache). Lo and behold, the site loaded and people had been editing the entire time I thought it was down! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:27, 20 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Concerning edits to this page ==<br />
<br />
Green Dragon, you have made edits to the text of yours and other people's comments in violation of our policies, as I have explained below. Your initial explanation for the removal was "''some removed because USA and English (oxford) would deal with "the warning" not D&D Wiki, removed based off inappropriate behavior, removed circular comments''". Per our [[Help:Talk_Pages#Editing_or_Deleting_Existing_Comments|policies]], you can not remove any text -- including your own -- unless it violates one of 5 very specific rules. "Circular comments" are not in violation, whatever the USA thing means is not in violation, and while inappropriate behavior ''is'' a violation, any offenders should have been warned. None of the five rules allow you to remove any mention of OGREs, none of them allow you to remove entire lines of someone's argument, thus changing the entire meaning of their post (see my logic around line 307 -- this is in every letter and spirit of the law the reason for the Wikipedia policy in the first place), and really, none of these rules allow you to edit your own wording for clarity (the Wikipedia policy to which we default HEAVILY frowns upon this) or fix other people's links. Your newest reason "''All Policy violations - although not necessarily OURS''" is, frankly, somewhat unbelievable. Am I to believe that we are to remove ANY content that is in violation of ANY policy ANYWHERE? Should I delete the entire wiki, as I'm sure there's a website out there somewhere with the policy that all content must be in Italian? In addition, this conversation took place months ago. Why is it even relevant now, unless you thought nobody was paying attention to it any more?<br />
<br />
I'm sure you will be removing the content once again, but if you do so I implore you to please follow our policies as written and (a) itemize what changes you are making and for what reason you have made them (meaning one-by--one, not a blanket statement), (b) make any changes without changing the intent of what someone has said, and (c) make any changes related to policy violations based on the policies of this website. We have no governing body, no law enforcement; the only thing we have are what few rules are actually thought out and codified. Without those we are just in anarchy and nobody wants to stay around and build up our website. Thank you for your understanding. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:22, 20 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Discussions have a purpose, per the word "discussion". If someone cannot levelly read discussions there is a problem somewhere.<br />
:So, why are there problems with discussions? The problems come from humans. Humans make mistakes. Some people say that we should learn from our mistakes. If it is true that we should learn from our mistakes, then D&D Wiki cannot put that on someone else without their consent.<br />
:Since this is true it is totally fine to remove parts from discussions that do not belong within this understanding. Why? To think otherwise is wrong for the human discussing the imposed learning and, following the golden rule, doing else how than removing the comment would alleviate that person to a state of un-understanding (that which is their nemesis). For this reason it is civilized.<br />
:Now, why were the comments above removed? Either they did not adhere to [[DnD Links]], would become that editors nemesis (and is justified per above), or are shown to be not true (e.g. need to referenced not by a myth) but are not about our format. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:44, 22 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I didn't have a problem reading any of the comments and understanding them, with few exceptions to some of your posts, GD, and that I simply expect is a product of non-native languages, though I may not be correct. Also, considering that you removed whole portions of mine and others people's comments, including important conjectures and statements that were made in argument against you, it would appear to me that what you were attempting to do was completely skew the conversation away from its original incarnation and into a form that suited you and yours ends. Truthfully, that is despicable, and not a portion of your above post seems to justify it at all. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:00, 23 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I don't need to tell you anything about myself. How about you tell me something about yourself? If you can't do anything other then throw insults at people (which you will be warned for) then do not comment further. If the above comments continue along their trajectory this discussion will be reverted and the user will be warned appropriately (circular discussions). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 09:38, 23 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I didn't ask for information about you, so I'm not sure where you got that. I explained my perspective of the situation and explored the issue, for which your reasons have not been very sufficient in justifying. That's a situation you've placed yourself in, and not any product of my work, sir, so you only have yourself to blame. Threatening people with warnings and simply deeming their posts to be insults doesn't change that. This is but another reason for my concern regarding the non-native languages. Constant misinterpretation. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 13:29, 23 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::How about you quit classifying me? These (see Wikipedia) will be the reasoning behind your warnings. If you don't understand that you are classifying me then understand that you are. "That's a situation you've placed yourself in, and not any product of my work, sir, so you only have yourself to blame" is telling me that I did just that. Did I do just what you said? No. I explained the reasoning behind censorship (how am I through this placing myself in a situation?). Anyone could explain this to you, so the words are helping the reciever&ndash; no one is placing themselves anywhere for a later time to change things (if this is what you mean by that possibility). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:40, 23 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::At the risk of stepping on someone else's toes, I think what Jwguy was trying to say is that sometimes your sentence structure does not make sense to us. There is no ill intent on anybody's part, simply some sort of communication barrier. It seems that you might be a non-native speaker (and to my memory, I don't think you've ever confirmed or denied this, not that the answer itself ultimately ''matters''), but it could just be that we all use different syntax. Then, sometimes, when we ask you to explain what you mean, you feel that we are asking you to repeat yourself. Well, that is actually what we are asking, but we are not doing so just to annoy you, we are doing so because if we do not understand where you are coming from then we can never truly reach an understanding about anything. In addition, sometimes after I read something you write a few times I get a different (I think, truer) interpretation. Some people are not as patient as I, and would then assume you are saying something you are not saying. It's not classifying any more than saying JazzMan uses a lot of independent an parenthetical clauses; while it's true it puts me into a "group" of people (those who use many sub-clauses in their writing structure -- see? I'm doing it again!), it is not intended to be a positive or negative connotation. It just ''is''. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:01, 23 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::First things first: I speculate, Green Dragon. I don't classify, label, or designate, or however it might be described. As Jazzman says, your mannerisms and statements are often difficult to understand ("If you don't understand that you are classifying me then understand that you are", for example, doesn't make much sense, as it is a circular statement and illogical), and seem like they could be a result of not being a native speaker of English. I favor the possibly, but only because there has been little explanation and because it is a high probability, given the fact that the internet stretches across the world. My statement regarding "That's a situation you've placed yourself in, and not any product of my work, sir, so you only have yourself to blame" was referring to the sentence before it, in which I said that your explanation and reasons did not appear sufficient in justifying your actions. That's not a classification. It is an opinion. Furthermore, while you say "Anyone" could explain this to me, it would appear that I am not alone in my opinion, considering the condemnation of the actions that have erupted from even more prominent members, of whom have contributed far more to this wiki, than myself. Because of this, I doubt the justification that seems apparent to you for your actions is truly as received as you seem to believe. Once more, I speculate. Truth be told, if you do indeed do all of this for despicable reasons, then that is how I feel. I don't withdraw those feelings regarding such actions, for they are the direct result stemming from the actions themselves. Deeming our sincerest arguments and thoughts regarding your policies and statements discussing those policies as "mistakes", as you so eloquently put it, and taking it upon yourself to "correct" them, specifically, is a breach of policy, in itself, and tyrannical. If you truly thought you were trying to do good, then I will simply say, Please, do not. If you had ulterior motives, then I will leave it, and that I must voice my distaste for it. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 16:52, 23 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Let me just make it clear for you to understand GD: Unless a '''direct''' violation of policy or a cuss word, '''do not edit another user's talk page message.''' The trail of facts showcases that you have altered the actual meaning of some of our edits, almost always in ways that remove any disagreement with you. <br />
::::::::Anyways, time to remove this website from my browser tabs. No need to stick around for the full death rattle. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:32, 23 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I have explained the reasoning behind the matter of censorship.<br />
:::::::::On a different matter, I am open to anything really. If you want to become this "GD" you have realized, by all means let me know. In the past I have vetoed changes in the format based off an ability to disregard other users while not disregarding oneself, and I will not put with with incivility (this will result in an even worse atmosphere, although one could argue that with some comments people make it is already like that anyway&ndash; but I will give warnings as appropriate). But if you want to make a new format, I am open. Actually, a change in the status quo could be good for all of us. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:01, 23 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Could you clarify what you mean by this? ''On a different matter, I am open to anything really. If you want to become this "GD" you have realized, by all means let me know. In the past I have vetoed changes in the format based off an ability to disregard other users while not disregarding oneself'' You say that your open to ideas but then you say that you have stopped changes because you disregard others. This doesn't make sense and as said by the posters above we don't truelly understand the message you are trying to convey. --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 23:49, 23 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am saying that you can think outside the format here. If you don't understand what I am saying, form a committee to answer all questions on all section pages. I'm done with this understanding people develop and I am saying that you should get over it. I'm not your mom, question-answerer, or who knows what. If you need someone you can relate to&ndash; it may or may not be me but don't expect it to be me. '''Make the format work for you''', don't expect me to work for you. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 08:53, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Don't get me wrong, while I ''love'' that idea, you have ultimate veto power. So there's no point in spending time deciding something ourselves if you don't end up liking it, hence including you on ''everything''. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:41, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I'd say the above two points are my only real points of contention. Per above, make it transparent and equal as well as do not disregard civility. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:16, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::Are you saying that as long as we make policy and other important decisions clear, and equal, we can implement things without your express approval? I would be more than happy to work with Jazzman (or anyone interested) on making a FAQ page of sorts (perhaps as part of the help guide I'm slowly working on), where we answer confusing points, and explicitly define policy? This will require making some judgement calls on existing policy (what stays, what goes, what gets clarified, and what is covered). Are you giving us the go-ahead to do that without your explicit consent? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:19, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
== We didn't start the fire... ==<br />
<br />
Meltdown #2? #3? While other dnd wiki sites are flourishing with quality content rather than a bunch of unfinished, useless garbage.<br />
<br />
:Your (unsigned, cowardly)comment strikes me as deconstructive. Be helpful, add quality, or be gone(Please note this is my personal opinion and does not reflect the opinion of the Wiki, GD, BD, or any other "D" than perhaps the myserious "d" that has infected the optimized character build section). --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 08:50, 21 January 2012 (MST)<br />
::Although we ''do'' have quite a lot of chaff to process: deletion candidates and abandoned pages.[[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] 09:46, 21 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Don't forget d20 Modern. That one musical guy keeps saying he's going to revamp the whole thing but never has... [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 11:26, 21 January 2012 (MST)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graveborn_(4e_Race)&diff=548062Talk:Graveborn (4e Race)2012-01-25T01:14:12Z<p>Badger: /* Featured Article Nomination */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Revenant ==<br />
<br />
This race is very very very similar to the official Revenant 4e Race. Is this intentional or just happenstance? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 20:51, 7 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I am not a DDI subscriber, and so i have never actually seen the Revenant, though i'd heard of it. Any similarity is purely coincidental, probably arising from their both being an undead race. [[User:Techpriest|Techpriest]] 23:35, 7 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Nomination ==<br />
<br />
{{Succeeded Featured Article Nominee|--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:38, 24 January 2012 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
I find that this article is an acceptable featured article since it works correctly with the [[4e Race Preload|preload]], [[4e Race Design (DnD Guideline)|4e race design]], and is complete. It does not have {{tl|needsbalance}}, {{tl|stub}}, {{tl|wikify}}, {{tl|wording}}, or any other related template problems. It is also interesting through the combat and non-combat situations in any game. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:38, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Not that I don't like this class, but is this how we're doing Featured Articles now? Are we going to nominate and approve in a single edit, with no time for discussion among the community? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 11:28, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Not necessarily. I could not find anything wrong with this, so I nominated it. E.g. why should we wait for complete pages that are based off precedent pages? Do you see something wrong? I don't find it wrong if one notices the page is complete and it follows suit of precedent pages. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:38, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I don't have a grip on how balance works in 4e, but all these undead traits (no need to eat, breathe, or drink) makes this race quite powerful. Is that my misunderstanding of average balance on the 4e system, or has someone missed this balance concern? Also, "Though they have no need for sustenance food allows their undead form to re-knit itself in an imperfect semblance of life" isn't a coherent thought. I assume a comma should go in there after 'sustenance'. I also know that we've gotten in trouble with images before. Do we know the actual origin of this image? Can someone verify that it is actually public domain? <br />
<br />
:::Those are my mechanical problems with the page as it stands. If we are providing comments on overall quality and concept, I have other concerns. The page doesn't seem to make it clear if this is a human corpse, or a corpse of another race. It gives stats that correspond with humans, but you get the racial options of your former race. Are there racial options you don't have access to because you are dead? Is that something you should bother listing, or does this show off my weak grasp of 4e? Is there a reason you get bonuses to Constitution? If anything, shouldn't beings made of decayed flesh and fungi be weaker? Can you elaborate on these whispers you hear as a Graveborn? They strike me as an interesting concept, and a great spot to show off the unique flavor I like to see in FA. It is defined, but not really fleshed-out to create an interesting story. With this, as most FAs, the keywords I want to emphasize are "flavor" and "uniqueness". This could use some more of both, especially flavor. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:15, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::From a 4e mechanics point of view, I can't fault this race (except for one minor niggle which I've fixed). The "undead" traits are reskinned from official "living construct" PC races such as Warforged (including "do not need to eat, drink, breathe or sleep"). The encounter power is not overpowered.<br />
<br />
::::I'm no judge of fluff, but I'll note that there is some similarity with Revenants. The main difference seems to be that revenants are sanctioned by the Raven Queen, whilst graveborn have "escaped her clutches": The two would be natural enemies. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] 14:54, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I fixed the sentence you talked about above. Is it better now? About the image, yes. It's from Wikimedia Commons.<br />
:::::I cleared up the origin corpse and the racial options. I don't know if we should make the type based off the origin race. I assume that the Constitution bonus comes from the warlock aspect. Constitution has various uses in 4e, so I think it is okay with the favored classes options. I made the whispers follow some rules. Should they also be heard by other characters sometimes? Is it better now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:03, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::The exact wording that the revenant uses is: "Past Life [trait]: Select a race other than revenant. You are also considered a member of that race for the purpose of meeting prerequisites, such as feat or paragon path prerequisites." - I can only suggest using this same wording.<br />
::::::It's also interesting that the revenant has the undead keyword but is also "considered a living creature" - this must be for balance reasons (some effects specifically only target living creatures). I wonder what the ramifications would be for not having this caveat? I shall look into it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] 15:15, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::I fixed the wording for Past Life.<br />
:::::::Powers and the like may only target living creatures. If races need to be within this classification then we should change this page to be living, however I do not know if they have to be. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:36, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Ok, so that whole "would probably be mortal enemies of the Revenants" is a really cool concept. The notion that Revenants are some sort of sanctioned undead types, and the Graveborn hate them? Awesome. Why isn't that mentioned anywhere? It isn't mentioned anywhere because we just decided it would be super cool. That is why these discussions are important. Featured Articles aren't meant to be "finished articles" they are meant to be "Super awesome articles with great flavor text, intriguing mechanics, and loads of fun options". Peer review is what gets us from "finished" to "awesome". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:14, 24 January 2012 (MST)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graveborn_(4e_Race)&diff=547977Talk:Graveborn (4e Race)2012-01-24T19:17:37Z<p>Badger: /* Featured Article Nomination */ i an entire word</p>
<hr />
<div>== Revenant ==<br />
<br />
This race is very very very similar to the official Revenant 4e Race. Is this intentional or just happenstance? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 20:51, 7 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I am not a DDI subscriber, and so i have never actually seen the Revenant, though i'd heard of it. Any similarity is purely coincidental, probably arising from their both being an undead race. [[User:Techpriest|Techpriest]] 23:35, 7 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Nomination ==<br />
<br />
{{Succeeded Featured Article Nominee|--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:38, 24 January 2012 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
I find that this article is an acceptable featured article since it works correctly with the [[4e Race Preload|preload]], [[4e Race Design (DnD Guideline)|4e race design]], and is complete. It does not have {{tl|needsbalance}}, {{tl|stub}}, {{tl|wikify}}, {{tl|wording}}, or any other related template problems. It is also interesting through the combat and non-combat situations in any game. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:38, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Not that I don't like this class, but is this how we're doing Featured Articles now? Are we going to nominate and approve in a single edit, with no time for discussion among the community? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 11:28, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Not necessarily. I could not find anything wrong with this, so I nominated it. E.g. why should we wait for complete pages that are based off precedent pages? Do you see something wrong? I don't find it wrong if one notices the page is complete and it follows suit of precedent pages. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:38, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I don't have a grip on how balance works in 4e, but all these undead traits (no need to eat, breathe, or drink) makes this race quite powerful. Is that my misunderstanding of average balance on the 4e system, or has someone missed this balance concern? Also, "Though they have no need for sustenance food allows their undead form to re-knit itself in an imperfect semblance of life" isn't a coherent thought. I assume a comma should go in there after 'sustenance'. I also know that we've gotten in trouble with images before. Do we know the actual origin of this image? Can someone verify that it is actually public domain? <br />
<br />
:::Those are my mechanical problems with the page as it stands. If we are providing comments on overall quality and concept, I have other concerns. The page doesn't seem to make it clear if this is a human corpse, or a corpse of another race. It gives stats that correspond with humans, but you get the racial options of your former race. Are there racial options you don't have access to because you are dead? Is that something you should bother listing, or does this show off my weak grasp of 4e? Is there a reason you get bonuses to Constitution? If anything, shouldn't beings made of decayed flesh and fungi be weaker? Can you elaborate on these whispers you hear as a Graveborn? They strike me as an interesting concept, and a great spot to show off the unique flavor I like to see in FA. It is defined, but not really fleshed-out to create an interesting story. With this, as most FAs, the keywords I want to emphasize are "flavor" and "uniqueness". This could use some more of both, especially flavor. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:15, 24 January 2012 (MST)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graveborn_(4e_Race)&diff=547976Talk:Graveborn (4e Race)2012-01-24T19:15:32Z<p>Badger: /* Featured Article Nomination */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Revenant ==<br />
<br />
This race is very very very similar to the official Revenant 4e Race. Is this intentional or just happenstance? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 20:51, 7 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I am not a DDI subscriber, and so i have never actually seen the Revenant, though i'd heard of it. Any similarity is purely coincidental, probably arising from their both being an undead race. [[User:Techpriest|Techpriest]] 23:35, 7 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Nomination ==<br />
<br />
{{Succeeded Featured Article Nominee|--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:38, 24 January 2012 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
I find that this article is an acceptable featured article since it works correctly with the [[4e Race Preload|preload]], [[4e Race Design (DnD Guideline)|4e race design]], and is complete. It does not have {{tl|needsbalance}}, {{tl|stub}}, {{tl|wikify}}, {{tl|wording}}, or any other related template problems. It is also interesting through the combat and non-combat situations in any game. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:38, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Not that I don't like this class, but is this how we're doing Featured Articles now? Are we going to nominate and approve in a single edit, with no time for discussion among the community? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 11:28, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Not necessarily. I could not find anything wrong with this, so I nominated it. E.g. why should we wait for complete pages that are based off precedent pages? Do you see something wrong? I don't find it wrong if one notices the page is complete and it follows suit of precedent pages. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:38, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I don't have a grip on how balance works in 4e, but all these undead traits (no need to eat, breathe, or drink) makes this race quite powerful. Is that my misunderstanding of average balance on the 4e system, or has someone missed this balance concern? Also, "Though they have no need for sustenance food allows their undead form to re-knit itself in an imperfect semblance of life" isn't a coherent thought. I assume a comma should go in there after 'sustenance'. I also know that we've gotten in trouble with images before. Do we know the actual origin of this image? Can someone verify that it is actually public domain? <br />
<br />
:::Those are my mechanical problems with the page as it stands. If we are providing comments on overall quality and concept, I have other concerns. The page doesn't seem to make it clear if this is a human corpse, or a corpse of another race. It gives stats that correspond with humans, but you get the racial options of your former race. Are there racial options you don't have access to because you are dead? Is something you should bother listing, or does this show off my weak grasp of 4e? Is there a reason you get bonuses to Constitution? If anything, shouldn't beings made of decayed flesh and fungi be weaker? Can you elaborate on these whispers you hear as a Graveborn? They strike me as an interesting concept, and a great spot to show off the unique flavor I like to see in FA. It is defined, but not really fleshed-out to create an interesting story. With this, as most FAs, the keywords I want to emphasize are "flavor" and "uniqueness". This could use some more of both, especially flavor. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:15, 24 January 2012 (MST)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graveborn_(4e_Race)&diff=547966Talk:Graveborn (4e Race)2012-01-24T18:28:32Z<p>Badger: /* Featured Article Nomination */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Revenant ==<br />
<br />
This race is very very very similar to the official Revenant 4e Race. Is this intentional or just happenstance? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 20:51, 7 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I am not a DDI subscriber, and so i have never actually seen the Revenant, though i'd heard of it. Any similarity is purely coincidental, probably arising from their both being an undead race. [[User:Techpriest|Techpriest]] 23:35, 7 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Nomination ==<br />
<br />
{{Succeeded Featured Article Nominee|--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:38, 24 January 2012 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
I find that this article is an acceptable featured article since it works correctly with the [[4e Race Preload|preload]], [[4e Race Design (DnD Guideline)|4e race design]], and is complete. It does not have {{tl|needsbalance}}, {{tl|stub}}, {{tl|wikify}}, {{tl|wording}}, or any other related template problems. It is also interesting through the combat and non-combat situations in any game. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:38, 24 January 2012 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Not that I don't like this class, but is this how we're doing Featured Articles now? Are we going to nominate and approve in a single edit, with no time for discussion among the community? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 11:28, 24 January 2012 (MST)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Lucario_(3.5e_Race)&diff=543021Lucario (3.5e Race)2011-12-15T05:21:13Z<p>Badger: Undo revision 543017 by 173.245.56.179 (talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{x0<br />
|la=<!-#-><br />
|ecl=<!-#-><br />
|type=Humanoid, animal(canine)<br />
|ability_adjust=+2 Dex, +2 Con, +4 Int, -4 Wis<br />
|size=<!-Size: Medium<br />
|favored_class= Fighter, Aura Knight<br />
|desc=Lucario's are a race of blue foxes with some human attributes. Solid blue with black patterns and red eyes, these are peaceful beings that are found in the forests as often as among civilization. Adept in the use of ki, or 'aura' as they call it, they often wield a variety of almost supernatural abilities.}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
= Lucarios =<br />
{[img]http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w130/shun6d/Lucario.png[img]}<br />
== Personality ==<br />
<br />
Lucarios are very peaceful beings. Those who live among the forests often live a life akin to a hermit or monk, a peaceful individual simply living his/her life. Those that live in the city are often drawn to serving causes they deem to be noble enough. <br />
Accepting of almost any being, they are not known for discrimination.<br />
<br />
== Physical Description ==<br />
<br />
Lucarios stand a most a few inches over four feet tall, most commonly being about four feet exactly. Their ears occasionally going a little higher. The bulk of their bodies are a covered in dark true blue short fur, with black markings at the ends of their arms and legs and a black stripe across their faces. Their torsos are a sandy color. Narrow, pointed ears stick almost straight up going up to seven or eight inches. Spikes jut out of the back of their front paws, and four black dreadlocks-like appendages dangle from the backs of their heads. Their eyes are blood red, sharp and acute, and weigh about 120 pounds.<br />
<br />
== Relations ==<br />
<br />
Lucarios are fairly individualistic beings, and their viewpoints and relations vary significantly. Some serve as emissaries or champions to royalty, some are monks, and many are forest creatures.<br />
<br />
== Alignment ==<br />
<br />
Lucarios are not necessarily either chaotic or lawful. At the same time, they are, almost exclusively good beings in alignment. Lucarios respect another's viewpoints and decisions, but often despise acts they deem as altogether evil.<br />
<br />
== Lands ==<br />
<br />
Lucarios often live in temperate forests, though they occasionally dwell in cities or towns. Those that live in cities often travel into the wilderness.<br />
<br />
== Religion ==<br />
<br />
Lucarios rarely worship; the idea of deities is often a foreign concept to them. When they do follow gods or goddesses, it is often a nature goddess, or one representing an aspect of the world, such as the sun or water.<br />
<br />
== Language ==<br />
<br />
Lucarios have no language of their own. As a species, they are inherently telepathic, and those that do not speak refined languages simply project their emotions and thoughts to communicate.<br />
<br />
== Names ==<br />
<br />
Lucarios often put much less emphasis on names as other sentient beings, the idea another peculiar one from civilization. When they do name themselves, one often names his/herself, or simply adopt a nickname given to them.<br />
<br />
== Racial Traits ==<br />
<br />
* +2 Dex, +2 Con, +4 Int, -4 Wis<br />
* Humanoid, Animal(canine)<br />
* Medium<br />
* Lucarios [[base land speed]] 60 land <br />
* Aura Affinity (Ex): Lucarios automatically increase the die type for all damage from any ki-based source by one.<br />
* Paws : Lucarios may not wield any weapons or armor whatsoever. They cannot write, and suffer a -15 penalty to any check that requires hands. They also suffer a -10 to climb checks that require their top paws, a -10 to all Appraise checks, a -5 to Craft checks, a -20 to Disable Device checks, a -30 to Forgery checks, a -10 to Open Lock checks, a -10 to Ride checks, a -5 to Sleight of Hand checks, and a -10 to Use Rope checks.<br />
* Telapathy (Ex): Lucarios may project his/her thoughts out to 30 feet. They cannot produce anything other than roars and grunts with their mouths.<br />
* Fire, Sound and Earth Weakness : Lucarios take an additional 10 points of damage from all fire and earth damage, and an additional 5 points from sonic damage. They also take a -5 to Concentration checks when taking sonic damage.<br />
* Wild : Lucarios gain a +4 on all Handle Animal, Jump, Move Silently, Sense Motive, Spot, Survival, Swim, and Tumble checks and a +10 to Listen Checks.<br />
* Honorable : Lucarios are very honorable beings, hating lies and broken vows. In a non-life threatening situation, a Lucario must succeed a DC 20 +ECL Will check or refuse to lie or break a vow they have made. In a life or death scenario, they must pass a DC 20 Will check or be unable to lie or break his/her vow. The DC save is lowered by 2 for every attacking enemy within 60 feet and the DM may choose to lower if for other reasons.<br />
* [[Automatic Languages]]: Common.<br />
* [[Favored Class]]: Fighter, Aura Knight<br />
* [[Level Adjustment]]: 0<br />
<br />
== Vital Statistics ==<br />
<br />
{| class="d20" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"<br />
|+ Table: <!-- insert race name --> Random Starting Ages<br />
|- style="white-space: nowrap;"<br />
! Adulthood || Simple || Moderate || Complex<br />
|- style="white-space: nowrap;"<br />
| <!-- base starting age --> years || +<!-- age modifier for simple classes (i.e. Barbarian, Rogue, and Sorcerer) --> || +<!-- age modifier for moderate classes (i.e. Bard, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger) --> || +<!-- age modifier for complex classes (i.e. Cleric, Druid, Monk, and Wizard) --><br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="d20" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"<br />
|+ Table: <!-- insert race name --> Aging Effects<br />
|- style="white-space: nowrap;"<br />
! Middle Age<sup>1</sup> || Old<sup>2</sup> || Venerable<sup>3</sup> || Maximum Age<br />
|- style="white-space: nowrap;"<br />
| <!-- starting age for middle age --> years || <!-- starting age for old age --> years || <!-- starting age for venerable age --> years || +<!-- max age --> years<br />
|- style="white-space: nowrap;"<br />
| colspan="5" class="foot" |<br />
# At middle age, &minus;1 to Str, Dex, and Con; +1 to Int, Wis, and Cha.<br />
# At old age, &minus;2 to Str, Dex, and Con; +1 to Int, Wis, and Cha.<br />
# At venerable age, &minus;3 to Str, Dex, and Con; +1 to Int, Wis, and Cha.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="d20"<br />
|-<br />
|+ Table: <!-- insert race name --> Random Height and Weight<br />
|- style="white-space: nowrap;"<br />
! style="text-align: left;" | Gender || Base Height || Height Modifier || Base Weight || Weight Modifier<br />
|- style="white-space: nowrap;"<br />
| style="text-align: left;" | Male || <!-- male base feet height -->' <!-- inches -->" || +<!-- male height modifier --> || <!-- male base weight --> lb. || &times; (<!-- male weight modifier -->) lb.<br />
|- class="even" style="white-space: nowrap;"<br />
| style="text-align: left;" | Female || <!-- female base feet height -->' <!-- inches -->" || +<!-- female height modifier --> || <!-- female base weight --> lb. || &times; (<!-- female weight modifier -->) lb.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Races Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Race]]<br />
[[Category:<!-race's type-> Type]]<br />
[[Category:<!-race's subtype; or remove line-> Subtype]]<br />
[[Category:<!-race's size-> Size]]<br />
[[Category:LA<!-#->]]<br />
[[Category:ECL<!-#->]]</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=543013Talk:Main Page2011-12-15T03:59:19Z<p>Badger: /* Anti Wiki Criticism */ what is it about this one section?</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Anti Wiki Criticism ==<br />
<br />
This is the most useful Wiki I have ever found on D&amp;D, (and I've seen a LOT of on-line references). I am currently running an adventure and I keep this site open on my lap-top as I play. It saves me a great deal of time and speeds up play considerably. I almost never even open my Monster Manual anymore.<br />
<br />
Kudos to the WebMaster. --[[User:Gildavinor|Gildavinor]] 18:13, 25 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree very strongly with you, Gild! Though I didn't sign in very often previously, I absolutely adore this Wiki. It's the pinnacle of Dungeons and Dragons research and innovation. --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 18:42, 25 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Taking sides in any instance is a bad idea... Neutrality is a great observational instrument if one is not affiliated therein. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:51, 25 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Totally agree. --[[User:Lord Mattos|Lord Mattos]] 11:14, 29 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Two Millionth View! ==<br />
<br />
Looks like today was [[Special:Statistics|the day]] folks! 2 million views on the main page! &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 12:46, 14 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Yeah, now there are 2,299,388 views (Jan. 13,2010)! Wohoo! --[[User:Io|Io]] 16:52, 13 January 2010<br />
<br />
<br />
And now, in the november of 2010, we have 3,080,184 views!<br />
<br />
== Size ==<br />
<br />
how many Megabytes is this whole site? {{Unsigned|216.12.83.73|22:29, 15 November 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:Why? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 15 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I was thinking of copying the source code so i cant look at it offline--[[User:Lo-Chi|Lt.Dan]] 07:20, 16 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::You don't need the size of D&D Wiki as a whole when looking at the source code ("''View Page Source''" for Mozilla Firefox). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:12, 16 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
== The Tavern ==<br />
<br />
After a huge hiatus I'm finally back to D&D Wiki (and happy to return!) following a long period of being almost broke. I notice that the Tavern, which was gone when I first had to go...still isn't back. That was one of my favorite parts of the Wiki, and I hope I'm just being stupid and missing it somewhere. Is it gone for good? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 07:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It actually was discontinued. There is no "official" reason as to now however take a look at [[Discussion:The Tavern: use, expansion, and availability.]]. The main reason is "''...it is quite childish and immature at times and I feel at times it decreases the seriousness of D&D Wiki with childish behavior and immaturity.''" [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] "Discussion:The Tavern: use, expansion, and availability." 21:02, 20 November 2009 (MST). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Ah...oh well. That's a little sad to me, but I can see the reasoning behind it, it -was- rather vulgar at times. Thank you for replying. :) --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I'm coming back too and I too liked the tavern... I agree with the reasoning, but I still think we should have an effective way of conversation, since a wiki is not the best tool for talking...<br>Isn't there something that could be implemented in the place of the tavern (and maybe have some rules as to swearing and misbehaviour, making disrespectful users suspended/banned from using it)?--[[User:ElfsMaster|ElfsMaster]] 10:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::But this '''is''' a wiki, and by not having the sidetrack of a chat users may tend to rely more on the already established discussion tool. Or they can leave messages on talk pages of other users. It actually encourages the opening of discussions and talks between users on the wiki - which can lead to more wiki additions and improvements, instead of just idle chatter. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 14:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Appealing to people in real time is more effective than doing so passively, from what I've found. Also, just because serious discussion does not happen constantly doesn't mean it never does. I understand that a decision has been made however, so that's all I'll say on the matter. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Why not do something like what facebook has and when a user is logged in, they have a little chat bar? i know there are a lot of difficulties with that, including having "friends lists" and the like, but its an idea. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 07:21, 26 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Search Incapacitation ==<br />
The search function has been completely nonfunctional for me for a good few days, maybe half a week or more now. Once in a while I'll nail to a T an article's name, and it'll transport me there. Just hitting Search or mistyping anything causes it to utterly fail for me. Is this just a localized problem (which I don't think it is, I've used 3 different computers to try and access it, all were on different networks) or what's going on? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 05:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Is it actually giving you an error, or just pulling up the extended/advanced search function ''(which is normal when you don't type an article name perfectly)''?. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 13:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I'm having the same issues, the message "Query failed: connection to localhost:3312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused)" appears when I try to search for something.<br />
::I'm having a similar problem, mainly in that I can't browse things, I can only see things when I search for them, which, makes looking at the diffrent races, quite difficult [[User:Sevant|Sevant]] 18:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Search is working once again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:14, 22 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Official Content Designation ==<br />
<br />
Could a homebrew template be added? I keep coming here after a Google search and I keep finding overpowered homebrew things (like [[Paragon_of_Light/Darkness_%283.5e_Prestige_Class%29]]) and it usually takes me a moment to figure out that it's not official, just something some random person made up. I'd prefer to see some sort of note to that effect at the top of the page. [[User:Banaticus|Banaticus]] 02:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ummm... A template is already added on all official pages. This is a homebrew site, so all articles are automatically assumed to be homebrew unless they are specified otherwise.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::There already is a homebrew template. Look down at the bottom of that page you linked... see where it says "{{DnD Classes Breadcrumb}} &rarr; [[DnD Prestige Classes|Prestige Classes]]"? "Homebrew" is even in the wording of the template. If you are looking for ONLY SRD material then look for pages starting with "SRD:". They will all have OGL templates as well.<br />
::Additionally, much of our homebrew content has ratings by other users, so you should know right away if it's overpowered. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Pictures Down? ==<br />
<br />
While it might be my computer, it appears that something happened to the pictures on the site. They don't seem to be displaying. Am I wrong? Was there an announcement that I missed? [[User:Noname|Aristocles]] 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This question was already brought up on GD's talk page under [[User talk:Green Dragon#Images lost again|this header]]. However no clear answer was given by GD. All I know is that no, it is not your computer, and no there was no announcement. The pictures still exist on the media repository, however they are not linking properly. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 13:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Images have been fixed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:12, 22 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Are you sure? I dont see any- ANYWHERE!!! [[User:DragonFist|DragonFist]] 20:13, 17 December 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::This may have been a cache problem. I assume this is no longer a problem as they have been working for me for quite a while now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:13, 9 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Marking a page as homebrew ==<br />
<br />
How do we mark a page as homebrew? Take [Alon (3.5e Deity)] for instance. It turns out he's a homebrew god, although I don't see that anywhere on the page. It's sometimes difficult to tell the difference on this wiki between homebrew things and official things. [[Special:Contributions/97.93.94.242|97.93.94.242]] 12:42, 24 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Any properly-created page should have a clear breadcrumb at the bottom of the page which leads back to a homebrew page. In addition any user-created content belongs in [[:Category:User]]. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:22, 27 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::You can also just click "3.5e Open Game Content" on the sidebar to take you to the "official" material. Almost everything on this site is homebrew. Because of that, what we do is mark pages that are official. If you don't see a template that says "Open Game Content", then the page you are viewing is essentially guaranteed to be homebrew content. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:24, 27 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 3 Million View ==<br />
Just a quick pat on the back, as per Statistics the main page has hit 3 million views. Too bad our news is months behind. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 22:46, 3 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's ok, I'm months behind on reading --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:33, 17 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Advice on Creating Animal ==<br />
<br />
Ok so i have no clue how to do this but i want to make an Exploding Chicken animal for D20M and all i know is that its a regular chicken that explodes when within 15ft of any nonchaotic for 1d6 damage at a range of 20ft. they have a total health of 3. they also are weak and are just mobile... firecracker i guess would be the best way of puting it. my DM said to just put it on here cause he wants to see what others think. thanks! *EDIT* i ment D20M Apocolypse<br />
<br />
:I can't give you mechanical help with creating your creature, but I can give you wiki help. Go [[Add_a_New_D20M_Creature|here]] and replace "CreatureName" with "Exploding Chicken" or whatever you want to name it. Leave a space and (D20 Modern Creature) after the name, and then press "Create New Creature". It will take you to a page with a pre-load designed for creatures in the d20M universe (I don't know if that is the same as d20M Apocalypse, is it?). Like I said, I don't know anything about the d20M system, so I can't help you write your creature and balance it, but if you need help with tables or other wiki formatting, leave a message on my talk page. One last thing, don't forget to sign your posts by typing <nowiki> --~~~~ </nowiki>. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:44, 21 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks! and its pretty much the same as other systems. and i guess i ment that i needed tables for things like different sizes and their modifiers and things like that --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 10:54, 24 January 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== April 1 ==<br />
<br />
Is there going to be another [[:Category:April Fools|April Fools]] thing this year? -[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 08:15, 28 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Well I'm going to add April Fool stuff. I don't know about other people though. --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 15:26, 28 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you're looking for ideas, try updating the random hooker table from the [[Dungeon Master's Guide (1e AD&D)|1e DMG]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've added the Chew'd Button and I'm going add Summon Potato this after noon.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 21:23, 31 March 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Sheild Bash? ==<br />
<br />
Hello ive been playing DnD 3.5 for a while now and I have a question a heavy sheild with spikes does 1d8 damage now when i enchanted it with "Bashing" my friends told me it now does 3d6 on a shield bash is this correct? {{unsigned|Grunt|2011-04-12 16:36}}<br />
<br />
: Not quite. A [[SRD:Heavy Shield#Enhancements|spiked heavy shield]] does 1d6, not 1d8. According to the 3.5 FAQ, the bashing quality stacks with a spiked shield which raises the damage to 2d6. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:22, 12 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Prototype... Class? Template? Race? Can someone help? ==<br />
<br />
Hello in my groups recent dnd sessions we decided to try for an OP campaign as in epic class's templates and races based off of movies, books, games, etc... so if anyone has ever played the game ''Prototype'' and know about "Alex Mercer" and his "powers" then you would know what kind of chacacter I want for our OP Campaign. unfortionatly I dont know anything about making class's/Races/templates. So i was wondering if somebody could either make one for me or help me with making it. It would be very much appreciated.<br />
DND 3.5 PLEASE!<br />
<br />
::The best person to ask, I believe, is [[User:Badger|Badger]]. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 09:25, 16 April 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Campaign Setting Help ==<br />
:''Discussion moved to [[User talk:Ohgren#I have a question]].'' <small>--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:31, 17 May 2011 (MDT)</small><br />
<br />
== Have an Idea ==<br />
:''Discussion moved to [[Discussion:Half-Demon_Combinations]].'' <small>--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:48, 14 June 2011 (MDT)</small><br />
<br />
== Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent ==<br />
<br />
:''Discussion moved to [[SRD Talk:Magic Items#Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent]].'' <small>—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:26, 18 July 2011 (MDT)</small><br />
<br />
== Site nominated for an Award ==<br />
<br />
[[File:Oggie statue trans small.png|thumb]]<br />
<br />
Just thought I would let you guys know: D&D Wiki has been nominated for an OGGIE. The OGGIEs are the industry awards thereby. Nowhere near as big as the ENnies or Origin awards, the OGGIEs reflect the games, people, and tools that our members appreciate. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:52, 14 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Unfortunately this may not be accepted at this time. See also [[Talk:DnD Links#Lifestyles]]. I hope for a difference next year (or next award period). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:40, 15 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't follow GD. This isn't a site, simply an award. One of the sites mentioned is that link is also up for it, but its not a link or anything. If you prefer to not accept the nomination, we can revert to one of the other nominees that had lesser votes. Not really sure what you mean by the above statement. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:08, 15 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I mean that the link is not acceptable at the moment because of licensing problems. As soon as it is this may be mentioned here. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:11, 15 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Wait, are you telling me we are refusing an award because the O.G.R.E. website uses a license that we don't? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:20, 16 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::What link? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 06:10, 16 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::No. Because they have [[:Category:Valgora Setting]] content licensed incorrectly. It is actually licensed under the GNU FDL v1.2. Were that to be changed then it would be no problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:15, 16 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Although that is wholly incorrect in regards to how licensing works when the original author publishes , its not what I'm asking. What link? Being nominated for an award has not resulted in a single link off site. So again, what link? <br />
:::::::Anyways, in the interest of not rearguing an argument you've already lost that has no bearing, if you're uncomfortable let me know and well invalidate the nomination and let the next site in line receive it. (Didn't mean for that to sound rude, dang text based conversations. I just have no interest in revisiting the license discussion, especially when I see no connection) {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:55, 16 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Well, Hooper, I'm willing to bet that the O.G.R.E.s aren't going to re-license their own material to make GD happy, so we're at an impasse here. I understand that our nomination for this award has no external links related to it at all, but apparently GD doesn't. On a personal note, totally unofficial in every way, thanks for the nomination. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:12, 16 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::It wasn't me actually. Since I was the contact point for members I abstained from nominating myself. We had about 300 unique nominators, and expect about 3k unique voters. I was really happy to see this site on the list. Well, maybe next year. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:22, 16 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I find myself rather disappointed with this response. I am aligned with Hooper and Badger on all regards. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 09:19, 18 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself irrelevant or subservient. Both these would rather be avoided if they are actually otherwise so. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:36, 18 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Anyone have a clue as to what Green Dragon's on about? Really, "considering itself irrelevant or subservient"? To ''what'', exactly? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 01:59, 19 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I am somewhat confused by this explanation. I am going to quote definitions to help spell out why, no offense intended. <br />
:::::::::::::"The Problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself 'irreverent' (an adjective used to describe something that is disrespectful, sarcastic, and/or lacking in overall seriousness.) or 'subservient' (an adjective used to describe something that is useful in an inferior capacity or is compliantly submissive)."<br />
:::::::::::::Are you attempting to say that accepting an award that praises the site for it's content (I presume this is what the reward is for, honestly) indicates either of these things? If anything, it appears to mean the opposite of the first definition, as we're being recognized for honors, and the second is unlikely, since, again, we're being recognized for honors, not complying to their whims or submitting to superiority. Another thing is I don't see how this deals with the licensing problem, above, which I find myself agreeing with Hooper, on that note, having read over a large amount of licensing information due to links to past discussions. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 12:11, 19 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Sorry I meant "irrelevant". I spelled it wrong initially and in Firefox the first spellcheck result turned up with "irreverent".<br />
:"Considering itself irrelevant or subservient" to its own functions was meant.<br />
:Not accepting anything, ''linking'' to a site out of respect which does considers D&D Wiki's functions irrelevant and subversive (through the link) makes D&D Wiki then consider itself also so (or recognize such a consideration). This is what I am talking about. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:07, 19 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Except that reason makes not a lick of sense and gives the impression that you do not understand the facts. Did you somehow got the Oggies confused with...what, the Internet Razzies? Is it Opposite Week? As near as I can tell, OGRE is a roleplaying organization which wishes to acknowledge the D&D wiki as a fine D&D resource upon the Internet. '''They nominated the wiki for an award'''. One would think you would at least crack a smile over the fact that at least a few people in an unaffiliated group nominated the wiki for one of their awards and allow the nomination to be acknowledged and claim the prize if you get it. By the way, Hooper, which award was it? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 00:22, 20 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'd link to it, but......... Its "Website of the Year." Other contestants include a project funding platform site, a community game development & playtest site, an RPG advocacy site, etc. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 09:57, 20 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Green Dragon, your previous comments can barely be considered English. I'm having a hard time understanding you. Are you suggesting that OGRE, through its licensing, is acting as though we exist to serve them? That is perhaps one of the silliest things I've ever heard on this wiki, and I've been part of some incredibly asinine discussions here. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:55, 20 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different. However implying that D&D Wiki's functions are nonexistent or irrelevant to others' functions is, by definition, an irrelevant or subservient consideration. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:01, 20 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What content or license? The award is not a license, its simply an award. The winners will be given fair use to display the appropriate award. That's the only license at all related to this. GD, everyone is having a very hard time understanding you. We're not trying to be rude, it just seems like you're making no sense.The award is simply an acknowledgement of appreciation, it has no other effect. To say an acknowledgements somehow equals irrelevance is hard to follow. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 12:10, 20 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::The mixing, picking, and matching going on here I cannot understand. A is to A as A is to A. See also [[Talk:DnD Links#Lifestyles]] for more information about the problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:54, 20 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Umm, what? I don't know if this is the worse, or best, conversation ever. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:06, 20 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Hooper, this is the exact same problem that we had with the other wiki. Content licensing and re-licensing. Green Dragon has one understanding of the law, and some people (a number that appears to include everyone else in the world) has a different understanding. This time, OGRE has licensed the Valgora setting under CC-BY-SA, and we have it under GNU FDL v1.2. Because these aren't the same license, GD feels (and correct me if I'm wrong) that we are being slighted/ignored/other bad things. Because of that, we here at D&Dwiki will pretend that they don't exist, until they begin to comply with GD's understanding of the law. It seems foolish for us to ask you to re-license your material under GNU FDL v1.2 (considering it is an out-dated license anyway), so I won't even bother asking you to consider it. And, to answer your last comment, having been in my fair share of conversations, I'm going to say this is neither the best or the worst. However, his last comment might go down in history alongside a few other gems of what I call EnGDlish. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:35, 20 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::<cite>Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different. <b>However implying that D&D Wiki's functions are nonexistent or irrelevant to others' functions is, by definition, an irrelevant or subservient consideration. --Green Dragon</b></cite><br />
::::::::::Green Dragon, I will presume this is your main and only prominent standing argument against accepting the award. I provide the following rebuttal: First, I wish to know, by link and explanation, preferably, when, where, and how O.G.R.E. has implied this, or that the award has implied this; These are the only subjects that would be considered relevant to your argument, on the subject at hand, as these appear to be the only subjects concerning our site, here. Second, the emboldened text is a bit of stretch, on your part: While you are incorrect regarding the 'by definition' part, since considering ''anything'' irrelevant or non-existent does not match the definition of subservient (I posted it earlier), and irrelevance references itself in irrelevant, I fail to see why this matters? The key point of '''Irrelevant''', by definition, is that there is no connection, no relation, unimportant in circumstance or consideration, etc., and therefore, the idea that the site uses a different, but entirely legal, correct, and appropriate license, is inconsequential to D&D Wiki in every way, since the two sites are not related. All that matters is the legality of each item, viewed separately from each site, on the level that we are, now. There is no conflict or relation. Because of these reasons, I fail to see why you argue this point, or how you believe this award is unacceptable. There is no subservience, at all, and there is no irrelevance in accepting the award (We accept the award based on the fact that it is award to our site, for our content, and is therefore relevant to the site), and the site is irrelevant in every other manner (licensing, members, etc.). [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 10:58, 21 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::It also appears that he specifically checks the license a particular thing is under. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 11:47, 21 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::''(a number that appears to include everyone else in the world)'' does not include people who need to care. People with authoritative knowledge on this subject has reaffirmed what I have been saying. This is just one of those "internet postings myths" that people seem to cling to. Humans are varied.<br />
:::::::::::::With my terminology I was just putting an opinion onto the subject. The fact comes from [[DnD Links]] (top text). This answers many of the questions about this subject.<br />
:::::::::::::''(considering it is an out-dated license anyway)'' does not include the fact that new MW installs still list it as a possibility. Whatever outdated means as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:21, 21 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Regardless of my unattended argument, I decided to do some research on my own. Google is great, praise it. I came up with a simple solution. Why don't we just upgrade our license to GNU FDL 1.3? It is a more up-to-date version of our current license, and 'lo and behold, it manages to get rid of the whole compability problem with CC-BY-SA. At this point, clinging to 1.2, an obsolete version of the license, only generates more problems and needless strife. This option allows us to not bicker over this obviously controversial issue (Of which I must comment, Green Dragon, that sometimes your replies are hard to understand and do not address presented issues, and can exacerbate that), an issue which has apparently been active for a good long time before this one, according to the many links that we've been presented.<br />
:To summarize, every bit of this can be avoid by simply upgrading to the new GNU Free Documentation License 1.3, which <i>does</i> allow usage under CC-BY-SA. No-one loses face, no-one argues about vague legalese, and we have a happy wiki. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 00:28, 22 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::That was mentioned during our last debate. Nothing came of it. Not sure why, as it does solve all our problems. I think it has something to do with we aren't legally allowed to update our license, if I recall correctly. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:51, 22 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::We could upgrade. Why? What is wrong with the GNU FDL v1.2? It is still offered on new MW installs. Is it because of a fear complex that we should? This is the only reason I can devise from such an idea, and one I would not like to pursue. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:44, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Why upgrade? Here is a page that explains the changes, and why we should consider it: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html] Basically, it says "We can play nicely with people who use different licenses". I see no reason why we shouldn't extend a metaphorical olive branch and say "You play D&D. I play D&D. Let's be friendly." --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:59, 24 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Still, why? What is wrong with the GNU FDL v1.2? I have no idea why Wikipedia did what it did. The current license does not have any holes or flaws that I can think of, and creating an environment for licensing is ingrained in any case, so why create cross-dependency? Making things simpler is always better then more complex, and a cross-dependency is more complex for everyone. We allow CC-BY-NC-SA content (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]]). That is the current method&ndash; why a cross-dependency? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:46, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::How many novel-length debates do we need to have before you acknowledge that a large portion of the user base isn't satisfied with the current licensing arrangement? Sure, there may not be anything inherently ''wrong'' with v1.2, but v1.3 is ''specifically designed for wiki projects''. Also, there would be no "cross-dependency". Literally nothing would change, except for where we can link. It wouldn't be more complex. In fact, most people wouldn't notice a change, and those that do would notice an improvement, not a more complicated system! Did you get a chance to ask the GNU FDL people about allowing multiple licences of the same content yet? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:42, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Who actually cares about the current licensing situation, save a few (I can only list a few users) who care about making an annoying situation about a myth every time they can? It gets on my nerves, and it wastes my time. Maybe we can put a policy in about redundant discussions. The question remains: What is wrong with CC-BY-NC-SA content (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]])? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Nothing, Green Dragon. Nothing is wrong with CC-BY-NC-SA content. Here's what I don't get, though. You know at least a handful of people who don't like the current situation. Fixing their problem would be as simple as a half dozen edits, and no more than 15 minutes of your time. The question remains: If this is a recurring problem for you, why not address it, rather than make a policy that forces us to ignore it? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I imagine the flip side would get on many people's nerves. I know having multiple licenses (which is variable itself) and having them dependent on one another would be annoying for me. And when I say "''annoying situation''" I mean that users may be creating it for a number of reasons. I am not a psychiatrist, however I understand that people may be annoying for annoying's sake, have a reason behind it (hidden or not), or feel feelings about the situation. These, however, are not policy reasons. We are not in charge or anything really (D&D is D&D) except for how D&D Wiki's policies play out for it's users. Where a president may act on feelings (for example) there is no reason for us to. It accomplishes nothing. We must act on creating an environment where users understand their contributions (for the most part) and are okay with them. I find that creating multiple license dependency (where two separate licenses work just fine) does harm to our actions as administrators. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm not sure I understand most of what you've written there, but I think I got the gist of it. However, if we ''update'' to v1.3 of the GNU FDL we won't have to worry about multiple licenses. It would also allow us to "play nicely" with people who use CC-BY-SA, though ''we don't have to use it on our site''. Like I said, nothing would change in the eyes of 99% of the userbase. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:09, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Wikipedia is now dual licensed (or something like that), and we already have a solution for this (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]]) so I do not see a reason at all. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:38, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think you may be taking the issue in the wrong direction, Green Dragon. It's been stated multiple times: The argument lies in the fact that either you, or D&D Wiki's license policies, depending on who wants to direct blame at which party, have caused this confrontation regarding O.G.R.E.S.; I don't believe anyone here in the opposition has a problem with CC-BY-SA. Quite the opposite, it appears that you believe GNU FDL 1.2 conflicts with the idea derivative works that take up the license or different licenses, and while possibly justified (We've heard many arguments on each side of this), this is just making things complicated and frustrating.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::GNU FDL 1.2 was obsolete the moment 1.3 was released. This issue, and similar issues regarding license conflict, has divided the user-base of this wiki for far too long, and if that is not reason enough, then add in the factor that this allows us to accept wonderful awards and cooperate with other wikis, instead of reverting to another one of these large, drawn out arguments, and achieving nothing. Don't speak for the unspoken, but listen to those who have come forward to speak for themselves; You'll find that some of your greatest and most active remaining members are here, even if hundreds of numbers stay quiet, whether for or against the issue is unknown. This is not the time to be '''stubborn''', either. If anything, then why not have a vote, and be done with it? [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:41, 27 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
*'''The licensing discussion has been moved to [[Talk:GNU Free Documentation License 1.3#Updating]].''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 09:04, 27 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
===Comment===<br />
<br />
With this much bickering, I'm not sure that we deserve a "best of" anything award. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:55, 21 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We'd be a shoo-in for "Website with most internal strife", though. Any chance of that being a category next year, Hooper? ''':)''' --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:07, 21 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I think its all the ways of making things which are dealt with completely differently on other wikis (like Wikipedia) workable in a wiki environment. Who knew links were going to be selective? I had known for a while that something had to be done. Who knew that blocking was to be used in disjuncture? Who knows. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:17, 21 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm not really sure what that means, but I don't think that's it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:35, 21 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::It probably has to do with the administration or something. Who knows. It is all so mysterious. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.26|173.245.50.26]] 14:50, 22 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Umm... [[DnD Links]] and [[Warning Policy]] are so...? Read them please. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:10, 22 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Are so... what? You can't really blame them for anything, since we can change the policy to be whatever we want. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:05, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Hooper should win the "making up awards that mean nothing" award. Also the "most [[Discussion:Trust_Issues|chihuahua-like]]" award. Actually, Hooper should make up a million awards and give them to himself; he earned them! Green Dragon, I don't get why you would turn down such a prestigious award. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.206|173.245.55.206]] 19:11, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::They can change the policy as well. Policy is done though a wiki. Who says the current method is best? I don't know what they are like to some. Mysterious I guess (as mentioned above). It's the policy turning town the award. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:02, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Alright then Green Dragon, where should we go to discuss policy changes? Give me a link to a page, or make a discussion page or something, and let's have a policy discussion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:18, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::[[Help:Talk Pages]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Using_talk_pages Help:Using_talk_pages] should direct you where appropriately. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:25, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::You're kidding, right? I know how to sign a comment, I want to know where you want to hold a discussion about policy changes. If you give me a link, I'll know you'll know where to join the conversation. We've talked about policy choices in the past, and you've never weighed in, so we accomplish nothing (for example, [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|here]]). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:40, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ha, bad troll is bad. Welcome back "totally anonymous" "third party" user! I'm so excited about your opinion! Come back to me with it when you're helping run an awards program for a international non-profit with over 3,000 members across 15 states and three countries! Your posts give me such faith that you'll do it!<br />
::::::::::::Yawn, back to life (back to reality). Only our big categories (i.e. game of year, company of year, lifetime etc.) got tons of member nominations. Our smaller categories like website were based on just a handful (for instance, I have no qualms telling you that D&D Wiki made the last official nominee position with just 7 nominations) - so it really isn't upsetting anything on O.G.R.E.s end to move the next site up in the rank. However, as a longtime site user, speaking not from the O.G.R.E.s side but the D&D Wiki side - it is extremely disappointing that proven false interpretations and misunderstandings of licensing laws have stunted the growth rate of the site ''(though by no means killed it - yet)'', and to now even prevent recognition and appreciation and celebration of the site. Meh. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 23:00, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Things which require a technological advancement (not using something we have) are a different matter of course. I mean wiki policy changes.<br />
:::::::::::::Well, you can talk to people with authoritative knowledge about the licensing problems. We are not rejecting the award by no means, we are just not allowing it mentioned here (for the time being at least). How a site does something to D&D Wiki is not D&D Wiki's concern. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:41, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I can't find out how to contact "people with authoritative knowledge about licensing problems". Tell you what, can you just email them and ask them a simple question "is it legal to license the same content under multiple licenses, specifically GNU FDL v1.2 and CC-BY-SA?" Just that, that exact question. If they respond with "Yes" I hope you'll understand what we've all been saying this whole time. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:59, 23 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Wait, wait, wait! We have a policy against receiving awards? Where is that one? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:31, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::We don't have a policy that says we can't take awards in general. We do, however, seem to have a policy that requires us to turn down this one. Personally, I'd rather lose out on an award because we suck, rather than because of licensing misunderstandings. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:21, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::So, GD - let me make sure I understand what you've said. You're okay being on the list, for possible voting - just not with making any back links (which we're not asking for). Is that correct? Just let me know before the 1st, when voting starts. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 16:45, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Everything is fine except that we may not give such a [[DnD Links|link]]. We could if (well, when) the licensing problems are resolved. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:46, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Where is ''that'' policy? The only thing on [[DnD Links]] is a link to [[Meta_Pages#Policies]], which, I don't think, says anything about (a) awards, (b) links to other sites, (c) copyright licensing, or (d) compatibility thereof. Unless I'm just missing it somewhere. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:50, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::It's the "''As per [[Meta Pages#Policies|policy]] the following external links are the only ones that may be referenced. However the external link reference does not have to be in the same format as the following external links.''" --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:56, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::So all we have to do to be able to add links to the OGRE site is to add links to the OGRE Site on DnD Links. There isn't a policy that says how we add links to DnD Links, though, so there's nothing stopping us from adding OGRES to DnD Links, then to this page, thus letting us accept the award. (None of this is actually referenced on the policies page it's linked to.) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:29, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::O.G.R.E.s doesn't want or need a link, though. Our site is for members or potential members, and we don't link whore. That isn't what our awards program is for either (its just one of many things we do). So, we don't require a back link at all. So, with that in mind, I guess GD is saying that the site can accept the award but never mention it outside talk pages, because we also host some of our Valgora stuff (which we have full legal right to do so...). Additionally, I don't think it's appropriate for O.G.R.E.s to be linked to from the Links site, because we're not a solely D&D or such club - we are very vocal about our All Tabletop Games/Systems/Companies/Setting/Etc. philosophy. So the average D&D Wiki browser probably isn't our core audience, though a RPGA link or Pathfinder Society link may be appropriate.<br />
<br />
:::::::::Anyways, back on topic - I suppose we'll leave that site on the vote. I don't know how, or if, GD wants to showcase a win if the site does get a gold or silver ''(possibly a userbox style code without a link just the info?)'', but that isn't my concern when I'm the me-who-works-for-OGREs. But as the me-who-is-a-site-member, it is. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 23:10, 25 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Yes, Jazzman, all we have to do to allow the link is to add O.G.R.E to DnD_Links. However, GD has said we cannot add it to DnD_Links because of some licensing problem (be it real or imaginary). Personally, I'm all for following the first policy we have listed under policies: {{quote<br />
|If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining D&D Wiki, ignore it.<br />
|orig=[[Meta_Pages#Policies]]}} <br />
:::::::::::--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:35, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Oh, it's fine to host [[:Category:Valgora Setting|valgora]] content. It just must be licensed as it is. The [[DnD Links|link]] or no link discussion is for [[Talk:DnD Links]] (MW?). I am not for the policy mentioned above since it undermines D&D Wiki. That's insulting. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::How does doing something to improve or maintain D&D Wiki undermine it? Does it undermine some of the past decisions you've unilaterally set forth? Perhaps, but it doesn't undermine the wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Considering that Valgora originated on CBGwiki, which allows derivative copies under similar license - and that the OGREs hosted version came from there - this is a moot point. So its twice moot. Short story: lets keep with the times and update the license. Community vote first if you'd prefer. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 17:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The contributions date still point here. Thanks for the information though, I guess the same is with them. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've missed a couple points here, so I'm going to backtrack the discussion a bit. Firstly, if I can reiterate the "policy" issues, I see no reason why we can't link to OGRES. Here's the chain or logic:<br />
<br />
::::#You can only link to a site elsewhere on the wiki if it is first placed on DnD Links<br />
::::#You can only place a link on DnD links if it follows the general policies of the website<br />
::::#OGRES is not against any general policies of the website<br />
::::#Therefore you may add it to DnD links, per (2)<br />
::::#Therefore you may link to the site elsewhere per (1)<br />
::::QED.<br />
<br />
::::Is there a flaw in my logic? If so, with what step, what is the flaw, and where is the policy posted?<br />
<br />
::::On the topic of "undermining": if you read the full context of the text Badger quoted, you will see that the whole reason it is there is because we are too lazy to create our own rules, and instead link to Wikipedia. The effect of this is, we use Wikipedia's rules, except in cases where their rules are incompatible with our purpose. For example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR WP:OR] does not apply to custom content created on this wiki. It does not undermine D&D Wiki, but it does leave us with a problem: who gets to decide when we are better off ignoring a given rule? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:12, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::"''You can only place a link on DnD links if it follows the general policies of the website''"; which it does not. This is a discussion for [[DnD Links|links]].<br />
:::::None of this is determined by Wikipedia however. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:32, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Which policy? Can you please point to it? I'd argue that while this may also apply to DnD links, I'm ultimately discussing the award, not whether or not we can link. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:42, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:17, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::You didn't link to it, so I can only assume you are talking about the [[Warning Policy]]. Regardless of whether or not the website is doing those things (and I'll go out and say that they aren't), that policy applies to editors, not links. It's at best a huge stretch and at worst a gross misinterpretation to apply the warning policy to external websites. Unless you were talking about something else? I'll admit I have trouble navigating the policies. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:37, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::No, actually I was not. The [[Warning Policy]] has bases, however those bases are not exclusive. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:15, 26 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Considering O.G.R.E.s has never contacted you ''(this message about the award I posted as a long time user here being the most official contact - ever)'', to say rudeness, belittling, or lying has been done is extremely uncivil on your part, GD. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 08:33, 27 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::''"Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:17, 26 August 2011 (MDT)"''<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Not to be too confrontational, but this really seems to indicate that you may have a personal experience with this site or it's users that could potentially influence your opinion. Honestly, I feel it would explain a lot, especially since you appear to oppose and reject even feasible solutions that don't challenge the definitions of the license we currently use, such as upgrading to the new, improved, and problem-solving v1.3.<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Back on topic, could you please be specific? Which policies does the award, or even O.G.R.E.S. violate, and please link or explain this, in detail. I cannot speak from the same position has Hooper regarding what O.G.R.E.S. has done in the past, as I lack the same status as a member, but I find that being vague is not going to help these matters. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:57, 27 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I'd love to know as well. But it is my understanding that GD simply believes that hosting [[:Category:Valgora Setting]] content on O.G.R.E.s wiki violated the licensing agreement for Valgora on this wiki ''(an argument proven wrong at [[Talk:GNU Free Documentation License 1.3#Updating]].'' With that in mind though, let's keep all licensing conversations there, to make this easier to follow and contribute to for all users. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 09:04, 27 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Even if that were the case, there's no policy keeping us from linking to a site with an incompatible license. Likewise, there's no policy keeping us from linking to a site that is rude or belittles us. GD, you stated that linking to O.G.R.E.s does not follow the general policy of this website. Can you please ''link'' to the policy we would be violating? If it's not Warning Policy, I just don't know what it is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:10, 27 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:It cannot be [[Warning Policy]] ("''When one does not edit''" just doesn't apply). I said it once and I'll say it again "''Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki).''" If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:49, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::''I've'' said it before, and ''I'll'' say it again: show me a link. I know very well what those words mean, I just don't know where you're coming up with them. If it's policy, it's on this website somewhere. If it's not on this website (or within Wikipedia's policies, though I don't think they have any that apply in this instance because they have significantly looser requirements to posting outside links), then it's not policy. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:52, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I have to admit, that comment makes me feel a little belittled. That being said, I can't find the policy which says we can't link to sites that are rude, belittling, uncivil, or lie to us. And neither could [http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7hhEn1pOvkQA9wZXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDUCMyNzY2Njc5BF9yAzIEYW8DMARjc3JjcHZpZANXM0tYeGtvRzd2N1hhMDNMVGtLZW5nQXdybVdmRFU1YW4wUUFDdEo3BGZyA3lmcC10LTcwMQRmcjIDc2J0bgRuX2dwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDc2l0ZTpkYW5kd2lraS5jb20gInJ1ZGVuZXNzOyBiZWxpdHRsaW5nIgRzYW8DMQR2dGVzdGlkA1NNRTAzNg--?p=site%3Adandwiki.com+%22rudeness%3B+belittling%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=&rd=pref Yahoo!] [http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7kz9oFpOLF8AnPxXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDUCMyNzY2Njc5BF9yAzIEYW8DMARjc3JjcHZpZANaNm1MY1VvRzd2N1hhMDNMVGtLZW5nZG1ybVdmRFU1YW9QMEFBNmJOBGZyA3lmcC10LTcwMQRmcjIDc2J0bgRuX2dwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDc2l0ZTpkYW5kd2lraS5jb20gImx5aW5nIHRvIHRoZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBlbnRpdHkiBHNhbwMxBHZ0ZXN0aWQDU01FMDM2?p=site%3Adandwiki.com+%22lying+to+the+appropriate+entity%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=&rd=pref] [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:20, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::"''When one does not edit''" is a play on words. Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a [[Warning Policy]]). They must fix the problem or get banned. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:44, 30 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::As much as I love wordplay, official policy should not include puns. In the future, please be more clear about what you mean. We were all confused for some time by your wording. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:46, 30 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I'm not really sure this violates any WikiP policies, either. If you treat a website like a "user", then "banning" said "user" would mean not allowing him to edit. OGREs isn't editing D&D Wiki, we are. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:34, 31 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Though it seems pointless, voting is open. Figure out the link if you wish. The site is currently way behind in it's category, however. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Digital D&D Books ==<br />
<br />
a digital copy of one of the books with [OEF] or [OCR] at the end means what? they are pdf files and im not sure what it stands for --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 09:19, 10 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Those terms are not associated with D&D, but rather with PDFs in general. OEF stands for "Original Electronic Format" which means it is the document they send to the printers, not a scan of the physical book's pages. OCR stands for Optical Character Recognition, which means you can use the search function of a PDF viewer to search for text. If a PDF is not OCR it essentially treats each page as a picture, so you can't copy/paste text, or search for words. On a related note, piracy is bad. I know buying books is stupid expensive (and fills up a lot of space, and less convenient, and less functional), but it is one of the best ways to show support, especially for indie developers and smaller publishing groups. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 11:31, 10 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::"less convenient, and less functional"? i dont know what your talking about. i prefer hardcopies over pdf, cause i can stick my fingers in the pages and flip through half the book in a few seconds. [[User:Zau|Zau]] 14:35, 10 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I agree that paper is nicer to read then pdfs. I find that reading is much more enjoyable in a non-digital format because no screen must be read the entire time, it normally is more comfortable, it's less effort, etc. Also, there are websites (not sure how they work with piracy) which host D&D books. One may be able to download pdfs from them for a membership price. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:40, 10 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Have you ever brought 50 books to a table to play D&D? Nope, but you can instantly pull open a new PDF. As for less functional, I could go either way with that one. Assuming you have a decent PDF viewer, you can make annotations, add bookmarks, highlight, and search entire books for phrases, rather than have to use an index. I know I'm the only one at my table that prefers a hard copy, and these are the reasons they usually cite. Hosting D&D books is almost certainly illegal. If it's not uploaded by something like "DNDWizards" or whatever else, odds are it isn't released by WotC. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:01, 10 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks Badger! And I agree, paper is better in my opinion. I just need my own physical copies rather than copies at a friends house 2 hours away. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 08:57, 21 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Glitch? ==<br />
<br />
Is this a glitch? I tried to make a new mundane weapon, however when the editing page came up it said something like "wikify| could not load" or something like that. Please look into it. --[[User:Reddragonl33t|Reddragonl33t]]<br />
<br />
:With so little information, there's no way to tell if it was a glitch. I kind of doubt it was, though. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:00, 18 October 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Was the page name already in use? I tried to make a weapon page (per [[Add New 3.5e Equipment]]) and it worked fine. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:28, 18 October 2011 (MDT)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Warning_Policy&diff=543010Help talk:Warning Policy2011-12-15T03:37:28Z<p>Badger: /* Problems with the Warning Policy */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Missing Warnings? ==<br />
<br />
Where are the first warnings for TK-Squared, Jota, and S1Q3T3? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 17:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:In this time I did not reference the areas so I forgot some. They have them however where are they?<br />
:I know [[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] had three warnings however he/she was first banned for only one warning (the policy was still young) and then he acquired at least up to three warnings and was not banned to compensate (see his talk - history if needed). I at least remember it was with someone (maybe [[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] however I don't rememberer exactly. Do you know?<br />
:I put (2:1) on [[User:Jota|Jota's]] last warning and I do not think I was wrong. Do you know where the other is? Is there another?<br />
:[[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] was banned for a (3:1) however were are they all? I also don't remember.<br />
:If you know any of the areas I am talking about supplying a link would be appreciated.<br />
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where warnings have been given and are not referenced here supplying a link would be appreciated.<br />
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where people deserve warnings and were not given them supplying a link would be appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Although it is a moot point, I can see the advantage of making sure we try to accurately back-log and keep track for all future purposes. I [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Yo5&defl=en&q=define:hope&ei=-Yt5S8XIO47cnAfKr5GyCQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE doubt] the user who did it will ever be back, but [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Bagby&diff=prev&oldid=395263 this edit] seems to me to be a warning-level offense. Maybe I'm wrong, but here it is for an admin to decide.<br />
::Additionally, I was wondering if we are going to have an enforced warning system that is in effect for Edit Wars? I know that even I have been a part of many, and it is something we should avoid. Just curious. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::As seen in [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:White_Wolf&curid=72522&diff=457366&oldid=457360 this diff], [[User:Jota]] tried to sneak bits of another user's ''(myself)'' previous comments, trying to disguise the removal as part of a different edit. Even more poignant, the main section removed was where I quoted Jota from a previous location where he admitted enjoying arguing on this wiki (arguably an act of trolling). Though the edits leading up to it can be deemed a Edit War of which I am equally to blame ''(though correct in my reasoning)'', Jota's edit went against all forms of wiki civility and protocol.<br />
:::This is not the first time Jota has done such. He has even removed or discounted other user's or IP's ratings of his own content when it wasn't to his liking. Being so brunt with other user's talk page postings should be forbidden. At most, altering extremely foul language or helping fix link/formatting should be the only allowable reason to do such a thing ''(barring of course obvious spam/vandalism)''. For this reason, I believe a warning is necessary. I leave it to the admin to decide. I understand if I also receive one for the edit war that took place, though in that case Jota should receive two. <br />
:::Jota did respond on that page that he removed the content to save me from ''"..direct rudeness, name calling, and belittle comments.."'' however the main portion of content removed was a quote from Jota, not myself. So that is invalid. The small other portion was not name calling nor do I perceive it as rude - those in managerial positions see things differently than those who are not, irl. Hence the classic phrase ''"can't see the forest because of all the trees"'' and all of it's variants. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::So arguing is trolling now? Lolwut? My actions were in keeping with your (Hooper) past actions, as noted on the Biomancer's talk page. If what I did was an offense against Wiki civility, so was what Hooper did. I just see him not getting warned for his actions, so I assume their okay under this wiki's policy, even though I find them questionable in nature. Furthermore, yes I remove ratings from content, not just IP ratings and not just my own material. If the rating is "lulz, overpowered" that does nothing for no one and is better off removed. "Obvious" spam is subjective, and should be left to an admin or bureaucrat, of which Hooper is neither. Personally, I would subscribe to FIFA's approach to warnings. Asking for someone else to be warned is a warn-worthy offense. Admins know the rules. Telling an admin someone needs to be warned is only an attempt to unjustly sway their opinion, and as such should merit a warning. Given [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law ex post facto law], Hooper's previous offense could be ignored, but its just a suggestion. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Irrelevant. As anyone can see on the policy pages in the help portal, most notable the Behavior Page, and from GD's actions and own statements, we no longer tolerate solicitation or links to competing sites. As noted in the diffs on biomancer, Eiji was soliciting and I removed it '''per policy'''. Stop straw manning. <br />
:::::Green Dragon is attempting to be notified because he is the only majorly active admin currently and has way too much to go through, hence it is easy for him to not see all that goes on, sadly. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Obvious is subjective, and therefore not your call to make. You want the power, nominate yourself for adminship. You're just creating more clutter by bringing subjective arguments to the table. Besides, it's not like this wiki is so active one cannot see an entire day's worth of activity on the recent changes page. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::Everything I need to do here on the wiki doesn't require adminship, nor do I want it. I thought I needed it long ago to help speed up editing but still don't need it today. Some of us have power in real life and realize that adminship is just responsibility, not power.<br />
:::::::Besides, I'd be too bad of an admin. I'd just permaban all the transientwiki people who think that continuing to cause circular talks and bog down progress on the site is fun. I'd also permaban anyone making content with the word Naruto in it. So, subjective or not, it's obvious I don't need adminship. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Official Policy ==<br />
<br />
So I have a few quick questions concerning actual policy. <br />
*If an Admin gets 3 warnings (and thusly banned for a week), should they be RfA'd to (potentially) remove adminship? It seems reasonable to have some sort of policy in place to that effect. Naturally, we'd all like to think admins are calm, level-headed contributors all the time, but everyone gets upset and says (or does) something stupid every so often. <br />
*Are all warnings the same? Can a single action provoke 2 <s>attacks of opportunity</s> warnings? <br />
*Is there a statute of limitations on warnings? We have a message up there asking for any missed warnings. Should we really be going back 4 and 5 months to find warn-able offenses? Some of those offenses took place before the warning policy existed. <br />
*Are we warning for every violation of civility according to that list? Forgetting to sign your post, and not answering questions both are on that list. Neither seem worth a warning.<br />
*My last question is a very specific one. Green Dragon, as we all ''now'' know, cannot be removed from adminship. Can he still be warned? If he is warned 3 times can he be banned?<br />
Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:First off I just recently saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption] and civility is actually present. As such, do we need this now maybe extraneous policy? I don't know. If so I would prefer we rollback or censor the problem text/post. Thoughts?<br />
:Should an admin be RfA'ed. Good question. I think so as it means one has not been upholding the values of an admin.<br />
:Warnings have been given based off each post, not an "action". Within the post, although their may be multiple violations, I have been counting it as one post to one warning.<br />
:There should not be a statue of limitations on warnings. The problem text is still present and as such something needs to be done regarding it.<br />
:Maybe you are referring to how the "etiquette" portion may not be relevant. That could be case. Should this be changed to just civility? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Hmm. I don't know. Should this page be a subpage of [[Help:Behavioral_Policy]]? &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I think Wikipedia's policy (as you linked above) is a good one. However, I think that policy almost requires us to keep the warning policy. If, for example, you decide to ban me for "Persistent Gross Incivility", I'd demand a few examples of that. The warning policy, as we have it, keeps a running log of all infractions to present if the banned individual should they ask for evidence. Whether or not we decide to stick with the "3 warns equals 1 week ban" policy is a different question. I think the policy is a solid one (once we more clearly define infractions and consequences). I personally am opposed to "perma-bans" (with the exception of users solely dedicated to causing problems, as defined by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption disruptions only]); I don't know how you feel on the subject, however. To address Hooper's question, I think the final decisions should for sure be a sub-page of Behavioral policy, I don't know that this discussion has made any concrete decisions yet though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Vagueishness ==<br />
<br />
The criteria for warning seem somewhat vague, and, since they link to an offsite page over which we have no control, are subject to unwarned change. If I read this literally, I could be giving out warnings for people who don't sign their posts, which doesn't really seem necessary, or for abusing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule WP:3RR], which isn't clearly a policy on this site. It's probably time that we broke from WikiP and just created our own pages on civility and etiquette. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This could make sense. Want to give it a go and we can see where we are from there? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:29, 4 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I could do it (though I don't have a lot of time right now), but since you do all of the warning, I would think you have a better idea of what's warnable and what's not. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:12, 9 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Hooper ==<br />
<br />
He got two warnings at the same time. It's not really a "warning" if he doesn't have a chance to learn from it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:16, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Interestingly, one of those messages was followed by three or four other comments before it was warned. To an outside observer, it might appear as though someone was just looking for a reason to block him for a week and warned him for something that didn't really warrant a warning. I know we've decided that warnable offenses don't have a statute of limitations, but that's a tad silly, IMO. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:21, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree that the first one was weak at best; stating that one can't follow another's statements is certainly not a personal attack if it's true, and doesn't really justify a warning. Even if Hooper had said something invoking the hygiene of another's mother, however, he still should have a chance to learn from his mistake before being warned a second time. Otherwise it's not a warning policy, it's a punishment policy. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:36, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::The learning curve is non-existent. If you don't know how to edit, look into D&D Wiki's policies. If that confuses you don't chime into discussions which are so variable. Also, it's that we are intended to warn backwards in time to be fair. Did it happen? Yes. Done. Is there any other way? Not unless you want to disregard wikis (when you edit you edit) entirely for certain users for who knows what reason. There may be more warning problems. I am so tired of pointless discussions I have stopped reading them. If I see more warning problems sometime when I may read them for whatever reason, yes, I will give more warnings. It's the fair way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:50, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::So answer me this, if someone says three different insults in the same single post, do you count it as one warning or three? If you aren't going to stay on top of the ball, but still want to keep away any statute of limitations, the only "fair" way to do it is to count every one you find at the same time as the same warning. It's all arbitrary, anyway, as I stated above (no work has been done on trying to clarify what is actually warnable), but if we are going to block a good user, it'd be nice to know we have good reason. Also, it's be nice to not be paranoid that I can all-the-sudden be banned for extended periods of time because of something I wrote that I didn't know was offensive, that all got caught all at once. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:29, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Each time one edits. You can say whatever in one editing time, however multiple times are multiple times. I agree about it being nice, however it would also be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]] (for example). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ok, see, that's not a very good argument, GD. Sure, it'd be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]], but it'd be really hard and time consuming to do that. It'd be very easy to do what Jazzman described. For example, I'm sure there are several things on this wiki that I've written that could potentially be considered warnable, but I've never been warned. Would it be fair to quickly find 3 things, and then ban me for a week, without giving me time to change my ways? No. A single warning would say "this sort of thing is unacceptable, cut it out", and I probably would. That'd be nice, reasonable, fair, and everyone would enjoy it more. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:18, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::After a unjustified ban, I can attest that the policy should be defined. Additionally, if we're following in Wikipedia's footsteps properly, then we should establish proper ban-reversal procedure. For example, if two admins oppose a third admin's block, the block should be reversed (wikipedia has a similar policy, and if it was already in effect here - then this recent unwarranted block wouldn't of happened). Plus, blocks are meant to prevent or pause problematic editors, not editors who are actively contributing, fighting spam, and working collaboratively.<br />
:::::::There should also be a time limit put into effect where admins can not back-warning. This was made obvious recently, as it can lead to abuse. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:27, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I do know Green Dragon gave Surgo and TK-Squared multiple warnings in February of 2010, for language/rudeness violations committed in March/May of 2009. And considering Surgo stopped posting in September of 2009...well, I can't see what good Green Dragon thought he was doing. Seeing as how he was warning for someone for offenses almost a year old, and ''five months'' after the user in question ceased activies on the wiki. <br />
<br />
== Admin Violations ==<br />
<br />
The current warning policy does not state that admins are "above the policy" and actually showcases many former admins who have received warnings. However, it also states that only admins may give out warnings. Though I may be just "asking for it," I am intending to request a second administrator's look at recent comments by Green Dragon to see if they are deemed necessary of a warning or warnings. <br />
On the discussing recently held on the Main Page's discussion page, GD said ''"If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out."'', ''"If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this."'', and my personal favorite ''"...Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a [[Warning Policy]]). They must fix the problem or get banned."'' All three of these comments come across as either directly rude or belittling to the people they're referring to, and the last one actually directly interferes with our existing [[Warning Policy]] and implies that I was banned for allegedly-uncivil actions off-site.<br />
Now, however, the most directly uncivil reply was recently posted to the GNU's talk page. Here, GD amazingly flat out states that he will not follow consensus or collaborative discussion (even though he recently added Consensus to the Meta pages) when he declares that ''"...I could care less who thinks what about what. I will do as it is done. I'll listen to reasonableness. I don't care if it comes from God or a bacteria."''. Could other admins please discuss this, and could Green Dragon please reply and let me know if I have misread his intent or tone, especially with the last quote. I also wish to reiterate that I'm not trying to directly attack, its just that at the time these statements were made I was unable to reply - and after reviewing the numerous moves and reformatting of the licensing discussion, am trying to host a civil discussion on a serious issue on the most appropriate page. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ah, and you've spotted a flaw in the system. As I pointed out [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|just above here]], GD is seemingly "above the law". In fact, historically, blocking GD has been grounds for a block in it's own right. In addressing my questions about the finer points of warning policy, GD seemed to gloss over the objection I raised on that front. <br />
:Personally, as an admin, I refuse to "warn" anyone (IP, registered user, administrator, or owner) until a complete and fair guide has been written and is visible to all contributors. As Jazzman mentioned, if we don't have clearly defined rules the "warning policy" becomes more of a "punishment policy". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:03, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes, I can attest to having no warning at all when I was hit with multiple at once, and still have no clear clue what I said that was wrong. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:12, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've started working on a new, more clear, warning policy. It can be seen [[User:Badger/sandbox13|here]]. Feel free to join the discussion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:55, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yes, there are answers to things for the above (looking into it more, reading the block reason, etc). Yes, the world also turns. Is "''the world also turns''" condescending? Nah. Are you going to make accusations as such? When I get the time I will issue warnings appropriately for the above comment (e.g. accusations) if appropriate. Was that condescending too? Nah. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:55, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Umm, okay? Going past the you-blocked-me thing ''(whatever, we can both agree we want the best for the future of the site. right?)'', I'm more interested in your discussion on Badger's rough draft of a warning policy overhaul. Especially on how it may affect admins and bureaucrats. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:59, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Warnings Issued on 4e Campaign Settings Caliphate Supplement ==<br />
<br />
:''Discussion moved from [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caliphate_%28Patronage_Supplement%29&oldid=542259 Talk:Caliphate (Patronage Supplement)#Titles].'' <small>--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
Ok point of order here, I'm not going to bother reading this whole discussion because it's long and half of it is hidden in warning text (and ultimately I know what the outcome will be anyway), but some of those "warning texts" are not appropriate. You can't just warn people for saying something you don't like. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:58, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Right. They are related to specific Wikipedia pages. Where are you coming from exactly? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I don't know where you are coming from with that one. To be more specific, the following statements are all statements you removed from Wrecan's posts, and warned him about. All of them are, in my opinion, not warnable offenses:<br />
::# Why are you imposing this policy on my campaign setting? What gives you the right to do this, and to prevent me from restoring what I had originally written?<br />
::# It's not tied to any language in the Wiki policy you cited and<br />
::# What admins should not do is invent an unwritten policy and impose them on others without going through the process of adoption. <br />
::# Your interpretation of the policy is not supported by the language of the policy. If you want this website to consider personal attacks to include any use of epithets considered offensive by "organizations and people... on a large scale" then go through the process of amending this wiki's policies.<br />
::# There is no violation for giving a fictional character a title of "Caliph", just as there would be no violation for giving a fictional character the title of "Pope" or "Chief Rabbi" of "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire"... even if millions of people would be offended by the act. The only behavior banned (of relevance here) is applying a religious term to describe a contributor. That's the Wikipedia (and this site's) policy. If you want this site to have a different policy, you need to go through the process of amended this site's policy.<br />
::# Did you really think I wouldn't fact-check you, GD?<br />
::# When you edited the Patronage pages, you weren't acting as administrator; you were acting as a contributor. Administrators don't make substantive contributions to wiki pages in their capacity as administrators<br />
<br />
::In addition, you edited some of his text for reasons other than warnings, which is explicitly against our editing policy. In addition, as mentioned before (in a discussion I think you moved to this page), it's simply not fair (and makes your behavior look to outsiders who don't know the situation &mdash;at best&mdash; lazy or &mdash;at worst&mdash; malevolent, ''especially'' when the content you are warning/removing refers to your improper warning/removing of text!) to respond to something multiple times before you hand out a warning for it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:31, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::None of that is improper. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 relate to lying. 3 and 6 are rude to [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:04, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::The correct grammar is "None of those are improper, and I feel silly for having censored them." --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.104|173.245.48.104]] 20:32, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not necessarily. I meant that none of the reasons for giving them are improper. You'll see what I mean if you check the reasons. The context is about the warning, ergo the warning is being discussed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:23, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::{{Warning/Text}}. But it's on record that I disagree and that I think it makes you look very improper. In the future, I would be happy to mediate any dispute between you and another user. There's a Wikipedia policy for that somewhere (and actually I think I've done that once before on WP). Also, I'm reinstating the historical link to the page from which you moved this text, because my comments apply to a historical revision of that page, not the page as it stands now, or whenever in the future some user happens to view it. If that talk page gets archived, the link will no longer work and my comments here will lack context (which is why I commented there, and not here, in the first place). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:21, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWarning_Policy&action=historysubmit&diff=542875&oldid=542874|brokenpolicy=direct rudeness: belittling a fellow editor|warningnumber=1|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::If you are pointing something out then please add the link to your comments. If its a diff archiving will not do anything... Um... You can read the policy to understand the warnings. If someone is saying something is done a wrong way then they are lying. It's pretty straightforward. Also, you earned yourself some warnings above! "Won't ever change your mind" is belittling. I'll warn you sometime. The dispute resolution is not needed here. Everything is straightforward. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:35, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::If it's a warning please warn me right now. Otherwise I'm not going to count it. (And you know what else is belittling? Telling someone they earned some warnings and then threatening to warn them later). Saying something is done a wrong way is only lying if Wrecan knows it was, in fact, done correctly: it's only lying if he's ''intending'' to ''mislead'' you. If Wrecan actually believes that you are not following policy even though you are, that is not lying. It's pretty straightforward. Point number 2, by the way, can not, by definition be lying: you can not lie by asking someone a question! "How was your day?" "LIAR!!!"<br />
<br />
:::::::As for the link: I don't need to refer back to what I am talking about on the other page, because when I said what I said, ''I said it on the other page''. Can you please explain to me what your problem is with adding a more accurate link? If it's a diff archiving will not do anything... which is why I added the diff! We don't want anything to affect where this link points to. If you keep the link how you have it, and then later that talk page is archived, this link will be broken. My link will be correct no matter what you do to the other page (so long as you don't delete it)<br />
<br />
::::::::1 is a little interesting. I guess I could remove it. I would like some input on the thinking behind it before any action though. I considered that these circular discussions are pointless and waste people's time. The problem with them is that they need to get resolved (as far as I can tell). One cannot have administrative-related discussions left open since that will imply that users are ''okay'' to not engage in consensus and that they can just "slam the door on other users" while disregarding them.<br />
::::::::It would be fully true that warnings need to be in the time frame of the post if our comments here served the only purpose of taking actions. They, however, do not. Many times I post things without taking any action afterwards (such as after this post) and others do not take actions from my post.<br />
::::::::Additionally if I had more time I could do all the things I want to do. If I had more time I would improve areas of D&D Wiki. I don't have the time right now. So, my lack of time is not a problem. I find that a lack of time leading to problems is not constructive. Therefore, warnings are based off the ''text''. Therefore, it is not belittling. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Policy Changes ==<br />
<br />
:''See also [[User:Badger/sandbox13]]''<br />
:''Discussion moved from [[User talk:Badger/sandbox13#Warning Policy]].'' <small>--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:44, 5 December 2011 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
Obviously, I wrote all this so I rather like it. However, is there anything that should be added? Anything that should be clarified? Anything that should be removed? Thoughts? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:51, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:The following bullet points are [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]'s comments/issues:<br />
:1. Just a suggestion for the warning of block lengths. It should go something like "The ban length starts with one week at three warnings and then increases exponentially for every 3 warnings received (2 weeks after the 6th warning, 4 weeks after the 9th, 8 weeks after the 12th, etc.)". Also, I wonder if previously banned people should get less leeway? Maybe 3 bans = 1 week, 5 = 2 weeks, then every new warning increases the ban length. Then again, maybe not, because then it would be too tempting to find any one thing to be able to ban someone. But then again, then again, if someone's already got 5 bans, they probably aren't that great of a member anyway. I'm undecided on this one.<br />
:2. Civility and harassment are wishy-washy terms, and their wishy-washiness has lead to some questionable bans in the past. I'm not sure it's possible to define them in a way that's usable for our purposes, but perhaps we should have a few examples of what are ''not'' uncivil or harassing behavior. Asking for clarification of someone else's post is (usually) not uncivil. Going off-topic or responding to a topic which has been "settled" should also not be a ban-able offense.<br />
:3. Ettiquette breaches should, in most cases, ''not'' be a ban- or warn-able offense. Going by the letter of the law, you could get a warning for mis-indenting a page or for adding a new comment to the top. This should also probably be defined somewhere. I would love it if we didn't have to link to Wikipedia at all, since we have no control over the content there, and aren't notified if their policies change.<br />
:4. I like the separation of IPs from everyone else, because it basically makes no sense to warn IPs.<br />
:5. I think that there should be some sort of statute of limitations in effect, or otherwise some way to keep from being banned as Hooper recently was. I'd say any time an administrator issues a warning, all violations at the same time count as the same warning. This means if someone, say, posts rude comments on 5 different talk pages (though see below), they would count as 1 warning, since there's only 1 chance for the user to correct their behavior, not 5. Speaking of warnings, if the whole point of a warning system is corrective and not punitive, I think any user given a warning should, you know, actually be warned, say, on their talk page. The administrator giving out the warning should leave a message on that user's talk page stating exactly why they received a warning; this way the user has an immediate chance to clean up their act or clear up any miscommunications.<br />
:6. There should be some sort of exception to the rule for certain types of offenders. As written, we can't perma-block those stupid Russian drug company spammers.<br />
:7. The petition section is a little wordy, and is unclear if only the admin who did the banning is allowed to unblock.<br />
:8. Admin blocks: GD (and I think BD) are automatically exempt from being de-sysopped, so I wonder if they should be exempt from banning (though not warning) as well? I mean, they can take away the blocking power from anyone who can block them, so if they ever ''deserved'' to be blocked, what good would it do?<br />
:I mostly support it, but there are a couple of things I think we could change (See section below). I'll change my vote when these items are discussed more. Of my original 8 points below, I am now satisfied with 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. I'm not sure I can support a policy that allows unappealable (7) insta-blocks (5), but as those discussions are not settled I haven't changed my vote yet.<br />
:This is probably a little nit-picky, but with something as tumultuous and fickle and emotional as banning, I think it's better we have an absolute iron-clad policy now, then have to find all the exceptions later and risk appearing to play favorites. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:31, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've numbered them, and will reply to them by number here:<br />
::1. I think that sets of 3 warnings to a block is a good system. Suppose Hooper gets another warning in 6 months, and then another 8 months after that. Two warnings in the span of 14 months hardly seems worth a 2 week block. Plus, then every subsequent warning is a longer and longer block. (Sorry to use you as an example, Hooper, but you make such a good one). <br />
::2. I think we need some level of "wiggle room" in our terminology. The last thing I want is some trouble-making user leave bad comments and then say "yeah, but technically it's not listed under warnable offenses." I figure since only admins are giving out warnings, we can say "use some logic and reasonableness".<br />
::3. Honestly, I don't really like etiquette, but it was included like 4 times in the original system, so I left it in. I can't make a rational argument for or against it. It seems to me that again an admin could say "dude just miscounted colons, I'm not going to warn him for an etiquette violation." but it would catch people intentionally not signing comments that are offensive. (If anyone would be dumb enough to try that, still signed in). <br />
::5. I have no idea how to word it, but I want to suggest something like "you can't be warned on comments between warnings", which I know makes no sense. Let me clarify: When you're warned for a comment "c1", and then again for comment "c5". Any comments left between c1 and c5 (c2-4) can be censored to remove offending content, but don't count towards your warning level. I think a system about leaving comments on warned user's talk pages is also a good idea. <br />
::6. The way I see it, the warning policy applies almost exclusively to comments left on talk/user pages. Considering we don't warn link spammers, we just delete their pages and perma-ban them I see no need for this policy to concern them. We should probably make it more clear that this policy applies mainly to comments, and not spam/vandalism. <br />
::7. I'm not sure how to better word the petition section. I think that only the blocking admin should be allowed to revert the block, though. <br />
::8. If they are "above" banning (as it seems they are) they might as well be "above" warnings too. The only punishment for a warning is a block. Unless you mean you'd like to be able to censor offending posts. I guess that makes enough sense.<br />
::Right, so, these are my thoughts on the matter. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:16, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Support, if time restraint put on warnings (see comments)<br />
:::I like what you've got here. It is clear and concise. Even I can tell what I'm guilty of ''(my tendency to highlight others rudeness and ignore my own)''. My only thought is that we should consider some time of time limit. Obviously, admins can't see everything right away - especially if one user cusses another out at say midnight on a sunday. Still, there should be some clear line-in-the-sand that says unless you specifically did x (say, actually cussed out a user) you can not be officially warned if the item was not caught within the time limit. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:49, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::1. Fair enough. I actually had a thought that might solve a few of our problems at once. What if the warnings "timed out" after a certain period (probably no less than three but no more than 12 months). After the set time period you remove the last warning. Truly disruptive users will ramp up their warnings quickly, but someone who, say, occasionally posts something harsher than they intended won't be so severely penalized. You could even combine the two: it takes 3 warnings to get a block, then every warning after 3 also gets a block, but you remove a warning every 3 months. Or something along these lines.<br />
::::2. I agree with wiggle room, I just also worry that "admin discresion" could be used to liberally as well. I don't know, maybe let's keep it how it is currently then update it if there are problems.<br />
::::3. If (at least) two of us don't like the etiquette part, maybe we should think about removing it altogether from the list of warn-able offenses. I'm not even sure if anyone ever got a warning based off of etiquette before. Or again, we could leave it for now and fix it if we run into problems later. <br />
::::5. What about a simpler solution: an admin can only hand out one warning at a time to a person, no matter how many offenses the admin finds at the same time. I think this says what we want to say without getting too technical.<br />
::::6. Fair enough. Maybe we just need a line that says something to the effect of "vandals and spammers will be dealt with immediately, regardless of their current warning status"?<br />
::::7. How about this: "A user may appeal a block by petitioning the blocking admin via email. The decision to reverse a block is entirely at the discretion of the admin. If the admin does not respond after 48 hours, a blocked user may contact another admin. If this second admin can not contact the original blocking admin, they may decide to reverse the block at their discretion.<br />
::::Any user who is blocked for a period of greater than 1 month can ask for a formal appeal. The user must email all active admins their appeal, after which the admin may request additional information, or may decide as written. A user must get a 2/3's vote from all currently active admins to appeal their block. If the vote fails, they may appeal again after 6 months."<br />
::::8. It's probably a moot point, but yeah, censoring was part of it. Really, though, we don't want admins to be at each other's throats, so maybe we shouldn't delve into this too far. I wonder if we should put in a clause that uncivil language directed at an admin can not be warned by that admin. In other words, a warn must always be from a third-party. Pointing out such offenses would obviously be exempt from the "pointing out offenses is an offense" rule, because administrators don't always read conversations if they know another admin is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:06, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::1. I'm not sure how I feel about warnings going away after a period of time. I mean, it sounds reasonable enough, but the notion of having to go and check on warning expiration dates seems like one more thing to do, with no concrete advantage. I'm all for more work, if it's worth it. I'd also argue "if you are blocked for 3 warnings that span more than a year, you have a strong case for a petition to commute the block". <br />
:::::2/3. How about we keep the "admin discretion" point from comment 2, and remove etiquette from 3? I think that solution would probably do the most good, and the least expense. <br />
:::::5. We currently have a rule that says [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|a single post can't create more than one warning]]. Want to somehow explain how that would extend to all existing comments? <br />
:::::6. We can (and probably should) add that line in somewhere.<br />
:::::7. I like your suggestion for improving the petition portion. I think we should include a bit about "pestering an admin", unless you object to that notion. <br />
:::::8. So maybe we say "while Bureaucrats cannot be warned, their comments can be censored just like any other post"? I like the third party idea. The only problem with that is suppose someone insults you three times, but no other admins are online for a week (which I don't think has '''ever''' happened). You should have the authority and the ability to remove these bad comments and warn the user. <br />
:::::Lastly, to Hooper's point: I'm not sure how I feel about "Admins didn't catch the edit within X weeks, they can't be warned". While it sounds reasonable, admins have a ton of stuff to do (here, and in the real world). I know I don't read every single update (though I skim most of them). If someone is being uncivil, they should be warned no matter how long it's been. Notice we are granting amnesty to all comments before this system is set into place, though. I think that's reasonable enough. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:18, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I feel that civility should be kept as well. I feel that something along the lines of "''Warnings result in predetermined feelings. Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters. Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings. For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable.''"<br />
::::::I agree that IPs should not be included. A feature like [[Special:CheckUser]] does not exist for them.<br />
::::::Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards.<br />
::::::Warnings should go away after 6 months if the user is in good standing. The reasoning could include something along the lines of "''If a registered user remains in good standing for six months after receiving a warning the warning will be removed. If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed. Call some friends over and play some D&D&ndash; try to keep your mind off the predetermined feeling(s) which w/as(ere) received.''"<br />
::::::I am fine with bureaucrats being above the warning policy. Although this leaves a large hole open for problems, I can say with certainty [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] and I will not abuse the system.<br />
::::::I disagree with petitions to unblock. If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked. If the reasoning is solid then they should be blocked. I do not think that there should be the possibility for circumvention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:54, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Look good? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:36, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I've reverted the changes for two reasons. First, all the above comments are based on what was there (and is there again), so changing that much will change how all those comments apply. Secondly, your use of some very key phrases are confusing to me (and presumably other users). For example "If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed." is not a complete sentence, and I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. The suggestions you've brought up are, on the whole, good ones, and should be included. However, those monumental changes are not the best way to go about implementing said changes. if you could better explain your meaning, we could work out what changes need to take place. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:38, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::This is a sandbox which is a subsection of your userpage. If you want to revert the changes whatever. Keep in mind that one can always look at a older version of the page (based off the dates of the comments) for such a scenario.<br />
:::::::::I think that "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''" is a complete sentence. "''If there are [bears who fish salmon] know that [they do fish salmon].''" The adjective is lasting feelings and the verb is passed. However, I am no grammatical expert.<br />
:::::::::I mean what my comment above mentions. If you would like a better explanation please go through my comment above and let me know where your confusion arises from. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:46, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm aware that this is a subpage, and history/comment dates would make it possible to see what exactly everyone means, but it would be easier to just make a large edit once we've resolved all our concerns, and then strike through/comment out the existing discussion.<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm just going to go through your previous comment one line at a time, pointing out where I would like clarity. ''"I feel that civility should be kept as well"''. Got that, clear and concise. ''"Warnings result in predetermined feelings"''. I have no idea what that means. What are "pre-determined feelings", in this sense?''"Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters."'' This much I understand, too. Warnings are the sorts of things that are unacceptable, but not worthy of a block. ''" Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings."'' Right, not sure what this means. Do you mean "Admins can correct small things, like indentation, and not warn the contributor"? That is what I think you mean by your next sentence ''"For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable."'' ''"Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards."'' is another confusing sentence, for me. Do you mean to suggest that you should be able to issue three warnings for three successive inappropriate posts, and thereby block someone, without giving them time to adjust their behaviors? I think, and others agree, that this mentality turns a warning policy into a punishment policy. I don't think that is a good rule. The rest of your post I think I understand. I'm fine with removing the petition to unblock if warnings go away 6 months after they were issued. That seems like a solid plan, to me. <br />
<br />
::::::::::Back to that one confusing sentence: if that is how you intend for your comment to be interpreted, then it is improperly punctuated; but, that's a minor detail. However, if that is your sentence, then it is a tautology that adds nothing to the policy. "If there are feelings, then there are feelings" doesn't help to describe what these feelings are, or what ramifications these feelings have. Could you better describe what you mean by "predetermined feelings"? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:05, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::By "predetermined" I mean that when someone says something they intend a result for someone else. By "''Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings''" I mean that "You may edit" (just worded for the context).<br />
:::::::::::When I mention that edits should be the base for warnings this is because blocking can be of varying length. Why can they be of varying length? They vary in length because of severity. Making warnings work with edits makes use of severity. Also, it is not fair if someone insults someone multiple times and someone else insults someone a single time and they get the same result.<br />
:::::::::::Oh, everything I added are tautologies. They are there to explain the reasoning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:51, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::The whole point of numbering was to try and keep the different points straight, but I see that's gone down the crapper. I'm going to try to summarize, then hopefully we can stay organized from here on out.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::1 (Warning system logistics) It sounds like we are leaning towards an expiring warning system.<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with this, and I don't think it takes too much work. Really, all you have to do is check the age of the last warnings before you ban someone. If the oldest warning is less than 6 months old, then none of them have expired yet. Displaying "expired" warnings doesn't have any negative consequences, so nobody needs to rigorously patrol the page for expired warnings.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::2/3 (Etiquette and Civility) I think we are going to keep it as is for now.<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with Badger, the language suggested by Green Dragon does not make a lot of sense to me, and I'm not sure it's necessary. For one thing, "discretionable" is not a real word. I think what you are getting at is that admins have discretion to define "civility" and "etiquette". While I don't really like this (as it leaves it open to abuse -- especially with no method of appeal), I don't see a better way around it right now.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::4 (Blocking IPs) It's agreed that there's no need to block IPs.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::5 (How to count blocks) There is no consensus here.<br />
:::::::::::::Badger mentioned the "rule" that you can't be warned more than once in one comment. This should be enumerated within the rules for it to be official. Green Dragon, your scenario is fair in one way but unfair in another. Yes, your way three warnings always equals 1 block. But one user got 2 warnings to cease his behavior before he was blocked, and the other got 0. This is unfair. I'll say it again: if the point of the block policy is to ''change'' behavior, then you must go off of the number of actual ''warnings'' (i.e. how many times the user was told "don't do that or else"). If the purpose of the warning policy is to ''punish'' people, then you must go off of the number of ''offenses'' (this would even count for multiple offenses within a single post). If we are trying to build a community, I can only support a behavior-changing policy. I also, for the same reason, think there should be a statute of limitations. While admins may be busy, we really should be checking over all edits, especially in discussions that are likely to devolve into uncivil behavior. I don't think a week is too short a time frame; most weeks you can view a week's worth of edits on the recent changes log. If we ''don't'' have a statute of limitations, there's nothing stopping an unscrupulous admin from "storing" warnings and unleashing them all when he wants to get rid of a user for a while.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::6 (Exception for spammers/vandals) I think there is agreement on this point.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::7 (Petitioning) Badger and Jazzman are for, and GD is against.<br />
:::::::::::::I really see no reason against allowing an appeal. Admins are humans, and humans make mistakes. You even say yourself, "If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked." So what if the reasoning wasn't solid, but you blocked anyway? Again, if we are going for a behavior-changing policy, we need the ability to have some leeway here. <br />
<br />
::::::::::::8 (Bureaucratic Immunity) It's agreed that Bureaucrats are immune to the warning policy, but not admins. It has been suggested that a third party must intervene if an admin is involved in the uncivil behavior, but not agreed upon the details.<br />
:::::::::::::The whole point of rule of law (or rule of rule, in this case) sort of breaks down if you just take the Bureaucrats at their word... but that being said we don't really have any way around it, so I begrudgingly agree that they should just get blanket immunity. There's nothing we can do about it anyway. As for the case where only one admin is around, I think that it's rare enough that we shouldn't have to worry about it. If there is someone who is genuinely disruptive and no other admin responds in, say, 24 hours, the primary admin should be able to block. This is another reason to allow petitioning: if an admin is in an argument with a user, they could find a serious of excuses to block that user for 6 months. Without an appeal process, that user is screwed.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think this is everything. If I have misrepresented anyone or any idea please let me know. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 11:29, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I agree that the tautologies should be added elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages.<br />
:::::::::::::In accordance with number five mentioned above I would like to say that warnings are based off edits. This means that if the edit is older then six months then it (because of the time frame) would not be useable. This, then, removes the abuse of the system you mention above. Severity is also important because one does not ''learn'' through such a process. If you want to learn read [[Meta Pages]]. Editing is not learning necessarily and merging the two together is a mistake.<br />
:::::::::::::I don't disagree with appeals. I just don't feel that the medium is appropriate. If there is a problem they may wait out there time frame (if it is the last edit which is a problem) or if it is an intermediate edit, post on [[Talk:Warning Policy]] and discuss the problem. This is in accordance with wiki. We ''do not'' want D&D Wiki to function outside of wiki. This would undermine the very idea of wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:31, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:GD, I'm not sure you know what tautologies are. They are "using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity". There is absolutely ''no'' reason to intentionally include a tautology in our policies. If I understand you correctly, the statute of limitations on warnings should be 6 months, starting the day the comment was posted, rather than the day it was found. I'm not sure I like that. I'd support a month for the SoL, but have warnings expire 6 months after they are issued, not after the original comment is left. I think the goal of this policy should be learning, not punishment. We can't honestly expect every contributor to read the entirety of the Meta Pages before posting. I don't think I got around to reading them all until after I became admin (and I'm not even sure I've read them all, they are hard to find sometimes). I think "learning by doing" is the best approach to this situation, and that means we should combine editing with teaching. Finally, your last point is dead wrong. I pulled the notion of appeals directly from Wikipedia policy (making small alterations, to better suit it to our wiki). That section of their policy can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_and_discussions here]. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:53, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::As tautologies explain the same thing (just give some backing to the reasoning for clarification) they should be moved elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages, as I mentioned above.<br />
::The goal of the policy should not be learning. If we do not have varying severity people will use D&D Wiki contributors as vents. There is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have varying severity punishments. Saying that removing this is better then having this present is something which is wrong. If you kill someone and someone else crosses the street illegally a slap on the wrist for both instances is not acceptable. Most people (since they must interact with respect for various reasons) already know how to interact so the learning curve is pretty much non-existent anyway.<br />
::What is wrong with the reasoning for clarification of "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''"? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::For one thing, it isn't clear - negating its ability to clarify. Its obtuse almost. We need clear and concise language. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:21, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Feeling not feelings is a minor grammatical mistake above. If you want to improve the language, of course, go for it.<br />
::::Also, I agree that non-wiki arbitration is good to have. I created http://groups.google.com/group/dd-wiki-non-wiki-arbitration for non-wiki arbitration. Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok, where is this "severity of punishments" thing coming from? We have exactly one punishment -- banning -- and its severity is determined by the quantity, not quality, of your offenses. I simply can not, and will not, ever be in favor of a punitive system of warnings. It's not conducive to a collective-editing environment, it's harsh on new users and therefore insulating to a community that's already way to small to begin with, and it's just plain unnecessary when you consider the types of offenses we are actually dealing with here. Nobody is going to be deterred from ''offending'' by a threatening system, they will be deterred from ''editing''. If you don't agree with this then we will have to agree to disagree because you won't convince me otherwise. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:10, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Edit to add: that whole lasting feelings statement doesn't make any sense to me at all. Are you trying to say "let bygones be bygones"? If so, why do we need that in a warning policy anyway? What's the point of that arbitration thing? Is that to be used with the appeals process you think is unnecessary? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::A few points: <br />
:::::::Tautologies don't really explain things. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps you instead mean "definition" or "explanation". <br />
:::::::While the goal of most policy should not be learning, most of us feel that the goal of the warning policy should be for learning. We want to use the warning policy as a system to teach right from wrong, not just punish those who are doing wrong. If someone is persistently upsetting the community and not contributing in any way, I'm likely to just block them for a week, despite the warning policy. It is my opinion that the warning policy should be for making sure conversations stay civil, and censoring the occasional bad post from a generally good contributor. <br />
:::::::No one is suggesting that we remove institutionalized punishments that fit the crime. To continue your metaphor, there is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have an appeals system. If someone is given 20 years in prison for jaywalking, they should be able to appeal to have their sentence commuted. The idea of appeals isn't to let the guilty walk free, but rather to help the unjustly punished.<br />
:::::::I've joined that group you've created. I'm not sure if it's the best method, but I suppose it'll do for now. You should check that users are who they say they are (based on the email they use to join). In joining, I just got to choose a random username, and I could have picked "Badger" just as easily as I could have picked "Blue Dragon" or "JazzMan831".<br />
:::::::I really want to figure out what you mean by "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''". Do you mean to say ''"If you are still upset about a mean thing someone has said, know that they said it 6 months ago and they may no longer feel that way."''? If that's not what you mean, can you try to rephrase it another way, because I am totally confused. <br />
::::::Given that you've created this off-wiki method for arbitration, I suppose it's safe to assume that an appeals system is something you now like?--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:22, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I wonder if a off-site group is the right way to go for one major reason: anonymity. Yes, I am not that fond of it myself - and I may be willing to use my real name everywhere, but not everyone is. Should we force a user who doesn't wish to connect his online profile with others or his real name into signing up to a group - especially one like google where it is so easy for personal information to leak through ''(trust me, I'm a debt collector. Google and facebook are awesome for us when it comes to tracking)''? Again, personally, I'm anti-anonymity, but I understand that others seek it out. I mean, I doubt Badger wants us to know that he may be "James T. Badger from Badgerville" ''(just an example)'' or such. Maybe this is making sense, but I feel like I'm just blabering on. Basically: TL<nowiki>;</nowiki>DR = love and feel the need for a appeals process, but is off-site the right channel? Do we have the ability to program a few pages to allow even blocked users to edit, like their own talk page or a central Admin Noticeboard? <br />
:::::::Also, what do we do in cases like [[User_talk:Hooper#Spammer_Block_Oddity|this]]? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:47, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::If we were to remove severity and consider an aspect of learning as the base does this include everyone? If someone insults me multiple times will that annoy me more? If someone gets the same punishment as another user for a lesser offense will they even learn (I think this has been proven to be a learning barrier by the way)? If someone insults anyone multiple times will that annoy the admin more (more dealing with this learning base of work)? Why should everything relate to the abuser and not the abused? Why should those who "do their homework" (for lack of a better term) not be better off? Is that not part of learning? I just don't understand how removing severity and considering an aspect of learning as the base can be fair. If its not fair then we ''will'' have a problem with users considering the administration as biased and not compatible.<br />
::::::::Yes, "''bygones be bygones''". Don't worry about all that&ndash; it will be used in the help pages.<br />
::::::::I attempted to infer that yes, I do agree with an arbitration method. For the arbitration to have an effect (in its current state), yes, one must verify the user (email for a message or something). If we do not want to deal with this level of anonymity then does anyone know of a fitting extension for the above suggestions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:02, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, so one thing to point out, we're all in favor of keeping the scaling block lengths. If someone repetitively insults users, they will ''not'' have a good case for arbitration. Arbitration, and commuted block lengths, will only occur when something has legitimately gone wrong. Apparently a patch to the MediaWiki software continues to prevent a blocked user from editing a wiki, but allows users to still edit their talk page. I'm not sure if we have that capability, but if we do, that'd be the best way to go about this. Users could post on their talk page, and admins could leave their opinions. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:17, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The problem with a correlation there is that in some cases multiple things have legitimately gone wrong with only one result. Which extension [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki.org] were you referring to above? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:08, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand where your problem is. Can you give a hypothetical situation where your problem would arise? That would be immensely helpful. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgBlockAllowsUTEdit This] extension (not actually an extension, but existing code) allows blocked users to edit their talk page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:34, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::For example if I edit a page and do not treat another use with civility I have completed an edit. This edit would (in your method) go into a pool until the user gets warned. The pool could have thousands of edits which are not done with civility. The admin would only see the pool and remove the pool as a single occurrence with a single warning relating to the commuted block length. I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The commuted block length should be based of occurrences so this pool problem does not exist.<br />
::::::::::::That extension is an option. I am not a fan of it. When a user is ''blocked'' they are ''blocked''. They did something wrong, so why should they be given lieniency? I would rather do something which does not relate to wiki D&D Wiki (or a mailing list from the email user preferences). Is there an extension for such a thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Well, here's the thing. The "pool" would only exist if admins aren't vigilant in their duties. The idea is that admins should stay on top of these things. Secondly, think about this: Suppose you are a user who is leaving comments. You don't think there is anything wrong with your comments. Suddenly an admin comes online and warns you three times in two minutes. Suddenly you're blocked, and you had no idea you were doing anything wrong. Does that seem fair? <br />
:::::::::::::I'm not sure moving things off-wiki is necessarily the best decision. We've always been adamant that we should keep everything on-site, and I don't get why this would be any different. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Actually, I forgot about that extension. I think it's a good idea -- but only if it's also possible to additionally block a user from using their talk page. Everyone has the right to appeal, but not to spam the recent changes out of spite.<br />
<br />
:As for "abuser" vs. "abused", since we have agreed on a system where only an admin can hand out warnings, and pointing out offenses of others can itself be warn-able, then obviously this is biased towards the "abuser" method. And really we have good reason. If, for example, user A is in an argument with user B, he shouldn't be given the option to pick three different times in the past where he felt "abused" by user B in order to get him blocked for a week. Additionally, admins should not have to be put in a position where they have to say "well actually I don't feel that you are actually being abused, even though that's how you feel". [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:46, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How does the fairness of block lengths make its way into this system?<br />
::The fairness of block lengths is present if the duty relies solely on the ''timing'' of admins. Why should everything be about the timing? Do the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles|improving, reviewing, and removing article]] templates make it so the timing can be used to the fullest? Why should we change the warning system to be worse then such a method?<br />
::The above example does seem fair to me. If I could not control my words I need to learn and a system which explains to me which words were appropriate, treats me the same as other people, and treats the person I was rude to the same as everyone else who was mistreated works best.<br />
::I am against something here being onsite since IP's are only posting spam on their talk pages and being blocked means one is blocked.<br />
::I don't agree with admins being the only one's able to ''deal'' with warnings. See also [[Warning Policy#Warnings Issued]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:50, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't think it's fair to punish someone because, as an admin, I'm slacking on my job. If you make three potentially offensive edits in the span of twenty minutes, you should be given a fair chance to change your behavior. Suppose someone swears in a comment. They don't swear at anyone, they just say something like "Fighters should have the best damn BAB possible". They may not know that comments like that are a violation of policy (Hell, I'm not even sure if they are against policy). Do you think it's fair to ban someone because they leave three comments like that? On my [[Talk:Hooker_(3.5e_Class)|Hooker talk page]], I, an active user, ask what our policy on swearing is. You can't expect a new user to know if users (and admins) as active as Jazzman and I are don't know. Expecting every contributor to spend thirty minutes reading policy before posting is idealistic and naive. Any policy that could block someone for comments like that is completely asinine, and I can't support it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:12, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Should we just do as Wikipedia does? We are basically only talking about a "level of harassment" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility]) which is a block (the word ''may'' not ''can''). What I am mentioning above is more kind then what Wikipedia uses and making it kinder again is a mistake. Wikipedia knows how to handle users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:15, 15 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::GD: which of my 8 points above do you agree with (be explicit, as in, using the actual numbers). Since we are all almost in agreement about those things, can we add them to the real policy page? It'd be nice to have some defined rules around here. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:59, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea of integrity. It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system. Warnings should be applicable until a warning is given then the expiration of the warning can begin to happen. If this does not happen then we lose integrity. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:20, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::First of all, why did you move this? The running vote, and, most importantly, the thing we are discussing in the first place are not on this page. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean. Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? You do disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? Since the current vote is unanimous on several portions of the proposed policy, can we make any of it official? I will respond to your point after I get the answer to these questions, so as not to get distracted. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:37, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::The votes were placed where they should be. The same is for this discussion (what it is discussing should be its main page). Voting is not done. See also [[Meta Pages#Policies]] ''"As [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Supermajority Supermajority] (and many others) failed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] is only used under the rules of D&D, under editing, and in other special instances."'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:52, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::When is voting done, then? And I'm glad you brought up that line; I hadn't noticed it before in Meta Pages. I also am not sure what it's supposed to mean (there's a critical comma or something missing in there). Also, I ask again, as these important questions have yet to be answered: Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? Do you disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? And since voting is apparently not finished (though no one's added a vote in months now) I'll add another: when is voting finished, and what is the procedure for changing this policy? (Do we even *have* a procedure?) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:27, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::As per the above ''"It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system.''" I think I have mentioned what I agree and disagree with above multiple times to refine this... The quote here is my problem with it. And, consensus is done&ndash; voting is not done (special means things like aesthetics, etc). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:41, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Hey guys, sorry I've been missing these past few weeks, I've been swamped with stuff. What have I missed? It seems like we're talking about implementing my new version of the warning policy. Sweet! Let's see, where are we... Right, well, it appears that we're going to use consensus (my favorite thing) to talk about implementation. Judging by what I've read the only thing standing between us and consensus is the notion of a statute of limitations on warnings. Is that right? Awesome! From what I can tell, there are two sides here. Some of us feel that warning people multiple times before given the chance to change their ways is wrong. Others feel if we don't warn people for every offense, we lose integrity in the system. Let me be the first to state that I am in the former camp. Official pardons, states of limitations, and other "secondary laws" have been in effect in America since our inception. I don't think that it can be fairly argued that the American legal system lacks "integrity" because of this. Would someone like to give an example where the integrity of D&D-Wiki would be put in danger because of the proposed policy changes? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:50, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::If you replied to it without giving a warning, it should ''not'' be given a warning later. If it's acceptable to you then, you shouldn't get to change your mind. I can understand if you just now entered the discussion--and even then, the warning should be one along with a statement to straighten up. That discussion went for many, many pages before Green Dragon decided Wrecan wasn't kosher. What made him change his mind? That Wrecan's tone had gotten snippy? Then that should be a warning for when Wrecan's tone and behavior became unacceptable and that post only, not for what was said two weeks ago and replied to a dozen times. Furthermore, multiple warnings in one swoop aren't good. They aren't good ''at all''. I can't imagine the acrobatics required to decide it's acceptable exercise of power, to discuss something ''for weeks'' and then block the other side of the discussion for posts weeks old. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.215|173.245.56.215]] 13:33, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I can't agree with the IP more. What happened to Wrecan should never have happened -- either he should have been blocked days before, or he should not have been blocked at all. To respond to something ''multiple times'' is to give consent to it. You can not then go back and block. It makes the blocker look bad, and it makes the site look bad, end of story. It also doesn't help when YOU POINT OUT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO WARN SOMEONE LATER and then not do it! It just makes you look like a tyrant (and GD, I'm not calling you a tyrant; I'm pointing out that someone new to this site who saw something like that would likely consider the behavior tyrannical). <br />
:::::::::::::Note, also, that GD has decided it's ok to tell users they have done something warn-worthy ''without actually warning them''. [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warning_Policy&diff=prev&oldid=542429].<br />
:::::::::::::Lastly: when will voting be done? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:37, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:The American Legal System is not in the same situation. When a judge makes a decision he makes the decision. There are no court cases that people don't listen to and then ''later'' the judge listens to them.<br />
:Some comments are not necessarily acceptable to anyone anytime. Policy relating to acceptable behavior comes from the Wikipedia pages. No one is changing their mind&ndash; they are just later having the time to deal with the situation.<br />
:I warned [[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] before the time when he received multiple blocks. The time I have to issue warnings (it does take time&ndash; reading everything so critically while constantly referencing Wikipedia and then the formatting that is related, etc) is when I will issue them. Mentioning comments as being warning-worthy is because I have not had the time the process (mentioned above) requires yet. Is this what is being mentioned above? Seems like it is the same thing. Is it antagonizing? I think it may be a fine line.<br />
:Voting is not done. See above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:30, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Ok, GD, let me just say "No". Your reason for delaying a warning isn't acceptable. At all. If you have the time to reply to comments, you have the time to warn someone. End of Discussion. You gave 8 warnings in a single edit. If anything, it should have been a single warning. What you have done is wholly unacceptable. None other administrator would have done what you did. That should have been a clue that something wasn't quite right. <br />
::Jazzman, as a point of order, what do you mean by "When will voting be done"?<br />
::*Under what circumstances should we vote on something?<br />
::*When will discussion come to a close on this issue?<br />
::I feel like that might change the discussion. Are you using the word "voting" to mean "discussion and debate" instead of actual "voting"? <br />
::Finally, I think you've misunderstood my metaphor about the American legal system. Rather than try to explain it to you, I'm just going to ask that you ignore it.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 9 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Let me verify this please&ndash; you're telling me how to spend my time? You understand how my time is organized then?<br />
:::Since this is consensus the point I will make follows. Read the policy. If you don't know what you're doing read the policy. If you don't know how to interact with other humans, read the policy (it may help you). We are not going to organize time in any manner&ndash; that's not right. We'll assume people who care will care and if you do not care then you will suffer the consequences. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:18, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::The point of this discussion is none of us like the policy, and we'd like to change it. I would suggest that if maybe you don't know how to interact with other humans, you should let others write policy. It may help the the website, in the long run. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:13, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Luckily that's a theoretical comment above and then later not direct. I agree that if you don't know how to interact with humans you should let others write policy.<br />
:::::I am talking about a successful model used throughout the world. Again, if you don't know how to interact (making a new model for example that is an experiment (perform the experiment elsewhere okay)) how about you let others write the policy.<br />
:::::The clarification of my above comment is that I am talking about people who receive warnings. If you get a warning you have a problem interacting with humans (do you just go up to someone and belittle them?). I am saying that if they do not read the policy and or understand it then they should learn through the process anyway. Does this simple comment finally make sense? I can't understand how this is not understandable to others. You go to school. You learn. If you don't do your homework you get a bad grade. It's the same thing. The level of used throughout the world is large, so why oh why are the comments I am getting back just not getting this?<br />
:::::Have you ever ruined a class by making the curriculum based off your understanding? The structure of classes is not like this. You sign up for a class. You learn the material that is presented on the syllabus the first day. It doesn't matter if you get it or not&ndash; your grade reflects that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:27, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::We all agree that if you are belittled you should be warned. That isn't the issue being debated here. What we're saying is that 8 warnings at once is an issue. Teachers don't give you a test, and then later count it as eight tests. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:10, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Obviously. They do, however, mark you down for eight questions when you missed eight questions. Giving a Pass/Fail on understanding the test is ''not'' what they do. Any questions this time around? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:35, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::GD, do you agree that the Warning policy should be designed to get users to change their ways by showing them what is not ok, and giving them a chance to change? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:36, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Partly. Learning fairly by repercussions and through reading. I don't agree with unfair learning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:24, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::And tell me, did you give Wrecan time to change his ways between the 2nd and 3rd edits? Or the 3rd and 4th? If the point was to get him to change is ways, shouldn't you have given him a chance to change before banning him for 6 weeks? After reading the conversation, I know I wouldn't have warned him for what he said. Those warnings would have come as a shock to me, and I'm an admin. Don't you think that a single warning would have been more acceptable? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:18, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Did Wrecan read the policy? There is more then one person involved in any discussion. By this I mean that others are also reading it and also care about how a person says things. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:34, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::You did not answer the question. If you were offended, were you offended the first time you read it? Were you offended the second time you read it? Were you offended the third time you read it? Notwithstanding that I still don't believe his comments were inappropriate, how is it that you were ok with them the first ''seven'' times you read them, and then all the sudden you realized they were offensive?<br />
<br />
::::::::::::To use your test metaphor, this is like giving someone 100% on 7 one-question pop quizzes, and then when they get the answer wrong on the 8th, retroactively changing his grade on the other 7. It's one thing if you honestly never saw those posts, say, if the discussion were taking place elsewhere and you were not an active participant. I still don't believe these should be back-warned, but I'll let it slide if it's the deciding factor. But this was not the case here. You were involved in the conversation and by replying &mdash; multiple times, mind you &mdash; you gave the impression, whether intentionally or unintentionally, that what Wrecan was saying was ok by policy. Let's face it, the policy is, at worst, vague and confusing or, at best, open to wide interpretation. As administrators, I believe it is our duty (again, not really defined anywhere) to help other users understand the rules of the site. As such, they should be able to look up to us to know how to act. If I reply to someone's comments with anything other than "you are hereby warned about X", they can be confident that I am satisfied with their manner of posting. I just don't think the same thing applies when GD replies to someone's post, and I believe that makes for a difficult work environment.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::To answer your question from a while ago, Badger, what I was trying to ferret out (heh, rodent pun) was this: if voting is "not yet finished" according to GD, what is the criteria for it being finished? Do we need to wait a certain amount of time? Do we need a certain amount of votes? Do we need to wait until GD votes? Do we need to wait until there is a majority against (we already have a majority for? I don't know the criteria, is all. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:12, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I was offended the entire time that this user was telling me such things. I just didn't have the time (or initiative) to warn Wrecan (just like I didn't have the time (or initiative) to fix the indentation here until now).<br />
:::::::::::::It's actually like being able to read the book on an open-book test and then getting the answer wrong. When it gets graded, you already know the outcome (or you will learn through it).<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with "''As administrators, I believe it is our duty (again, not really defined anywhere) to help other users understand the rules of the site.''" Users learn through repercussions, unless they are unfair (this will be conductive to optimization).<br />
:::::::::::::Voting is not done. Consensus is done. The relevant Wikipedia pages, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Supermajority Wikipedia:Supermajority] may interest you. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:40, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Green Dragon, stop saying "Voting is not done". We all know that. We get it, we're using consensus. Stop linking to their pages. We know the links. We've read the pages. <br />
:If you were offended the entire time, why didn't you say something? After reading your comments, I don't recall you saying in one of your comments something to the effect of "Wrecan, what you are posting is considered a warnable offense. If you don't stop, I will be forced to warn you". Don't say "He should have read the policy and known". Yes, he should have known, but you still could have told him. It would have been the nice thing to do. <br />
:Users don't have to learn through repercussions. Our users are smarter than dogs. They can learn what is right without being punished for doing wrong. <br />
:I have no idea what "unless they are unfair (this will be conductive to optimization)." means. What do you think it means? I think being banned for 6 weeks because all your mistakes get caught at once counts as unfair. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:57, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::{{Warning/Text}} {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 07:44, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWarning_Policy&action=historysubmit&diff=542875&oldid=542874|brokenpolicy=direct rudeness: belittling|warningnumber=1|warningbannumber=2|issuedate=Issued on 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::Please stop asking when voting will be done.<br />
:::I am offended reading this discussion. I feel that people are just testing admin positions through this discussion and wasting time because they maybe 1) do not know what to say and 2) do not know how to approach the situation.<br />
:::''"Users don't have to learn through repercussions. Our users are smarter than dogs. They can learn what is right without being punished for doing wrong."''. &mdash; Have you ever trained a dog? If they do five bad things in a day and you don't give them lunch for 5 days they will have no idea what's going on. The system that I am not proposing is treating users like dogs. Like the model throughout the ENTIRE WORLD I am talking about people are not treated like dogs.<br />
:::People will optimize systems. They will be rude and then "oops! No idea sorry!!" although they really knew and they just wanted to be jerks.<br />
:::Since this discussion has now turned circular, it is over. No one has had anything constructive to say except for undermining what they are proposing (through the dog example). Since this is the case consensus is done, and so is this discussion. The policy will be changed soon. If there are any problems with it please bring it up in a truly analytical manner. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::You are basing your policy under the assumption that users are going to game the system. Isn't one of they key policies of Wikipedia "Assume good faith"? <br />
::::You unilaterally declaring a discussion "over" isn't constructive in the least. If you feel you've reached consensus, you do not have a solid grasp of the definition of consensus. <br />
::::How would you like me to analytically bring up my objections to the policy as it stands? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:31, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::How am I assuming that they will game the system? It's in the same reasoning that the people that people are being jerks to deserve to be impartially dealt with. I mentioned that to get the point across.<br />
:::::You are the one who made the system that is there now (the wording is a little corrected), but go for it. Bring up the problems on a quote by quote basis. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Problems with the Warning Policy ==<br />
<br />
1. Warnings result in predetermined feelings.<br />
:What does that mean?<br />
2. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude.<br />
:Blocks are not offenses at all.<br />
3. Warnings also are not petty matters.<br />
:What do you mean by "petty matters"?<br />
4. Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings.<br />
:How do you correct petty matters? What are discretionable feelings?<br />
5. For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable.<br />
:What is a contributor of low importance?<br />
:What is a feeling which is predetermined?<br />
:How does a predetermined feeling differ from a discretionable one?<br />
6. If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed<br />
:If six months have passed I should be ok with someone using a racial slur? This sentence doesn't make any sense.<br />
7. Call some friends over and play some D&D– try to keep your mind off the predetermined feeling(s) which w/as(ere) received.<br />
:Still not sure about predetermined feelings. Are you suggesting that users should just stop caring if they were insulted? <br />
8. IPs with warn-able offenses will be automatically blocked and the block reason should say "IP leaving comments in violation of warning policy"<br />
:How long will they be banned? A day? A week? A year? Forever?<br />
9. Warnings have been removed after 6 months.<br />
:This is unacceptable. The text is still offensive. Text that has been censored should remain censored. After six months, you can move the warning to a new list of "expired warnings". However, you should, under no circumstances un-censor a post that has been censored. You need to go through and re-censor all the posts that have been uncensored since you implemented these changes.<br />
These are my problems with the current system, and they need to be addressed before I'm willing to accept it. I'd also like to see amnesty granted to all posts made before today, as they were made before the system was clear. I'd also like to see a system to address blocks, and consider commuting blocks. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:29, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:# I am not entirely certain how to explain what a warning is. The best I could come up with is that someone else is telling you how to feel/approach/etc a situation. Therefore they are determining your feelings/approach to the situation.<br />
:# Blocks are offenses. You are a sex ''offender'', and ''offended'' the law in that regard. I thought I would just continue this wording.<br />
:# Petty matters are things like ''"If you are arguing, take a break. If you are mediating, recommend a break [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette Wikipedia:Etiquette]''" for example. I wanted to mention that we will not be totally nitpicky here&ndash; admins are reasonable too.<br />
:# Correcting a petty matter can also be just correcting the indentation of a discussion.<br />
:# ''"What is a contributor of low importance?"'' would occur when someone is belittling the contributor. A predetermined feeling has also been explained above. I am get annoyed with people not signing posts, but it is different then being belittled.<br />
:# ''"If six months have passed I should be ok with someone using a racial slur?"'' Well the discussion will be amended anyway. Are you still okay with someone using a racial slur? Who knows, but since six months is the systems cut line I put that there.<br />
:# Same as above.<br />
:# How long are IPs banned for anyway? It's part of the block system and becomes related thereby. I'll improve this point.<br />
:# I kept the text censored of course (see revision histories). It is inappropriate text.<br />
:The system works so well together that there is no need for amnesty. If you want to make a system for blocks feel free to propose one. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:42, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::1. Blocks are not offenses. Blocks are punishments for offenses. <br />
::2. If petty things don't have anything to do with warnings, they shouldn't be included in the warning policy.<br />
::3. Again, if correcting something doesn't require a warning, it shouldn't be part of the policy<br />
::4. You calling someone "of low importance" is belittling in its own right. Rework that title. <br />
::5. In my opinion, if someone is warned for something, I will never be ok with it. Even after 6 months. That should be removed from the warning policy.<br />
::7. I'd still like to know how long they should be banned for. That should be part of the policy.<br />
::8. You didn't in every instance. (See [[Talk:God,_Christian_Faith_(3.5e_Deity)#Lawful_Good.3F|here]])<br />
::The system does not work well together at all. If you are depending on admins to use their discretion, you need to set more guidelines, or allow them to appeal judgments. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:37, 14 December 2011 (MST)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Warning_Policy&diff=542955Help talk:Warning Policy2011-12-14T05:40:03Z<p>Badger: /* Problems with the Warning Policy */ gotta keep that grammar fresh</p>
<hr />
<div>== Missing Warnings? ==<br />
<br />
Where are the first warnings for TK-Squared, Jota, and S1Q3T3? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 17:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:In this time I did not reference the areas so I forgot some. They have them however where are they?<br />
:I know [[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] had three warnings however he/she was first banned for only one warning (the policy was still young) and then he acquired at least up to three warnings and was not banned to compensate (see his talk - history if needed). I at least remember it was with someone (maybe [[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] however I don't rememberer exactly. Do you know?<br />
:I put (2:1) on [[User:Jota|Jota's]] last warning and I do not think I was wrong. Do you know where the other is? Is there another?<br />
:[[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] was banned for a (3:1) however were are they all? I also don't remember.<br />
:If you know any of the areas I am talking about supplying a link would be appreciated.<br />
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where warnings have been given and are not referenced here supplying a link would be appreciated.<br />
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where people deserve warnings and were not given them supplying a link would be appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Although it is a moot point, I can see the advantage of making sure we try to accurately back-log and keep track for all future purposes. I [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Yo5&defl=en&q=define:hope&ei=-Yt5S8XIO47cnAfKr5GyCQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE doubt] the user who did it will ever be back, but [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Bagby&diff=prev&oldid=395263 this edit] seems to me to be a warning-level offense. Maybe I'm wrong, but here it is for an admin to decide.<br />
::Additionally, I was wondering if we are going to have an enforced warning system that is in effect for Edit Wars? I know that even I have been a part of many, and it is something we should avoid. Just curious. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::As seen in [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:White_Wolf&curid=72522&diff=457366&oldid=457360 this diff], [[User:Jota]] tried to sneak bits of another user's ''(myself)'' previous comments, trying to disguise the removal as part of a different edit. Even more poignant, the main section removed was where I quoted Jota from a previous location where he admitted enjoying arguing on this wiki (arguably an act of trolling). Though the edits leading up to it can be deemed a Edit War of which I am equally to blame ''(though correct in my reasoning)'', Jota's edit went against all forms of wiki civility and protocol.<br />
:::This is not the first time Jota has done such. He has even removed or discounted other user's or IP's ratings of his own content when it wasn't to his liking. Being so brunt with other user's talk page postings should be forbidden. At most, altering extremely foul language or helping fix link/formatting should be the only allowable reason to do such a thing ''(barring of course obvious spam/vandalism)''. For this reason, I believe a warning is necessary. I leave it to the admin to decide. I understand if I also receive one for the edit war that took place, though in that case Jota should receive two. <br />
:::Jota did respond on that page that he removed the content to save me from ''"..direct rudeness, name calling, and belittle comments.."'' however the main portion of content removed was a quote from Jota, not myself. So that is invalid. The small other portion was not name calling nor do I perceive it as rude - those in managerial positions see things differently than those who are not, irl. Hence the classic phrase ''"can't see the forest because of all the trees"'' and all of it's variants. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::So arguing is trolling now? Lolwut? My actions were in keeping with your (Hooper) past actions, as noted on the Biomancer's talk page. If what I did was an offense against Wiki civility, so was what Hooper did. I just see him not getting warned for his actions, so I assume their okay under this wiki's policy, even though I find them questionable in nature. Furthermore, yes I remove ratings from content, not just IP ratings and not just my own material. If the rating is "lulz, overpowered" that does nothing for no one and is better off removed. "Obvious" spam is subjective, and should be left to an admin or bureaucrat, of which Hooper is neither. Personally, I would subscribe to FIFA's approach to warnings. Asking for someone else to be warned is a warn-worthy offense. Admins know the rules. Telling an admin someone needs to be warned is only an attempt to unjustly sway their opinion, and as such should merit a warning. Given [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law ex post facto law], Hooper's previous offense could be ignored, but its just a suggestion. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Irrelevant. As anyone can see on the policy pages in the help portal, most notable the Behavior Page, and from GD's actions and own statements, we no longer tolerate solicitation or links to competing sites. As noted in the diffs on biomancer, Eiji was soliciting and I removed it '''per policy'''. Stop straw manning. <br />
:::::Green Dragon is attempting to be notified because he is the only majorly active admin currently and has way too much to go through, hence it is easy for him to not see all that goes on, sadly. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Obvious is subjective, and therefore not your call to make. You want the power, nominate yourself for adminship. You're just creating more clutter by bringing subjective arguments to the table. Besides, it's not like this wiki is so active one cannot see an entire day's worth of activity on the recent changes page. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::Everything I need to do here on the wiki doesn't require adminship, nor do I want it. I thought I needed it long ago to help speed up editing but still don't need it today. Some of us have power in real life and realize that adminship is just responsibility, not power.<br />
:::::::Besides, I'd be too bad of an admin. I'd just permaban all the transientwiki people who think that continuing to cause circular talks and bog down progress on the site is fun. I'd also permaban anyone making content with the word Naruto in it. So, subjective or not, it's obvious I don't need adminship. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Official Policy ==<br />
<br />
So I have a few quick questions concerning actual policy. <br />
*If an Admin gets 3 warnings (and thusly banned for a week), should they be RfA'd to (potentially) remove adminship? It seems reasonable to have some sort of policy in place to that effect. Naturally, we'd all like to think admins are calm, level-headed contributors all the time, but everyone gets upset and says (or does) something stupid every so often. <br />
*Are all warnings the same? Can a single action provoke 2 <s>attacks of opportunity</s> warnings? <br />
*Is there a statute of limitations on warnings? We have a message up there asking for any missed warnings. Should we really be going back 4 and 5 months to find warn-able offenses? Some of those offenses took place before the warning policy existed. <br />
*Are we warning for every violation of civility according to that list? Forgetting to sign your post, and not answering questions both are on that list. Neither seem worth a warning.<br />
*My last question is a very specific one. Green Dragon, as we all ''now'' know, cannot be removed from adminship. Can he still be warned? If he is warned 3 times can he be banned?<br />
Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:First off I just recently saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption] and civility is actually present. As such, do we need this now maybe extraneous policy? I don't know. If so I would prefer we rollback or censor the problem text/post. Thoughts?<br />
:Should an admin be RfA'ed. Good question. I think so as it means one has not been upholding the values of an admin.<br />
:Warnings have been given based off each post, not an "action". Within the post, although their may be multiple violations, I have been counting it as one post to one warning.<br />
:There should not be a statue of limitations on warnings. The problem text is still present and as such something needs to be done regarding it.<br />
:Maybe you are referring to how the "etiquette" portion may not be relevant. That could be case. Should this be changed to just civility? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Hmm. I don't know. Should this page be a subpage of [[Help:Behavioral_Policy]]? &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I think Wikipedia's policy (as you linked above) is a good one. However, I think that policy almost requires us to keep the warning policy. If, for example, you decide to ban me for "Persistent Gross Incivility", I'd demand a few examples of that. The warning policy, as we have it, keeps a running log of all infractions to present if the banned individual should they ask for evidence. Whether or not we decide to stick with the "3 warns equals 1 week ban" policy is a different question. I think the policy is a solid one (once we more clearly define infractions and consequences). I personally am opposed to "perma-bans" (with the exception of users solely dedicated to causing problems, as defined by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption disruptions only]); I don't know how you feel on the subject, however. To address Hooper's question, I think the final decisions should for sure be a sub-page of Behavioral policy, I don't know that this discussion has made any concrete decisions yet though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Vagueishness ==<br />
<br />
The criteria for warning seem somewhat vague, and, since they link to an offsite page over which we have no control, are subject to unwarned change. If I read this literally, I could be giving out warnings for people who don't sign their posts, which doesn't really seem necessary, or for abusing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule WP:3RR], which isn't clearly a policy on this site. It's probably time that we broke from WikiP and just created our own pages on civility and etiquette. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This could make sense. Want to give it a go and we can see where we are from there? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:29, 4 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I could do it (though I don't have a lot of time right now), but since you do all of the warning, I would think you have a better idea of what's warnable and what's not. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:12, 9 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Hooper ==<br />
<br />
He got two warnings at the same time. It's not really a "warning" if he doesn't have a chance to learn from it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:16, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Interestingly, one of those messages was followed by three or four other comments before it was warned. To an outside observer, it might appear as though someone was just looking for a reason to block him for a week and warned him for something that didn't really warrant a warning. I know we've decided that warnable offenses don't have a statute of limitations, but that's a tad silly, IMO. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:21, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree that the first one was weak at best; stating that one can't follow another's statements is certainly not a personal attack if it's true, and doesn't really justify a warning. Even if Hooper had said something invoking the hygiene of another's mother, however, he still should have a chance to learn from his mistake before being warned a second time. Otherwise it's not a warning policy, it's a punishment policy. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:36, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::The learning curve is non-existent. If you don't know how to edit, look into D&D Wiki's policies. If that confuses you don't chime into discussions which are so variable. Also, it's that we are intended to warn backwards in time to be fair. Did it happen? Yes. Done. Is there any other way? Not unless you want to disregard wikis (when you edit you edit) entirely for certain users for who knows what reason. There may be more warning problems. I am so tired of pointless discussions I have stopped reading them. If I see more warning problems sometime when I may read them for whatever reason, yes, I will give more warnings. It's the fair way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:50, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::So answer me this, if someone says three different insults in the same single post, do you count it as one warning or three? If you aren't going to stay on top of the ball, but still want to keep away any statute of limitations, the only "fair" way to do it is to count every one you find at the same time as the same warning. It's all arbitrary, anyway, as I stated above (no work has been done on trying to clarify what is actually warnable), but if we are going to block a good user, it'd be nice to know we have good reason. Also, it's be nice to not be paranoid that I can all-the-sudden be banned for extended periods of time because of something I wrote that I didn't know was offensive, that all got caught all at once. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:29, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Each time one edits. You can say whatever in one editing time, however multiple times are multiple times. I agree about it being nice, however it would also be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]] (for example). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ok, see, that's not a very good argument, GD. Sure, it'd be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]], but it'd be really hard and time consuming to do that. It'd be very easy to do what Jazzman described. For example, I'm sure there are several things on this wiki that I've written that could potentially be considered warnable, but I've never been warned. Would it be fair to quickly find 3 things, and then ban me for a week, without giving me time to change my ways? No. A single warning would say "this sort of thing is unacceptable, cut it out", and I probably would. That'd be nice, reasonable, fair, and everyone would enjoy it more. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:18, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::After a unjustified ban, I can attest that the policy should be defined. Additionally, if we're following in Wikipedia's footsteps properly, then we should establish proper ban-reversal procedure. For example, if two admins oppose a third admin's block, the block should be reversed (wikipedia has a similar policy, and if it was already in effect here - then this recent unwarranted block wouldn't of happened). Plus, blocks are meant to prevent or pause problematic editors, not editors who are actively contributing, fighting spam, and working collaboratively.<br />
:::::::There should also be a time limit put into effect where admins can not back-warning. This was made obvious recently, as it can lead to abuse. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:27, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I do know Green Dragon gave Surgo and TK-Squared multiple warnings in February of 2010, for language/rudeness violations committed in March/May of 2009. And considering Surgo stopped posting in September of 2009...well, I can't see what good Green Dragon thought he was doing. Seeing as how he was warning for someone for offenses almost a year old, and ''five months'' after the user in question ceased activies on the wiki. <br />
<br />
== Admin Violations ==<br />
<br />
The current warning policy does not state that admins are "above the policy" and actually showcases many former admins who have received warnings. However, it also states that only admins may give out warnings. Though I may be just "asking for it," I am intending to request a second administrator's look at recent comments by Green Dragon to see if they are deemed necessary of a warning or warnings. <br />
On the discussing recently held on the Main Page's discussion page, GD said ''"If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out."'', ''"If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this."'', and my personal favorite ''"...Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a [[Warning Policy]]). They must fix the problem or get banned."'' All three of these comments come across as either directly rude or belittling to the people they're referring to, and the last one actually directly interferes with our existing [[Warning Policy]] and implies that I was banned for allegedly-uncivil actions off-site.<br />
Now, however, the most directly uncivil reply was recently posted to the GNU's talk page. Here, GD amazingly flat out states that he will not follow consensus or collaborative discussion (even though he recently added Consensus to the Meta pages) when he declares that ''"...I could care less who thinks what about what. I will do as it is done. I'll listen to reasonableness. I don't care if it comes from God or a bacteria."''. Could other admins please discuss this, and could Green Dragon please reply and let me know if I have misread his intent or tone, especially with the last quote. I also wish to reiterate that I'm not trying to directly attack, its just that at the time these statements were made I was unable to reply - and after reviewing the numerous moves and reformatting of the licensing discussion, am trying to host a civil discussion on a serious issue on the most appropriate page. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ah, and you've spotted a flaw in the system. As I pointed out [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|just above here]], GD is seemingly "above the law". In fact, historically, blocking GD has been grounds for a block in it's own right. In addressing my questions about the finer points of warning policy, GD seemed to gloss over the objection I raised on that front. <br />
:Personally, as an admin, I refuse to "warn" anyone (IP, registered user, administrator, or owner) until a complete and fair guide has been written and is visible to all contributors. As Jazzman mentioned, if we don't have clearly defined rules the "warning policy" becomes more of a "punishment policy". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:03, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes, I can attest to having no warning at all when I was hit with multiple at once, and still have no clear clue what I said that was wrong. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:12, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've started working on a new, more clear, warning policy. It can be seen [[User:Badger/sandbox13|here]]. Feel free to join the discussion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:55, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yes, there are answers to things for the above (looking into it more, reading the block reason, etc). Yes, the world also turns. Is "''the world also turns''" condescending? Nah. Are you going to make accusations as such? When I get the time I will issue warnings appropriately for the above comment (e.g. accusations) if appropriate. Was that condescending too? Nah. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:55, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Umm, okay? Going past the you-blocked-me thing ''(whatever, we can both agree we want the best for the future of the site. right?)'', I'm more interested in your discussion on Badger's rough draft of a warning policy overhaul. Especially on how it may affect admins and bureaucrats. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:59, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Warnings Issued on 4e Campaign Settings Caliphate Supplement ==<br />
<br />
:''Discussion moved from [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caliphate_%28Patronage_Supplement%29&oldid=542259 Talk:Caliphate (Patronage Supplement)#Titles].'' <small>--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
Ok point of order here, I'm not going to bother reading this whole discussion because it's long and half of it is hidden in warning text (and ultimately I know what the outcome will be anyway), but some of those "warning texts" are not appropriate. You can't just warn people for saying something you don't like. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:58, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Right. They are related to specific Wikipedia pages. Where are you coming from exactly? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I don't know where you are coming from with that one. To be more specific, the following statements are all statements you removed from Wrecan's posts, and warned him about. All of them are, in my opinion, not warnable offenses:<br />
::# Why are you imposing this policy on my campaign setting? What gives you the right to do this, and to prevent me from restoring what I had originally written?<br />
::# It's not tied to any language in the Wiki policy you cited and<br />
::# What admins should not do is invent an unwritten policy and impose them on others without going through the process of adoption. <br />
::# Your interpretation of the policy is not supported by the language of the policy. If you want this website to consider personal attacks to include any use of epithets considered offensive by "organizations and people... on a large scale" then go through the process of amending this wiki's policies.<br />
::# There is no violation for giving a fictional character a title of "Caliph", just as there would be no violation for giving a fictional character the title of "Pope" or "Chief Rabbi" of "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire"... even if millions of people would be offended by the act. The only behavior banned (of relevance here) is applying a religious term to describe a contributor. That's the Wikipedia (and this site's) policy. If you want this site to have a different policy, you need to go through the process of amended this site's policy.<br />
::# Did you really think I wouldn't fact-check you, GD?<br />
::# When you edited the Patronage pages, you weren't acting as administrator; you were acting as a contributor. Administrators don't make substantive contributions to wiki pages in their capacity as administrators<br />
<br />
::In addition, you edited some of his text for reasons other than warnings, which is explicitly against our editing policy. In addition, as mentioned before (in a discussion I think you moved to this page), it's simply not fair (and makes your behavior look to outsiders who don't know the situation &mdash;at best&mdash; lazy or &mdash;at worst&mdash; malevolent, ''especially'' when the content you are warning/removing refers to your improper warning/removing of text!) to respond to something multiple times before you hand out a warning for it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:31, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::None of that is improper. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 relate to lying. 3 and 6 are rude to [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:04, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::The correct grammar is "None of those are improper, and I feel silly for having censored them." --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.104|173.245.48.104]] 20:32, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not necessarily. I meant that none of the reasons for giving them are improper. You'll see what I mean if you check the reasons. The context is about the warning, ergo the warning is being discussed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:23, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::{{Warning/Text}}. But it's on record that I disagree and that I think it makes you look very improper. In the future, I would be happy to mediate any dispute between you and another user. There's a Wikipedia policy for that somewhere (and actually I think I've done that once before on WP). Also, I'm reinstating the historical link to the page from which you moved this text, because my comments apply to a historical revision of that page, not the page as it stands now, or whenever in the future some user happens to view it. If that talk page gets archived, the link will no longer work and my comments here will lack context (which is why I commented there, and not here, in the first place). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:21, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWarning_Policy&action=historysubmit&diff=542875&oldid=542874|brokenpolicy=direct rudeness: belittling a fellow editor|warningnumber=1|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::If you are pointing something out then please add the link to your comments. If its a diff archiving will not do anything... Um... You can read the policy to understand the warnings. If someone is saying something is done a wrong way then they are lying. It's pretty straightforward. Also, you earned yourself some warnings above! "Won't ever change your mind" is belittling. I'll warn you sometime. The dispute resolution is not needed here. Everything is straightforward. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:35, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::If it's a warning please warn me right now. Otherwise I'm not going to count it. (And you know what else is belittling? Telling someone they earned some warnings and then threatening to warn them later). Saying something is done a wrong way is only lying if Wrecan knows it was, in fact, done correctly: it's only lying if he's ''intending'' to ''mislead'' you. If Wrecan actually believes that you are not following policy even though you are, that is not lying. It's pretty straightforward. Point number 2, by the way, can not, by definition be lying: you can not lie by asking someone a question! "How was your day?" "LIAR!!!"<br />
<br />
:::::::As for the link: I don't need to refer back to what I am talking about on the other page, because when I said what I said, ''I said it on the other page''. Can you please explain to me what your problem is with adding a more accurate link? If it's a diff archiving will not do anything... which is why I added the diff! We don't want anything to affect where this link points to. If you keep the link how you have it, and then later that talk page is archived, this link will be broken. My link will be correct no matter what you do to the other page (so long as you don't delete it)<br />
<br />
::::::::1 is a little interesting. I guess I could remove it. I would like some input on the thinking behind it before any action though. I considered that these circular discussions are pointless and waste people's time. The problem with them is that they need to get resolved (as far as I can tell). One cannot have administrative-related discussions left open since that will imply that users are ''okay'' to not engage in consensus and that they can just "slam the door on other users" while disregarding them.<br />
::::::::It would be fully true that warnings need to be in the time frame of the post if our comments here served the only purpose of taking actions. They, however, do not. Many times I post things without taking any action afterwards (such as after this post) and others do not take actions from my post.<br />
::::::::Additionally if I had more time I could do all the things I want to do. If I had more time I would improve areas of D&D Wiki. I don't have the time right now. So, my lack of time is not a problem. I find that a lack of time leading to problems is not constructive. Therefore, warnings are based off the ''text''. Therefore, it is not belittling. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Policy Changes ==<br />
<br />
:''See also [[User:Badger/sandbox13]]''<br />
:''Discussion moved from [[User talk:Badger/sandbox13#Warning Policy]].'' <small>--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:44, 5 December 2011 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
Obviously, I wrote all this so I rather like it. However, is there anything that should be added? Anything that should be clarified? Anything that should be removed? Thoughts? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:51, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:The following bullet points are [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]'s comments/issues:<br />
:1. Just a suggestion for the warning of block lengths. It should go something like "The ban length starts with one week at three warnings and then increases exponentially for every 3 warnings received (2 weeks after the 6th warning, 4 weeks after the 9th, 8 weeks after the 12th, etc.)". Also, I wonder if previously banned people should get less leeway? Maybe 3 bans = 1 week, 5 = 2 weeks, then every new warning increases the ban length. Then again, maybe not, because then it would be too tempting to find any one thing to be able to ban someone. But then again, then again, if someone's already got 5 bans, they probably aren't that great of a member anyway. I'm undecided on this one.<br />
:2. Civility and harassment are wishy-washy terms, and their wishy-washiness has lead to some questionable bans in the past. I'm not sure it's possible to define them in a way that's usable for our purposes, but perhaps we should have a few examples of what are ''not'' uncivil or harassing behavior. Asking for clarification of someone else's post is (usually) not uncivil. Going off-topic or responding to a topic which has been "settled" should also not be a ban-able offense.<br />
:3. Ettiquette breaches should, in most cases, ''not'' be a ban- or warn-able offense. Going by the letter of the law, you could get a warning for mis-indenting a page or for adding a new comment to the top. This should also probably be defined somewhere. I would love it if we didn't have to link to Wikipedia at all, since we have no control over the content there, and aren't notified if their policies change.<br />
:4. I like the separation of IPs from everyone else, because it basically makes no sense to warn IPs.<br />
:5. I think that there should be some sort of statute of limitations in effect, or otherwise some way to keep from being banned as Hooper recently was. I'd say any time an administrator issues a warning, all violations at the same time count as the same warning. This means if someone, say, posts rude comments on 5 different talk pages (though see below), they would count as 1 warning, since there's only 1 chance for the user to correct their behavior, not 5. Speaking of warnings, if the whole point of a warning system is corrective and not punitive, I think any user given a warning should, you know, actually be warned, say, on their talk page. The administrator giving out the warning should leave a message on that user's talk page stating exactly why they received a warning; this way the user has an immediate chance to clean up their act or clear up any miscommunications.<br />
:6. There should be some sort of exception to the rule for certain types of offenders. As written, we can't perma-block those stupid Russian drug company spammers.<br />
:7. The petition section is a little wordy, and is unclear if only the admin who did the banning is allowed to unblock.<br />
:8. Admin blocks: GD (and I think BD) are automatically exempt from being de-sysopped, so I wonder if they should be exempt from banning (though not warning) as well? I mean, they can take away the blocking power from anyone who can block them, so if they ever ''deserved'' to be blocked, what good would it do?<br />
:I mostly support it, but there are a couple of things I think we could change (See section below). I'll change my vote when these items are discussed more. Of my original 8 points below, I am now satisfied with 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. I'm not sure I can support a policy that allows unappealable (7) insta-blocks (5), but as those discussions are not settled I haven't changed my vote yet.<br />
:This is probably a little nit-picky, but with something as tumultuous and fickle and emotional as banning, I think it's better we have an absolute iron-clad policy now, then have to find all the exceptions later and risk appearing to play favorites. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:31, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've numbered them, and will reply to them by number here:<br />
::1. I think that sets of 3 warnings to a block is a good system. Suppose Hooper gets another warning in 6 months, and then another 8 months after that. Two warnings in the span of 14 months hardly seems worth a 2 week block. Plus, then every subsequent warning is a longer and longer block. (Sorry to use you as an example, Hooper, but you make such a good one). <br />
::2. I think we need some level of "wiggle room" in our terminology. The last thing I want is some trouble-making user leave bad comments and then say "yeah, but technically it's not listed under warnable offenses." I figure since only admins are giving out warnings, we can say "use some logic and reasonableness".<br />
::3. Honestly, I don't really like etiquette, but it was included like 4 times in the original system, so I left it in. I can't make a rational argument for or against it. It seems to me that again an admin could say "dude just miscounted colons, I'm not going to warn him for an etiquette violation." but it would catch people intentionally not signing comments that are offensive. (If anyone would be dumb enough to try that, still signed in). <br />
::5. I have no idea how to word it, but I want to suggest something like "you can't be warned on comments between warnings", which I know makes no sense. Let me clarify: When you're warned for a comment "c1", and then again for comment "c5". Any comments left between c1 and c5 (c2-4) can be censored to remove offending content, but don't count towards your warning level. I think a system about leaving comments on warned user's talk pages is also a good idea. <br />
::6. The way I see it, the warning policy applies almost exclusively to comments left on talk/user pages. Considering we don't warn link spammers, we just delete their pages and perma-ban them I see no need for this policy to concern them. We should probably make it more clear that this policy applies mainly to comments, and not spam/vandalism. <br />
::7. I'm not sure how to better word the petition section. I think that only the blocking admin should be allowed to revert the block, though. <br />
::8. If they are "above" banning (as it seems they are) they might as well be "above" warnings too. The only punishment for a warning is a block. Unless you mean you'd like to be able to censor offending posts. I guess that makes enough sense.<br />
::Right, so, these are my thoughts on the matter. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:16, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Support, if time restraint put on warnings (see comments)<br />
:::I like what you've got here. It is clear and concise. Even I can tell what I'm guilty of ''(my tendency to highlight others rudeness and ignore my own)''. My only thought is that we should consider some time of time limit. Obviously, admins can't see everything right away - especially if one user cusses another out at say midnight on a sunday. Still, there should be some clear line-in-the-sand that says unless you specifically did x (say, actually cussed out a user) you can not be officially warned if the item was not caught within the time limit. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:49, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::1. Fair enough. I actually had a thought that might solve a few of our problems at once. What if the warnings "timed out" after a certain period (probably no less than three but no more than 12 months). After the set time period you remove the last warning. Truly disruptive users will ramp up their warnings quickly, but someone who, say, occasionally posts something harsher than they intended won't be so severely penalized. You could even combine the two: it takes 3 warnings to get a block, then every warning after 3 also gets a block, but you remove a warning every 3 months. Or something along these lines.<br />
::::2. I agree with wiggle room, I just also worry that "admin discresion" could be used to liberally as well. I don't know, maybe let's keep it how it is currently then update it if there are problems.<br />
::::3. If (at least) two of us don't like the etiquette part, maybe we should think about removing it altogether from the list of warn-able offenses. I'm not even sure if anyone ever got a warning based off of etiquette before. Or again, we could leave it for now and fix it if we run into problems later. <br />
::::5. What about a simpler solution: an admin can only hand out one warning at a time to a person, no matter how many offenses the admin finds at the same time. I think this says what we want to say without getting too technical.<br />
::::6. Fair enough. Maybe we just need a line that says something to the effect of "vandals and spammers will be dealt with immediately, regardless of their current warning status"?<br />
::::7. How about this: "A user may appeal a block by petitioning the blocking admin via email. The decision to reverse a block is entirely at the discretion of the admin. If the admin does not respond after 48 hours, a blocked user may contact another admin. If this second admin can not contact the original blocking admin, they may decide to reverse the block at their discretion.<br />
::::Any user who is blocked for a period of greater than 1 month can ask for a formal appeal. The user must email all active admins their appeal, after which the admin may request additional information, or may decide as written. A user must get a 2/3's vote from all currently active admins to appeal their block. If the vote fails, they may appeal again after 6 months."<br />
::::8. It's probably a moot point, but yeah, censoring was part of it. Really, though, we don't want admins to be at each other's throats, so maybe we shouldn't delve into this too far. I wonder if we should put in a clause that uncivil language directed at an admin can not be warned by that admin. In other words, a warn must always be from a third-party. Pointing out such offenses would obviously be exempt from the "pointing out offenses is an offense" rule, because administrators don't always read conversations if they know another admin is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:06, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::1. I'm not sure how I feel about warnings going away after a period of time. I mean, it sounds reasonable enough, but the notion of having to go and check on warning expiration dates seems like one more thing to do, with no concrete advantage. I'm all for more work, if it's worth it. I'd also argue "if you are blocked for 3 warnings that span more than a year, you have a strong case for a petition to commute the block". <br />
:::::2/3. How about we keep the "admin discretion" point from comment 2, and remove etiquette from 3? I think that solution would probably do the most good, and the least expense. <br />
:::::5. We currently have a rule that says [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|a single post can't create more than one warning]]. Want to somehow explain how that would extend to all existing comments? <br />
:::::6. We can (and probably should) add that line in somewhere.<br />
:::::7. I like your suggestion for improving the petition portion. I think we should include a bit about "pestering an admin", unless you object to that notion. <br />
:::::8. So maybe we say "while Bureaucrats cannot be warned, their comments can be censored just like any other post"? I like the third party idea. The only problem with that is suppose someone insults you three times, but no other admins are online for a week (which I don't think has '''ever''' happened). You should have the authority and the ability to remove these bad comments and warn the user. <br />
:::::Lastly, to Hooper's point: I'm not sure how I feel about "Admins didn't catch the edit within X weeks, they can't be warned". While it sounds reasonable, admins have a ton of stuff to do (here, and in the real world). I know I don't read every single update (though I skim most of them). If someone is being uncivil, they should be warned no matter how long it's been. Notice we are granting amnesty to all comments before this system is set into place, though. I think that's reasonable enough. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:18, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I feel that civility should be kept as well. I feel that something along the lines of "''Warnings result in predetermined feelings. Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters. Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings. For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable.''"<br />
::::::I agree that IPs should not be included. A feature like [[Special:CheckUser]] does not exist for them.<br />
::::::Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards.<br />
::::::Warnings should go away after 6 months if the user is in good standing. The reasoning could include something along the lines of "''If a registered user remains in good standing for six months after receiving a warning the warning will be removed. If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed. Call some friends over and play some D&D&ndash; try to keep your mind off the predetermined feeling(s) which w/as(ere) received.''"<br />
::::::I am fine with bureaucrats being above the warning policy. Although this leaves a large hole open for problems, I can say with certainty [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] and I will not abuse the system.<br />
::::::I disagree with petitions to unblock. If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked. If the reasoning is solid then they should be blocked. I do not think that there should be the possibility for circumvention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:54, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Look good? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:36, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I've reverted the changes for two reasons. First, all the above comments are based on what was there (and is there again), so changing that much will change how all those comments apply. Secondly, your use of some very key phrases are confusing to me (and presumably other users). For example "If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed." is not a complete sentence, and I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. The suggestions you've brought up are, on the whole, good ones, and should be included. However, those monumental changes are not the best way to go about implementing said changes. if you could better explain your meaning, we could work out what changes need to take place. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:38, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::This is a sandbox which is a subsection of your userpage. If you want to revert the changes whatever. Keep in mind that one can always look at a older version of the page (based off the dates of the comments) for such a scenario.<br />
:::::::::I think that "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''" is a complete sentence. "''If there are [bears who fish salmon] know that [they do fish salmon].''" The adjective is lasting feelings and the verb is passed. However, I am no grammatical expert.<br />
:::::::::I mean what my comment above mentions. If you would like a better explanation please go through my comment above and let me know where your confusion arises from. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:46, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm aware that this is a subpage, and history/comment dates would make it possible to see what exactly everyone means, but it would be easier to just make a large edit once we've resolved all our concerns, and then strike through/comment out the existing discussion.<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm just going to go through your previous comment one line at a time, pointing out where I would like clarity. ''"I feel that civility should be kept as well"''. Got that, clear and concise. ''"Warnings result in predetermined feelings"''. I have no idea what that means. What are "pre-determined feelings", in this sense?''"Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters."'' This much I understand, too. Warnings are the sorts of things that are unacceptable, but not worthy of a block. ''" Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings."'' Right, not sure what this means. Do you mean "Admins can correct small things, like indentation, and not warn the contributor"? That is what I think you mean by your next sentence ''"For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable."'' ''"Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards."'' is another confusing sentence, for me. Do you mean to suggest that you should be able to issue three warnings for three successive inappropriate posts, and thereby block someone, without giving them time to adjust their behaviors? I think, and others agree, that this mentality turns a warning policy into a punishment policy. I don't think that is a good rule. The rest of your post I think I understand. I'm fine with removing the petition to unblock if warnings go away 6 months after they were issued. That seems like a solid plan, to me. <br />
<br />
::::::::::Back to that one confusing sentence: if that is how you intend for your comment to be interpreted, then it is improperly punctuated; but, that's a minor detail. However, if that is your sentence, then it is a tautology that adds nothing to the policy. "If there are feelings, then there are feelings" doesn't help to describe what these feelings are, or what ramifications these feelings have. Could you better describe what you mean by "predetermined feelings"? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:05, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::By "predetermined" I mean that when someone says something they intend a result for someone else. By "''Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings''" I mean that "You may edit" (just worded for the context).<br />
:::::::::::When I mention that edits should be the base for warnings this is because blocking can be of varying length. Why can they be of varying length? They vary in length because of severity. Making warnings work with edits makes use of severity. Also, it is not fair if someone insults someone multiple times and someone else insults someone a single time and they get the same result.<br />
:::::::::::Oh, everything I added are tautologies. They are there to explain the reasoning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:51, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::The whole point of numbering was to try and keep the different points straight, but I see that's gone down the crapper. I'm going to try to summarize, then hopefully we can stay organized from here on out.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::1 (Warning system logistics) It sounds like we are leaning towards an expiring warning system.<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with this, and I don't think it takes too much work. Really, all you have to do is check the age of the last warnings before you ban someone. If the oldest warning is less than 6 months old, then none of them have expired yet. Displaying "expired" warnings doesn't have any negative consequences, so nobody needs to rigorously patrol the page for expired warnings.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::2/3 (Etiquette and Civility) I think we are going to keep it as is for now.<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with Badger, the language suggested by Green Dragon does not make a lot of sense to me, and I'm not sure it's necessary. For one thing, "discretionable" is not a real word. I think what you are getting at is that admins have discretion to define "civility" and "etiquette". While I don't really like this (as it leaves it open to abuse -- especially with no method of appeal), I don't see a better way around it right now.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::4 (Blocking IPs) It's agreed that there's no need to block IPs.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::5 (How to count blocks) There is no consensus here.<br />
:::::::::::::Badger mentioned the "rule" that you can't be warned more than once in one comment. This should be enumerated within the rules for it to be official. Green Dragon, your scenario is fair in one way but unfair in another. Yes, your way three warnings always equals 1 block. But one user got 2 warnings to cease his behavior before he was blocked, and the other got 0. This is unfair. I'll say it again: if the point of the block policy is to ''change'' behavior, then you must go off of the number of actual ''warnings'' (i.e. how many times the user was told "don't do that or else"). If the purpose of the warning policy is to ''punish'' people, then you must go off of the number of ''offenses'' (this would even count for multiple offenses within a single post). If we are trying to build a community, I can only support a behavior-changing policy. I also, for the same reason, think there should be a statute of limitations. While admins may be busy, we really should be checking over all edits, especially in discussions that are likely to devolve into uncivil behavior. I don't think a week is too short a time frame; most weeks you can view a week's worth of edits on the recent changes log. If we ''don't'' have a statute of limitations, there's nothing stopping an unscrupulous admin from "storing" warnings and unleashing them all when he wants to get rid of a user for a while.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::6 (Exception for spammers/vandals) I think there is agreement on this point.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::7 (Petitioning) Badger and Jazzman are for, and GD is against.<br />
:::::::::::::I really see no reason against allowing an appeal. Admins are humans, and humans make mistakes. You even say yourself, "If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked." So what if the reasoning wasn't solid, but you blocked anyway? Again, if we are going for a behavior-changing policy, we need the ability to have some leeway here. <br />
<br />
::::::::::::8 (Bureaucratic Immunity) It's agreed that Bureaucrats are immune to the warning policy, but not admins. It has been suggested that a third party must intervene if an admin is involved in the uncivil behavior, but not agreed upon the details.<br />
:::::::::::::The whole point of rule of law (or rule of rule, in this case) sort of breaks down if you just take the Bureaucrats at their word... but that being said we don't really have any way around it, so I begrudgingly agree that they should just get blanket immunity. There's nothing we can do about it anyway. As for the case where only one admin is around, I think that it's rare enough that we shouldn't have to worry about it. If there is someone who is genuinely disruptive and no other admin responds in, say, 24 hours, the primary admin should be able to block. This is another reason to allow petitioning: if an admin is in an argument with a user, they could find a serious of excuses to block that user for 6 months. Without an appeal process, that user is screwed.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think this is everything. If I have misrepresented anyone or any idea please let me know. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 11:29, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I agree that the tautologies should be added elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages.<br />
:::::::::::::In accordance with number five mentioned above I would like to say that warnings are based off edits. This means that if the edit is older then six months then it (because of the time frame) would not be useable. This, then, removes the abuse of the system you mention above. Severity is also important because one does not ''learn'' through such a process. If you want to learn read [[Meta Pages]]. Editing is not learning necessarily and merging the two together is a mistake.<br />
:::::::::::::I don't disagree with appeals. I just don't feel that the medium is appropriate. If there is a problem they may wait out there time frame (if it is the last edit which is a problem) or if it is an intermediate edit, post on [[Talk:Warning Policy]] and discuss the problem. This is in accordance with wiki. We ''do not'' want D&D Wiki to function outside of wiki. This would undermine the very idea of wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:31, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:GD, I'm not sure you know what tautologies are. They are "using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity". There is absolutely ''no'' reason to intentionally include a tautology in our policies. If I understand you correctly, the statute of limitations on warnings should be 6 months, starting the day the comment was posted, rather than the day it was found. I'm not sure I like that. I'd support a month for the SoL, but have warnings expire 6 months after they are issued, not after the original comment is left. I think the goal of this policy should be learning, not punishment. We can't honestly expect every contributor to read the entirety of the Meta Pages before posting. I don't think I got around to reading them all until after I became admin (and I'm not even sure I've read them all, they are hard to find sometimes). I think "learning by doing" is the best approach to this situation, and that means we should combine editing with teaching. Finally, your last point is dead wrong. I pulled the notion of appeals directly from Wikipedia policy (making small alterations, to better suit it to our wiki). That section of their policy can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_and_discussions here]. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:53, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::As tautologies explain the same thing (just give some backing to the reasoning for clarification) they should be moved elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages, as I mentioned above.<br />
::The goal of the policy should not be learning. If we do not have varying severity people will use D&D Wiki contributors as vents. There is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have varying severity punishments. Saying that removing this is better then having this present is something which is wrong. If you kill someone and someone else crosses the street illegally a slap on the wrist for both instances is not acceptable. Most people (since they must interact with respect for various reasons) already know how to interact so the learning curve is pretty much non-existent anyway.<br />
::What is wrong with the reasoning for clarification of "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''"? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::For one thing, it isn't clear - negating its ability to clarify. Its obtuse almost. We need clear and concise language. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:21, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Feeling not feelings is a minor grammatical mistake above. If you want to improve the language, of course, go for it.<br />
::::Also, I agree that non-wiki arbitration is good to have. I created http://groups.google.com/group/dd-wiki-non-wiki-arbitration for non-wiki arbitration. Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok, where is this "severity of punishments" thing coming from? We have exactly one punishment -- banning -- and its severity is determined by the quantity, not quality, of your offenses. I simply can not, and will not, ever be in favor of a punitive system of warnings. It's not conducive to a collective-editing environment, it's harsh on new users and therefore insulating to a community that's already way to small to begin with, and it's just plain unnecessary when you consider the types of offenses we are actually dealing with here. Nobody is going to be deterred from ''offending'' by a threatening system, they will be deterred from ''editing''. If you don't agree with this then we will have to agree to disagree because you won't convince me otherwise. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:10, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Edit to add: that whole lasting feelings statement doesn't make any sense to me at all. Are you trying to say "let bygones be bygones"? If so, why do we need that in a warning policy anyway? What's the point of that arbitration thing? Is that to be used with the appeals process you think is unnecessary? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::A few points: <br />
:::::::Tautologies don't really explain things. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps you instead mean "definition" or "explanation". <br />
:::::::While the goal of most policy should not be learning, most of us feel that the goal of the warning policy should be for learning. We want to use the warning policy as a system to teach right from wrong, not just punish those who are doing wrong. If someone is persistently upsetting the community and not contributing in any way, I'm likely to just block them for a week, despite the warning policy. It is my opinion that the warning policy should be for making sure conversations stay civil, and censoring the occasional bad post from a generally good contributor. <br />
:::::::No one is suggesting that we remove institutionalized punishments that fit the crime. To continue your metaphor, there is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have an appeals system. If someone is given 20 years in prison for jaywalking, they should be able to appeal to have their sentence commuted. The idea of appeals isn't to let the guilty walk free, but rather to help the unjustly punished.<br />
:::::::I've joined that group you've created. I'm not sure if it's the best method, but I suppose it'll do for now. You should check that users are who they say they are (based on the email they use to join). In joining, I just got to choose a random username, and I could have picked "Badger" just as easily as I could have picked "Blue Dragon" or "JazzMan831".<br />
:::::::I really want to figure out what you mean by "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''". Do you mean to say ''"If you are still upset about a mean thing someone has said, know that they said it 6 months ago and they may no longer feel that way."''? If that's not what you mean, can you try to rephrase it another way, because I am totally confused. <br />
::::::Given that you've created this off-wiki method for arbitration, I suppose it's safe to assume that an appeals system is something you now like?--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:22, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I wonder if a off-site group is the right way to go for one major reason: anonymity. Yes, I am not that fond of it myself - and I may be willing to use my real name everywhere, but not everyone is. Should we force a user who doesn't wish to connect his online profile with others or his real name into signing up to a group - especially one like google where it is so easy for personal information to leak through ''(trust me, I'm a debt collector. Google and facebook are awesome for us when it comes to tracking)''? Again, personally, I'm anti-anonymity, but I understand that others seek it out. I mean, I doubt Badger wants us to know that he may be "James T. Badger from Badgerville" ''(just an example)'' or such. Maybe this is making sense, but I feel like I'm just blabering on. Basically: TL<nowiki>;</nowiki>DR = love and feel the need for a appeals process, but is off-site the right channel? Do we have the ability to program a few pages to allow even blocked users to edit, like their own talk page or a central Admin Noticeboard? <br />
:::::::Also, what do we do in cases like [[User_talk:Hooper#Spammer_Block_Oddity|this]]? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:47, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::If we were to remove severity and consider an aspect of learning as the base does this include everyone? If someone insults me multiple times will that annoy me more? If someone gets the same punishment as another user for a lesser offense will they even learn (I think this has been proven to be a learning barrier by the way)? If someone insults anyone multiple times will that annoy the admin more (more dealing with this learning base of work)? Why should everything relate to the abuser and not the abused? Why should those who "do their homework" (for lack of a better term) not be better off? Is that not part of learning? I just don't understand how removing severity and considering an aspect of learning as the base can be fair. If its not fair then we ''will'' have a problem with users considering the administration as biased and not compatible.<br />
::::::::Yes, "''bygones be bygones''". Don't worry about all that&ndash; it will be used in the help pages.<br />
::::::::I attempted to infer that yes, I do agree with an arbitration method. For the arbitration to have an effect (in its current state), yes, one must verify the user (email for a message or something). If we do not want to deal with this level of anonymity then does anyone know of a fitting extension for the above suggestions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:02, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, so one thing to point out, we're all in favor of keeping the scaling block lengths. If someone repetitively insults users, they will ''not'' have a good case for arbitration. Arbitration, and commuted block lengths, will only occur when something has legitimately gone wrong. Apparently a patch to the MediaWiki software continues to prevent a blocked user from editing a wiki, but allows users to still edit their talk page. I'm not sure if we have that capability, but if we do, that'd be the best way to go about this. Users could post on their talk page, and admins could leave their opinions. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:17, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The problem with a correlation there is that in some cases multiple things have legitimately gone wrong with only one result. Which extension [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki.org] were you referring to above? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:08, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand where your problem is. Can you give a hypothetical situation where your problem would arise? That would be immensely helpful. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgBlockAllowsUTEdit This] extension (not actually an extension, but existing code) allows blocked users to edit their talk page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:34, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::For example if I edit a page and do not treat another use with civility I have completed an edit. This edit would (in your method) go into a pool until the user gets warned. The pool could have thousands of edits which are not done with civility. The admin would only see the pool and remove the pool as a single occurrence with a single warning relating to the commuted block length. I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The commuted block length should be based of occurrences so this pool problem does not exist.<br />
::::::::::::That extension is an option. I am not a fan of it. When a user is ''blocked'' they are ''blocked''. They did something wrong, so why should they be given lieniency? I would rather do something which does not relate to wiki D&D Wiki (or a mailing list from the email user preferences). Is there an extension for such a thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Well, here's the thing. The "pool" would only exist if admins aren't vigilant in their duties. The idea is that admins should stay on top of these things. Secondly, think about this: Suppose you are a user who is leaving comments. You don't think there is anything wrong with your comments. Suddenly an admin comes online and warns you three times in two minutes. Suddenly you're blocked, and you had no idea you were doing anything wrong. Does that seem fair? <br />
:::::::::::::I'm not sure moving things off-wiki is necessarily the best decision. We've always been adamant that we should keep everything on-site, and I don't get why this would be any different. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Actually, I forgot about that extension. I think it's a good idea -- but only if it's also possible to additionally block a user from using their talk page. Everyone has the right to appeal, but not to spam the recent changes out of spite.<br />
<br />
:As for "abuser" vs. "abused", since we have agreed on a system where only an admin can hand out warnings, and pointing out offenses of others can itself be warn-able, then obviously this is biased towards the "abuser" method. And really we have good reason. If, for example, user A is in an argument with user B, he shouldn't be given the option to pick three different times in the past where he felt "abused" by user B in order to get him blocked for a week. Additionally, admins should not have to be put in a position where they have to say "well actually I don't feel that you are actually being abused, even though that's how you feel". [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:46, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How does the fairness of block lengths make its way into this system?<br />
::The fairness of block lengths is present if the duty relies solely on the ''timing'' of admins. Why should everything be about the timing? Do the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles|improving, reviewing, and removing article]] templates make it so the timing can be used to the fullest? Why should we change the warning system to be worse then such a method?<br />
::The above example does seem fair to me. If I could not control my words I need to learn and a system which explains to me which words were appropriate, treats me the same as other people, and treats the person I was rude to the same as everyone else who was mistreated works best.<br />
::I am against something here being onsite since IP's are only posting spam on their talk pages and being blocked means one is blocked.<br />
::I don't agree with admins being the only one's able to ''deal'' with warnings. See also [[Warning Policy#Warnings Issued]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:50, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't think it's fair to punish someone because, as an admin, I'm slacking on my job. If you make three potentially offensive edits in the span of twenty minutes, you should be given a fair chance to change your behavior. Suppose someone swears in a comment. They don't swear at anyone, they just say something like "Fighters should have the best damn BAB possible". They may not know that comments like that are a violation of policy (Hell, I'm not even sure if they are against policy). Do you think it's fair to ban someone because they leave three comments like that? On my [[Talk:Hooker_(3.5e_Class)|Hooker talk page]], I, an active user, ask what our policy on swearing is. You can't expect a new user to know if users (and admins) as active as Jazzman and I are don't know. Expecting every contributor to spend thirty minutes reading policy before posting is idealistic and naive. Any policy that could block someone for comments like that is completely asinine, and I can't support it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:12, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Should we just do as Wikipedia does? We are basically only talking about a "level of harassment" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility]) which is a block (the word ''may'' not ''can''). What I am mentioning above is more kind then what Wikipedia uses and making it kinder again is a mistake. Wikipedia knows how to handle users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:15, 15 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::GD: which of my 8 points above do you agree with (be explicit, as in, using the actual numbers). Since we are all almost in agreement about those things, can we add them to the real policy page? It'd be nice to have some defined rules around here. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:59, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea of integrity. It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system. Warnings should be applicable until a warning is given then the expiration of the warning can begin to happen. If this does not happen then we lose integrity. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:20, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::First of all, why did you move this? The running vote, and, most importantly, the thing we are discussing in the first place are not on this page. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean. Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? You do disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? Since the current vote is unanimous on several portions of the proposed policy, can we make any of it official? I will respond to your point after I get the answer to these questions, so as not to get distracted. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:37, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::The votes were placed where they should be. The same is for this discussion (what it is discussing should be its main page). Voting is not done. See also [[Meta Pages#Policies]] ''"As [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Supermajority Supermajority] (and many others) failed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] is only used under the rules of D&D, under editing, and in other special instances."'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:52, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::When is voting done, then? And I'm glad you brought up that line; I hadn't noticed it before in Meta Pages. I also am not sure what it's supposed to mean (there's a critical comma or something missing in there). Also, I ask again, as these important questions have yet to be answered: Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? Do you disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? And since voting is apparently not finished (though no one's added a vote in months now) I'll add another: when is voting finished, and what is the procedure for changing this policy? (Do we even *have* a procedure?) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:27, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::As per the above ''"It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system.''" I think I have mentioned what I agree and disagree with above multiple times to refine this... The quote here is my problem with it. And, consensus is done&ndash; voting is not done (special means things like aesthetics, etc). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:41, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Hey guys, sorry I've been missing these past few weeks, I've been swamped with stuff. What have I missed? It seems like we're talking about implementing my new version of the warning policy. Sweet! Let's see, where are we... Right, well, it appears that we're going to use consensus (my favorite thing) to talk about implementation. Judging by what I've read the only thing standing between us and consensus is the notion of a statute of limitations on warnings. Is that right? Awesome! From what I can tell, there are two sides here. Some of us feel that warning people multiple times before given the chance to change their ways is wrong. Others feel if we don't warn people for every offense, we lose integrity in the system. Let me be the first to state that I am in the former camp. Official pardons, states of limitations, and other "secondary laws" have been in effect in America since our inception. I don't think that it can be fairly argued that the American legal system lacks "integrity" because of this. Would someone like to give an example where the integrity of D&D-Wiki would be put in danger because of the proposed policy changes? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:50, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::If you replied to it without giving a warning, it should ''not'' be given a warning later. If it's acceptable to you then, you shouldn't get to change your mind. I can understand if you just now entered the discussion--and even then, the warning should be one along with a statement to straighten up. That discussion went for many, many pages before Green Dragon decided Wrecan wasn't kosher. What made him change his mind? That Wrecan's tone had gotten snippy? Then that should be a warning for when Wrecan's tone and behavior became unacceptable and that post only, not for what was said two weeks ago and replied to a dozen times. Furthermore, multiple warnings in one swoop aren't good. They aren't good ''at all''. I can't imagine the acrobatics required to decide it's acceptable exercise of power, to discuss something ''for weeks'' and then block the other side of the discussion for posts weeks old. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.215|173.245.56.215]] 13:33, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I can't agree with the IP more. What happened to Wrecan should never have happened -- either he should have been blocked days before, or he should not have been blocked at all. To respond to something ''multiple times'' is to give consent to it. You can not then go back and block. It makes the blocker look bad, and it makes the site look bad, end of story. It also doesn't help when YOU POINT OUT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO WARN SOMEONE LATER and then not do it! It just makes you look like a tyrant (and GD, I'm not calling you a tyrant; I'm pointing out that someone new to this site who saw something like that would likely consider the behavior tyrannical). <br />
:::::::::::::Note, also, that GD has decided it's ok to tell users they have done something warn-worthy ''without actually warning them''. [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warning_Policy&diff=prev&oldid=542429].<br />
:::::::::::::Lastly: when will voting be done? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:37, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:The American Legal System is not in the same situation. When a judge makes a decision he makes the decision. There are no court cases that people don't listen to and then ''later'' the judge listens to them.<br />
:Some comments are not necessarily acceptable to anyone anytime. Policy relating to acceptable behavior comes from the Wikipedia pages. No one is changing their mind&ndash; they are just later having the time to deal with the situation.<br />
:I warned [[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] before the time when he received multiple blocks. The time I have to issue warnings (it does take time&ndash; reading everything so critically while constantly referencing Wikipedia and then the formatting that is related, etc) is when I will issue them. Mentioning comments as being warning-worthy is because I have not had the time the process (mentioned above) requires yet. Is this what is being mentioned above? Seems like it is the same thing. Is it antagonizing? I think it may be a fine line.<br />
:Voting is not done. See above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:30, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Ok, GD, let me just say "No". Your reason for delaying a warning isn't acceptable. At all. If you have the time to reply to comments, you have the time to warn someone. End of Discussion. You gave 8 warnings in a single edit. If anything, it should have been a single warning. What you have done is wholly unacceptable. None other administrator would have done what you did. That should have been a clue that something wasn't quite right. <br />
::Jazzman, as a point of order, what do you mean by "When will voting be done"?<br />
::*Under what circumstances should we vote on something?<br />
::*When will discussion come to a close on this issue?<br />
::I feel like that might change the discussion. Are you using the word "voting" to mean "discussion and debate" instead of actual "voting"? <br />
::Finally, I think you've misunderstood my metaphor about the American legal system. Rather than try to explain it to you, I'm just going to ask that you ignore it.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 9 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Let me verify this please&ndash; you're telling me how to spend my time? You understand how my time is organized then?<br />
:::Since this is consensus the point I will make follows. Read the policy. If you don't know what you're doing read the policy. If you don't know how to interact with other humans, read the policy (it may help you). We are not going to organize time in any manner&ndash; that's not right. We'll assume people who care will care and if you do not care then you will suffer the consequences. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:18, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::The point of this discussion is none of us like the policy, and we'd like to change it. I would suggest that if maybe you don't know how to interact with other humans, you should let others write policy. It may help the the website, in the long run. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:13, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Luckily that's a theoretical comment above and then later not direct. I agree that if you don't know how to interact with humans you should let others write policy.<br />
:::::I am talking about a successful model used throughout the world. Again, if you don't know how to interact (making a new model for example that is an experiment (perform the experiment elsewhere okay)) how about you let others write the policy.<br />
:::::The clarification of my above comment is that I am talking about people who receive warnings. If you get a warning you have a problem interacting with humans (do you just go up to someone and belittle them?). I am saying that if they do not read the policy and or understand it then they should learn through the process anyway. Does this simple comment finally make sense? I can't understand how this is not understandable to others. You go to school. You learn. If you don't do your homework you get a bad grade. It's the same thing. The level of used throughout the world is large, so why oh why are the comments I am getting back just not getting this?<br />
:::::Have you ever ruined a class by making the curriculum based off your understanding? The structure of classes is not like this. You sign up for a class. You learn the material that is presented on the syllabus the first day. It doesn't matter if you get it or not&ndash; your grade reflects that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:27, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::We all agree that if you are belittled you should be warned. That isn't the issue being debated here. What we're saying is that 8 warnings at once is an issue. Teachers don't give you a test, and then later count it as eight tests. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:10, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Obviously. They do, however, mark you down for eight questions when you missed eight questions. Giving a Pass/Fail on understanding the test is ''not'' what they do. Any questions this time around? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:35, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::GD, do you agree that the Warning policy should be designed to get users to change their ways by showing them what is not ok, and giving them a chance to change? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:36, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Partly. Learning fairly by repercussions and through reading. I don't agree with unfair learning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:24, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::And tell me, did you give Wrecan time to change his ways between the 2nd and 3rd edits? Or the 3rd and 4th? If the point was to get him to change is ways, shouldn't you have given him a chance to change before banning him for 6 weeks? After reading the conversation, I know I wouldn't have warned him for what he said. Those warnings would have come as a shock to me, and I'm an admin. Don't you think that a single warning would have been more acceptable? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:18, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Did Wrecan read the policy? There is more then one person involved in any discussion. By this I mean that others are also reading it and also care about how a person says things. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:34, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::You did not answer the question. If you were offended, were you offended the first time you read it? Were you offended the second time you read it? Were you offended the third time you read it? Notwithstanding that I still don't believe his comments were inappropriate, how is it that you were ok with them the first ''seven'' times you read them, and then all the sudden you realized they were offensive?<br />
<br />
::::::::::::To use your test metaphor, this is like giving someone 100% on 7 one-question pop quizzes, and then when they get the answer wrong on the 8th, retroactively changing his grade on the other 7. It's one thing if you honestly never saw those posts, say, if the discussion were taking place elsewhere and you were not an active participant. I still don't believe these should be back-warned, but I'll let it slide if it's the deciding factor. But this was not the case here. You were involved in the conversation and by replying &mdash; multiple times, mind you &mdash; you gave the impression, whether intentionally or unintentionally, that what Wrecan was saying was ok by policy. Let's face it, the policy is, at worst, vague and confusing or, at best, open to wide interpretation. As administrators, I believe it is our duty (again, not really defined anywhere) to help other users understand the rules of the site. As such, they should be able to look up to us to know how to act. If I reply to someone's comments with anything other than "you are hereby warned about X", they can be confident that I am satisfied with their manner of posting. I just don't think the same thing applies when GD replies to someone's post, and I believe that makes for a difficult work environment.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::To answer your question from a while ago, Badger, what I was trying to ferret out (heh, rodent pun) was this: if voting is "not yet finished" according to GD, what is the criteria for it being finished? Do we need to wait a certain amount of time? Do we need a certain amount of votes? Do we need to wait until GD votes? Do we need to wait until there is a majority against (we already have a majority for? I don't know the criteria, is all. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:12, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I was offended the entire time that this user was telling me such things. I just didn't have the time (or initiative) to warn Wrecan (just like I didn't have the time (or initiative) to fix the indentation here until now).<br />
:::::::::::::It's actually like being able to read the book on an open-book test and then getting the answer wrong. When it gets graded, you already know the outcome (or you will learn through it).<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with "''As administrators, I believe it is our duty (again, not really defined anywhere) to help other users understand the rules of the site.''" Users learn through repercussions, unless they are unfair (this will be conductive to optimization).<br />
:::::::::::::Voting is not done. Consensus is done. The relevant Wikipedia pages, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Supermajority Wikipedia:Supermajority] may interest you. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:40, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Green Dragon, stop saying "Voting is not done". We all know that. We get it, we're using consensus. Stop linking to their pages. We know the links. We've read the pages. <br />
:If you were offended the entire time, why didn't you say something? After reading your comments, I don't recall you saying in one of your comments something to the effect of "Wrecan, what you are posting is considered a warnable offense. If you don't stop, I will be forced to warn you". Don't say "He should have read the policy and known". Yes, he should have known, but you still could have told him. It would have been the nice thing to do. <br />
:Users don't have to learn through repercussions. Our users are smarter than dogs. They can learn what is right without being punished for doing wrong. <br />
:I have no idea what "unless they are unfair (this will be conductive to optimization)." means. What do you think it means? I think being banned for 6 weeks because all your mistakes get caught at once counts as unfair. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:57, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::{{Warning/Text}} {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 07:44, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWarning_Policy&action=historysubmit&diff=542875&oldid=542874|brokenpolicy=direct rudeness: belittling|warningnumber=1|warningbannumber=2|issuedate=Issued on 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::Please stop asking when voting will be done.<br />
:::I am offended reading this discussion. I feel that people are just testing admin positions through this discussion and wasting time because they maybe 1) do not know what to say and 2) do not know how to approach the situation.<br />
:::''"Users don't have to learn through repercussions. Our users are smarter than dogs. They can learn what is right without being punished for doing wrong."''. &mdash; Have you ever trained a dog? If they do five bad things in a day and you don't give them lunch for 5 days they will have no idea what's going on. The system that I am not proposing is treating users like dogs. Like the model throughout the ENTIRE WORLD I am talking about people are not treated like dogs.<br />
:::People will optimize systems. They will be rude and then "oops! No idea sorry!!" although they really knew and they just wanted to be jerks.<br />
:::Since this discussion has now turned circular, it is over. No one has had anything constructive to say except for undermining what they are proposing (through the dog example). Since this is the case consensus is done, and so is this discussion. The policy will be changed soon. If there are any problems with it please bring it up in a truly analytical manner. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::You are basing your policy under the assumption that users are going to game the system. Isn't one of they key policies of Wikipedia "Assume good faith"? <br />
::::You unilaterally declaring a discussion "over" isn't constructive in the least. If you feel you've reached consensus, you do not have a solid grasp of the definition of consensus. <br />
::::How would you like me to analytically bring up my objections to the policy as it stands? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:31, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::How am I assuming that they will game the system? It's in the same reasoning that the people that people are being jerks to deserve to be impartially dealt with. I mentioned that to get the point across.<br />
:::::You are the one who made the system that is there now (the wording is a little corrected), but go for it. Bring up the problems on a quote by quote basis. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Problems with the Warning Policy ==<br />
<br />
1. Warnings result in predetermined feelings.<br />
:What does that mean?<br />
2. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude.<br />
:Blocks are not offenses at all.<br />
3. Warnings also are not petty matters.<br />
:What do you mean by "petty matters"?<br />
4. Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings.<br />
:How do you correct petty matters? What are discretionable feelings?<br />
5. For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable.<br />
:What is a contributor of low importance?<br />
:What is a feeling which is predetermined?<br />
:How does a predetermined feeling differ from a discretionable one?<br />
6. If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed<br />
:If six months have passed I should be ok with someone using a racial slur? This sentence doesn't make any sense.<br />
7. Call some friends over and play some D&D– try to keep your mind off the predetermined feeling(s) which w/as(ere) received.<br />
:Still not sure about predetermined feelings. Are you suggesting that users should just stop caring if they were insulted? <br />
8. IPs with warn-able offenses will be automatically blocked and the block reason should say "IP leaving comments in violation of warning policy"<br />
:How long will they be banned? A day? A week? A year? Forever?<br />
9. Warnings have been removed after 6 months.<br />
:This is unacceptable. The text is still offensive. Text that has been censored should remain censored. After six months, you can move the warning to a new list of "expired warnings". However, you should, under no circumstances un-censor a post that has been censored. You need to go through and re-censor all the posts that have been uncensored since you implemented these changes.<br />
These are my problems with the current system, and they need to be addressed before I'm willing to accept it. I'd also like to see amnesty granted to all posts made before today, as they were made before the system was clear. I'd also like to see a system to address blocks, and consider commuting blocks. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:29, 13 December 2011 (MST)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Warning_Policy&diff=542954Help talk:Warning Policy2011-12-14T05:29:06Z<p>Badger: /* Problems with the Warning Policy */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>== Missing Warnings? ==<br />
<br />
Where are the first warnings for TK-Squared, Jota, and S1Q3T3? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 17:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:In this time I did not reference the areas so I forgot some. They have them however where are they?<br />
:I know [[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] had three warnings however he/she was first banned for only one warning (the policy was still young) and then he acquired at least up to three warnings and was not banned to compensate (see his talk - history if needed). I at least remember it was with someone (maybe [[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] however I don't rememberer exactly. Do you know?<br />
:I put (2:1) on [[User:Jota|Jota's]] last warning and I do not think I was wrong. Do you know where the other is? Is there another?<br />
:[[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] was banned for a (3:1) however were are they all? I also don't remember.<br />
:If you know any of the areas I am talking about supplying a link would be appreciated.<br />
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where warnings have been given and are not referenced here supplying a link would be appreciated.<br />
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where people deserve warnings and were not given them supplying a link would be appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Although it is a moot point, I can see the advantage of making sure we try to accurately back-log and keep track for all future purposes. I [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Yo5&defl=en&q=define:hope&ei=-Yt5S8XIO47cnAfKr5GyCQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE doubt] the user who did it will ever be back, but [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Bagby&diff=prev&oldid=395263 this edit] seems to me to be a warning-level offense. Maybe I'm wrong, but here it is for an admin to decide.<br />
::Additionally, I was wondering if we are going to have an enforced warning system that is in effect for Edit Wars? I know that even I have been a part of many, and it is something we should avoid. Just curious. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::As seen in [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:White_Wolf&curid=72522&diff=457366&oldid=457360 this diff], [[User:Jota]] tried to sneak bits of another user's ''(myself)'' previous comments, trying to disguise the removal as part of a different edit. Even more poignant, the main section removed was where I quoted Jota from a previous location where he admitted enjoying arguing on this wiki (arguably an act of trolling). Though the edits leading up to it can be deemed a Edit War of which I am equally to blame ''(though correct in my reasoning)'', Jota's edit went against all forms of wiki civility and protocol.<br />
:::This is not the first time Jota has done such. He has even removed or discounted other user's or IP's ratings of his own content when it wasn't to his liking. Being so brunt with other user's talk page postings should be forbidden. At most, altering extremely foul language or helping fix link/formatting should be the only allowable reason to do such a thing ''(barring of course obvious spam/vandalism)''. For this reason, I believe a warning is necessary. I leave it to the admin to decide. I understand if I also receive one for the edit war that took place, though in that case Jota should receive two. <br />
:::Jota did respond on that page that he removed the content to save me from ''"..direct rudeness, name calling, and belittle comments.."'' however the main portion of content removed was a quote from Jota, not myself. So that is invalid. The small other portion was not name calling nor do I perceive it as rude - those in managerial positions see things differently than those who are not, irl. Hence the classic phrase ''"can't see the forest because of all the trees"'' and all of it's variants. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::So arguing is trolling now? Lolwut? My actions were in keeping with your (Hooper) past actions, as noted on the Biomancer's talk page. If what I did was an offense against Wiki civility, so was what Hooper did. I just see him not getting warned for his actions, so I assume their okay under this wiki's policy, even though I find them questionable in nature. Furthermore, yes I remove ratings from content, not just IP ratings and not just my own material. If the rating is "lulz, overpowered" that does nothing for no one and is better off removed. "Obvious" spam is subjective, and should be left to an admin or bureaucrat, of which Hooper is neither. Personally, I would subscribe to FIFA's approach to warnings. Asking for someone else to be warned is a warn-worthy offense. Admins know the rules. Telling an admin someone needs to be warned is only an attempt to unjustly sway their opinion, and as such should merit a warning. Given [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law ex post facto law], Hooper's previous offense could be ignored, but its just a suggestion. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Irrelevant. As anyone can see on the policy pages in the help portal, most notable the Behavior Page, and from GD's actions and own statements, we no longer tolerate solicitation or links to competing sites. As noted in the diffs on biomancer, Eiji was soliciting and I removed it '''per policy'''. Stop straw manning. <br />
:::::Green Dragon is attempting to be notified because he is the only majorly active admin currently and has way too much to go through, hence it is easy for him to not see all that goes on, sadly. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Obvious is subjective, and therefore not your call to make. You want the power, nominate yourself for adminship. You're just creating more clutter by bringing subjective arguments to the table. Besides, it's not like this wiki is so active one cannot see an entire day's worth of activity on the recent changes page. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::Everything I need to do here on the wiki doesn't require adminship, nor do I want it. I thought I needed it long ago to help speed up editing but still don't need it today. Some of us have power in real life and realize that adminship is just responsibility, not power.<br />
:::::::Besides, I'd be too bad of an admin. I'd just permaban all the transientwiki people who think that continuing to cause circular talks and bog down progress on the site is fun. I'd also permaban anyone making content with the word Naruto in it. So, subjective or not, it's obvious I don't need adminship. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Official Policy ==<br />
<br />
So I have a few quick questions concerning actual policy. <br />
*If an Admin gets 3 warnings (and thusly banned for a week), should they be RfA'd to (potentially) remove adminship? It seems reasonable to have some sort of policy in place to that effect. Naturally, we'd all like to think admins are calm, level-headed contributors all the time, but everyone gets upset and says (or does) something stupid every so often. <br />
*Are all warnings the same? Can a single action provoke 2 <s>attacks of opportunity</s> warnings? <br />
*Is there a statute of limitations on warnings? We have a message up there asking for any missed warnings. Should we really be going back 4 and 5 months to find warn-able offenses? Some of those offenses took place before the warning policy existed. <br />
*Are we warning for every violation of civility according to that list? Forgetting to sign your post, and not answering questions both are on that list. Neither seem worth a warning.<br />
*My last question is a very specific one. Green Dragon, as we all ''now'' know, cannot be removed from adminship. Can he still be warned? If he is warned 3 times can he be banned?<br />
Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:First off I just recently saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption] and civility is actually present. As such, do we need this now maybe extraneous policy? I don't know. If so I would prefer we rollback or censor the problem text/post. Thoughts?<br />
:Should an admin be RfA'ed. Good question. I think so as it means one has not been upholding the values of an admin.<br />
:Warnings have been given based off each post, not an "action". Within the post, although their may be multiple violations, I have been counting it as one post to one warning.<br />
:There should not be a statue of limitations on warnings. The problem text is still present and as such something needs to be done regarding it.<br />
:Maybe you are referring to how the "etiquette" portion may not be relevant. That could be case. Should this be changed to just civility? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Hmm. I don't know. Should this page be a subpage of [[Help:Behavioral_Policy]]? &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I think Wikipedia's policy (as you linked above) is a good one. However, I think that policy almost requires us to keep the warning policy. If, for example, you decide to ban me for "Persistent Gross Incivility", I'd demand a few examples of that. The warning policy, as we have it, keeps a running log of all infractions to present if the banned individual should they ask for evidence. Whether or not we decide to stick with the "3 warns equals 1 week ban" policy is a different question. I think the policy is a solid one (once we more clearly define infractions and consequences). I personally am opposed to "perma-bans" (with the exception of users solely dedicated to causing problems, as defined by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption disruptions only]); I don't know how you feel on the subject, however. To address Hooper's question, I think the final decisions should for sure be a sub-page of Behavioral policy, I don't know that this discussion has made any concrete decisions yet though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Vagueishness ==<br />
<br />
The criteria for warning seem somewhat vague, and, since they link to an offsite page over which we have no control, are subject to unwarned change. If I read this literally, I could be giving out warnings for people who don't sign their posts, which doesn't really seem necessary, or for abusing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule WP:3RR], which isn't clearly a policy on this site. It's probably time that we broke from WikiP and just created our own pages on civility and etiquette. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This could make sense. Want to give it a go and we can see where we are from there? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:29, 4 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I could do it (though I don't have a lot of time right now), but since you do all of the warning, I would think you have a better idea of what's warnable and what's not. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:12, 9 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Hooper ==<br />
<br />
He got two warnings at the same time. It's not really a "warning" if he doesn't have a chance to learn from it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:16, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Interestingly, one of those messages was followed by three or four other comments before it was warned. To an outside observer, it might appear as though someone was just looking for a reason to block him for a week and warned him for something that didn't really warrant a warning. I know we've decided that warnable offenses don't have a statute of limitations, but that's a tad silly, IMO. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:21, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree that the first one was weak at best; stating that one can't follow another's statements is certainly not a personal attack if it's true, and doesn't really justify a warning. Even if Hooper had said something invoking the hygiene of another's mother, however, he still should have a chance to learn from his mistake before being warned a second time. Otherwise it's not a warning policy, it's a punishment policy. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:36, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::The learning curve is non-existent. If you don't know how to edit, look into D&D Wiki's policies. If that confuses you don't chime into discussions which are so variable. Also, it's that we are intended to warn backwards in time to be fair. Did it happen? Yes. Done. Is there any other way? Not unless you want to disregard wikis (when you edit you edit) entirely for certain users for who knows what reason. There may be more warning problems. I am so tired of pointless discussions I have stopped reading them. If I see more warning problems sometime when I may read them for whatever reason, yes, I will give more warnings. It's the fair way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:50, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::So answer me this, if someone says three different insults in the same single post, do you count it as one warning or three? If you aren't going to stay on top of the ball, but still want to keep away any statute of limitations, the only "fair" way to do it is to count every one you find at the same time as the same warning. It's all arbitrary, anyway, as I stated above (no work has been done on trying to clarify what is actually warnable), but if we are going to block a good user, it'd be nice to know we have good reason. Also, it's be nice to not be paranoid that I can all-the-sudden be banned for extended periods of time because of something I wrote that I didn't know was offensive, that all got caught all at once. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:29, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Each time one edits. You can say whatever in one editing time, however multiple times are multiple times. I agree about it being nice, however it would also be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]] (for example). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ok, see, that's not a very good argument, GD. Sure, it'd be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]], but it'd be really hard and time consuming to do that. It'd be very easy to do what Jazzman described. For example, I'm sure there are several things on this wiki that I've written that could potentially be considered warnable, but I've never been warned. Would it be fair to quickly find 3 things, and then ban me for a week, without giving me time to change my ways? No. A single warning would say "this sort of thing is unacceptable, cut it out", and I probably would. That'd be nice, reasonable, fair, and everyone would enjoy it more. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:18, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::After a unjustified ban, I can attest that the policy should be defined. Additionally, if we're following in Wikipedia's footsteps properly, then we should establish proper ban-reversal procedure. For example, if two admins oppose a third admin's block, the block should be reversed (wikipedia has a similar policy, and if it was already in effect here - then this recent unwarranted block wouldn't of happened). Plus, blocks are meant to prevent or pause problematic editors, not editors who are actively contributing, fighting spam, and working collaboratively.<br />
:::::::There should also be a time limit put into effect where admins can not back-warning. This was made obvious recently, as it can lead to abuse. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:27, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I do know Green Dragon gave Surgo and TK-Squared multiple warnings in February of 2010, for language/rudeness violations committed in March/May of 2009. And considering Surgo stopped posting in September of 2009...well, I can't see what good Green Dragon thought he was doing. Seeing as how he was warning for someone for offenses almost a year old, and ''five months'' after the user in question ceased activies on the wiki. <br />
<br />
== Admin Violations ==<br />
<br />
The current warning policy does not state that admins are "above the policy" and actually showcases many former admins who have received warnings. However, it also states that only admins may give out warnings. Though I may be just "asking for it," I am intending to request a second administrator's look at recent comments by Green Dragon to see if they are deemed necessary of a warning or warnings. <br />
On the discussing recently held on the Main Page's discussion page, GD said ''"If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out."'', ''"If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this."'', and my personal favorite ''"...Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a [[Warning Policy]]). They must fix the problem or get banned."'' All three of these comments come across as either directly rude or belittling to the people they're referring to, and the last one actually directly interferes with our existing [[Warning Policy]] and implies that I was banned for allegedly-uncivil actions off-site.<br />
Now, however, the most directly uncivil reply was recently posted to the GNU's talk page. Here, GD amazingly flat out states that he will not follow consensus or collaborative discussion (even though he recently added Consensus to the Meta pages) when he declares that ''"...I could care less who thinks what about what. I will do as it is done. I'll listen to reasonableness. I don't care if it comes from God or a bacteria."''. Could other admins please discuss this, and could Green Dragon please reply and let me know if I have misread his intent or tone, especially with the last quote. I also wish to reiterate that I'm not trying to directly attack, its just that at the time these statements were made I was unable to reply - and after reviewing the numerous moves and reformatting of the licensing discussion, am trying to host a civil discussion on a serious issue on the most appropriate page. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ah, and you've spotted a flaw in the system. As I pointed out [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|just above here]], GD is seemingly "above the law". In fact, historically, blocking GD has been grounds for a block in it's own right. In addressing my questions about the finer points of warning policy, GD seemed to gloss over the objection I raised on that front. <br />
:Personally, as an admin, I refuse to "warn" anyone (IP, registered user, administrator, or owner) until a complete and fair guide has been written and is visible to all contributors. As Jazzman mentioned, if we don't have clearly defined rules the "warning policy" becomes more of a "punishment policy". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:03, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes, I can attest to having no warning at all when I was hit with multiple at once, and still have no clear clue what I said that was wrong. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:12, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've started working on a new, more clear, warning policy. It can be seen [[User:Badger/sandbox13|here]]. Feel free to join the discussion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:55, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yes, there are answers to things for the above (looking into it more, reading the block reason, etc). Yes, the world also turns. Is "''the world also turns''" condescending? Nah. Are you going to make accusations as such? When I get the time I will issue warnings appropriately for the above comment (e.g. accusations) if appropriate. Was that condescending too? Nah. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:55, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Umm, okay? Going past the you-blocked-me thing ''(whatever, we can both agree we want the best for the future of the site. right?)'', I'm more interested in your discussion on Badger's rough draft of a warning policy overhaul. Especially on how it may affect admins and bureaucrats. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:59, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Warnings Issued on 4e Campaign Settings Caliphate Supplement ==<br />
<br />
:''Discussion moved from [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caliphate_%28Patronage_Supplement%29&oldid=542259 Talk:Caliphate (Patronage Supplement)#Titles].'' <small>--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
Ok point of order here, I'm not going to bother reading this whole discussion because it's long and half of it is hidden in warning text (and ultimately I know what the outcome will be anyway), but some of those "warning texts" are not appropriate. You can't just warn people for saying something you don't like. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:58, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Right. They are related to specific Wikipedia pages. Where are you coming from exactly? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I don't know where you are coming from with that one. To be more specific, the following statements are all statements you removed from Wrecan's posts, and warned him about. All of them are, in my opinion, not warnable offenses:<br />
::# Why are you imposing this policy on my campaign setting? What gives you the right to do this, and to prevent me from restoring what I had originally written?<br />
::# It's not tied to any language in the Wiki policy you cited and<br />
::# What admins should not do is invent an unwritten policy and impose them on others without going through the process of adoption. <br />
::# Your interpretation of the policy is not supported by the language of the policy. If you want this website to consider personal attacks to include any use of epithets considered offensive by "organizations and people... on a large scale" then go through the process of amending this wiki's policies.<br />
::# There is no violation for giving a fictional character a title of "Caliph", just as there would be no violation for giving a fictional character the title of "Pope" or "Chief Rabbi" of "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire"... even if millions of people would be offended by the act. The only behavior banned (of relevance here) is applying a religious term to describe a contributor. That's the Wikipedia (and this site's) policy. If you want this site to have a different policy, you need to go through the process of amended this site's policy.<br />
::# Did you really think I wouldn't fact-check you, GD?<br />
::# When you edited the Patronage pages, you weren't acting as administrator; you were acting as a contributor. Administrators don't make substantive contributions to wiki pages in their capacity as administrators<br />
<br />
::In addition, you edited some of his text for reasons other than warnings, which is explicitly against our editing policy. In addition, as mentioned before (in a discussion I think you moved to this page), it's simply not fair (and makes your behavior look to outsiders who don't know the situation &mdash;at best&mdash; lazy or &mdash;at worst&mdash; malevolent, ''especially'' when the content you are warning/removing refers to your improper warning/removing of text!) to respond to something multiple times before you hand out a warning for it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:31, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::None of that is improper. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 relate to lying. 3 and 6 are rude to [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:04, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::The correct grammar is "None of those are improper, and I feel silly for having censored them." --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.104|173.245.48.104]] 20:32, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not necessarily. I meant that none of the reasons for giving them are improper. You'll see what I mean if you check the reasons. The context is about the warning, ergo the warning is being discussed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:23, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::{{Warning/Text}}. But it's on record that I disagree and that I think it makes you look very improper. In the future, I would be happy to mediate any dispute between you and another user. There's a Wikipedia policy for that somewhere (and actually I think I've done that once before on WP). Also, I'm reinstating the historical link to the page from which you moved this text, because my comments apply to a historical revision of that page, not the page as it stands now, or whenever in the future some user happens to view it. If that talk page gets archived, the link will no longer work and my comments here will lack context (which is why I commented there, and not here, in the first place). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:21, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWarning_Policy&action=historysubmit&diff=542875&oldid=542874|brokenpolicy=direct rudeness: belittling a fellow editor|warningnumber=1|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::If you are pointing something out then please add the link to your comments. If its a diff archiving will not do anything... Um... You can read the policy to understand the warnings. If someone is saying something is done a wrong way then they are lying. It's pretty straightforward. Also, you earned yourself some warnings above! "Won't ever change your mind" is belittling. I'll warn you sometime. The dispute resolution is not needed here. Everything is straightforward. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:35, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::If it's a warning please warn me right now. Otherwise I'm not going to count it. (And you know what else is belittling? Telling someone they earned some warnings and then threatening to warn them later). Saying something is done a wrong way is only lying if Wrecan knows it was, in fact, done correctly: it's only lying if he's ''intending'' to ''mislead'' you. If Wrecan actually believes that you are not following policy even though you are, that is not lying. It's pretty straightforward. Point number 2, by the way, can not, by definition be lying: you can not lie by asking someone a question! "How was your day?" "LIAR!!!"<br />
<br />
:::::::As for the link: I don't need to refer back to what I am talking about on the other page, because when I said what I said, ''I said it on the other page''. Can you please explain to me what your problem is with adding a more accurate link? If it's a diff archiving will not do anything... which is why I added the diff! We don't want anything to affect where this link points to. If you keep the link how you have it, and then later that talk page is archived, this link will be broken. My link will be correct no matter what you do to the other page (so long as you don't delete it)<br />
<br />
::::::::1 is a little interesting. I guess I could remove it. I would like some input on the thinking behind it before any action though. I considered that these circular discussions are pointless and waste people's time. The problem with them is that they need to get resolved (as far as I can tell). One cannot have administrative-related discussions left open since that will imply that users are ''okay'' to not engage in consensus and that they can just "slam the door on other users" while disregarding them.<br />
::::::::It would be fully true that warnings need to be in the time frame of the post if our comments here served the only purpose of taking actions. They, however, do not. Many times I post things without taking any action afterwards (such as after this post) and others do not take actions from my post.<br />
::::::::Additionally if I had more time I could do all the things I want to do. If I had more time I would improve areas of D&D Wiki. I don't have the time right now. So, my lack of time is not a problem. I find that a lack of time leading to problems is not constructive. Therefore, warnings are based off the ''text''. Therefore, it is not belittling. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Policy Changes ==<br />
<br />
:''See also [[User:Badger/sandbox13]]''<br />
:''Discussion moved from [[User talk:Badger/sandbox13#Warning Policy]].'' <small>--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:44, 5 December 2011 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
Obviously, I wrote all this so I rather like it. However, is there anything that should be added? Anything that should be clarified? Anything that should be removed? Thoughts? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:51, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:The following bullet points are [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]'s comments/issues:<br />
:1. Just a suggestion for the warning of block lengths. It should go something like "The ban length starts with one week at three warnings and then increases exponentially for every 3 warnings received (2 weeks after the 6th warning, 4 weeks after the 9th, 8 weeks after the 12th, etc.)". Also, I wonder if previously banned people should get less leeway? Maybe 3 bans = 1 week, 5 = 2 weeks, then every new warning increases the ban length. Then again, maybe not, because then it would be too tempting to find any one thing to be able to ban someone. But then again, then again, if someone's already got 5 bans, they probably aren't that great of a member anyway. I'm undecided on this one.<br />
:2. Civility and harassment are wishy-washy terms, and their wishy-washiness has lead to some questionable bans in the past. I'm not sure it's possible to define them in a way that's usable for our purposes, but perhaps we should have a few examples of what are ''not'' uncivil or harassing behavior. Asking for clarification of someone else's post is (usually) not uncivil. Going off-topic or responding to a topic which has been "settled" should also not be a ban-able offense.<br />
:3. Ettiquette breaches should, in most cases, ''not'' be a ban- or warn-able offense. Going by the letter of the law, you could get a warning for mis-indenting a page or for adding a new comment to the top. This should also probably be defined somewhere. I would love it if we didn't have to link to Wikipedia at all, since we have no control over the content there, and aren't notified if their policies change.<br />
:4. I like the separation of IPs from everyone else, because it basically makes no sense to warn IPs.<br />
:5. I think that there should be some sort of statute of limitations in effect, or otherwise some way to keep from being banned as Hooper recently was. I'd say any time an administrator issues a warning, all violations at the same time count as the same warning. This means if someone, say, posts rude comments on 5 different talk pages (though see below), they would count as 1 warning, since there's only 1 chance for the user to correct their behavior, not 5. Speaking of warnings, if the whole point of a warning system is corrective and not punitive, I think any user given a warning should, you know, actually be warned, say, on their talk page. The administrator giving out the warning should leave a message on that user's talk page stating exactly why they received a warning; this way the user has an immediate chance to clean up their act or clear up any miscommunications.<br />
:6. There should be some sort of exception to the rule for certain types of offenders. As written, we can't perma-block those stupid Russian drug company spammers.<br />
:7. The petition section is a little wordy, and is unclear if only the admin who did the banning is allowed to unblock.<br />
:8. Admin blocks: GD (and I think BD) are automatically exempt from being de-sysopped, so I wonder if they should be exempt from banning (though not warning) as well? I mean, they can take away the blocking power from anyone who can block them, so if they ever ''deserved'' to be blocked, what good would it do?<br />
:I mostly support it, but there are a couple of things I think we could change (See section below). I'll change my vote when these items are discussed more. Of my original 8 points below, I am now satisfied with 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. I'm not sure I can support a policy that allows unappealable (7) insta-blocks (5), but as those discussions are not settled I haven't changed my vote yet.<br />
:This is probably a little nit-picky, but with something as tumultuous and fickle and emotional as banning, I think it's better we have an absolute iron-clad policy now, then have to find all the exceptions later and risk appearing to play favorites. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:31, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've numbered them, and will reply to them by number here:<br />
::1. I think that sets of 3 warnings to a block is a good system. Suppose Hooper gets another warning in 6 months, and then another 8 months after that. Two warnings in the span of 14 months hardly seems worth a 2 week block. Plus, then every subsequent warning is a longer and longer block. (Sorry to use you as an example, Hooper, but you make such a good one). <br />
::2. I think we need some level of "wiggle room" in our terminology. The last thing I want is some trouble-making user leave bad comments and then say "yeah, but technically it's not listed under warnable offenses." I figure since only admins are giving out warnings, we can say "use some logic and reasonableness".<br />
::3. Honestly, I don't really like etiquette, but it was included like 4 times in the original system, so I left it in. I can't make a rational argument for or against it. It seems to me that again an admin could say "dude just miscounted colons, I'm not going to warn him for an etiquette violation." but it would catch people intentionally not signing comments that are offensive. (If anyone would be dumb enough to try that, still signed in). <br />
::5. I have no idea how to word it, but I want to suggest something like "you can't be warned on comments between warnings", which I know makes no sense. Let me clarify: When you're warned for a comment "c1", and then again for comment "c5". Any comments left between c1 and c5 (c2-4) can be censored to remove offending content, but don't count towards your warning level. I think a system about leaving comments on warned user's talk pages is also a good idea. <br />
::6. The way I see it, the warning policy applies almost exclusively to comments left on talk/user pages. Considering we don't warn link spammers, we just delete their pages and perma-ban them I see no need for this policy to concern them. We should probably make it more clear that this policy applies mainly to comments, and not spam/vandalism. <br />
::7. I'm not sure how to better word the petition section. I think that only the blocking admin should be allowed to revert the block, though. <br />
::8. If they are "above" banning (as it seems they are) they might as well be "above" warnings too. The only punishment for a warning is a block. Unless you mean you'd like to be able to censor offending posts. I guess that makes enough sense.<br />
::Right, so, these are my thoughts on the matter. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:16, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Support, if time restraint put on warnings (see comments)<br />
:::I like what you've got here. It is clear and concise. Even I can tell what I'm guilty of ''(my tendency to highlight others rudeness and ignore my own)''. My only thought is that we should consider some time of time limit. Obviously, admins can't see everything right away - especially if one user cusses another out at say midnight on a sunday. Still, there should be some clear line-in-the-sand that says unless you specifically did x (say, actually cussed out a user) you can not be officially warned if the item was not caught within the time limit. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:49, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::1. Fair enough. I actually had a thought that might solve a few of our problems at once. What if the warnings "timed out" after a certain period (probably no less than three but no more than 12 months). After the set time period you remove the last warning. Truly disruptive users will ramp up their warnings quickly, but someone who, say, occasionally posts something harsher than they intended won't be so severely penalized. You could even combine the two: it takes 3 warnings to get a block, then every warning after 3 also gets a block, but you remove a warning every 3 months. Or something along these lines.<br />
::::2. I agree with wiggle room, I just also worry that "admin discresion" could be used to liberally as well. I don't know, maybe let's keep it how it is currently then update it if there are problems.<br />
::::3. If (at least) two of us don't like the etiquette part, maybe we should think about removing it altogether from the list of warn-able offenses. I'm not even sure if anyone ever got a warning based off of etiquette before. Or again, we could leave it for now and fix it if we run into problems later. <br />
::::5. What about a simpler solution: an admin can only hand out one warning at a time to a person, no matter how many offenses the admin finds at the same time. I think this says what we want to say without getting too technical.<br />
::::6. Fair enough. Maybe we just need a line that says something to the effect of "vandals and spammers will be dealt with immediately, regardless of their current warning status"?<br />
::::7. How about this: "A user may appeal a block by petitioning the blocking admin via email. The decision to reverse a block is entirely at the discretion of the admin. If the admin does not respond after 48 hours, a blocked user may contact another admin. If this second admin can not contact the original blocking admin, they may decide to reverse the block at their discretion.<br />
::::Any user who is blocked for a period of greater than 1 month can ask for a formal appeal. The user must email all active admins their appeal, after which the admin may request additional information, or may decide as written. A user must get a 2/3's vote from all currently active admins to appeal their block. If the vote fails, they may appeal again after 6 months."<br />
::::8. It's probably a moot point, but yeah, censoring was part of it. Really, though, we don't want admins to be at each other's throats, so maybe we shouldn't delve into this too far. I wonder if we should put in a clause that uncivil language directed at an admin can not be warned by that admin. In other words, a warn must always be from a third-party. Pointing out such offenses would obviously be exempt from the "pointing out offenses is an offense" rule, because administrators don't always read conversations if they know another admin is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:06, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::1. I'm not sure how I feel about warnings going away after a period of time. I mean, it sounds reasonable enough, but the notion of having to go and check on warning expiration dates seems like one more thing to do, with no concrete advantage. I'm all for more work, if it's worth it. I'd also argue "if you are blocked for 3 warnings that span more than a year, you have a strong case for a petition to commute the block". <br />
:::::2/3. How about we keep the "admin discretion" point from comment 2, and remove etiquette from 3? I think that solution would probably do the most good, and the least expense. <br />
:::::5. We currently have a rule that says [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|a single post can't create more than one warning]]. Want to somehow explain how that would extend to all existing comments? <br />
:::::6. We can (and probably should) add that line in somewhere.<br />
:::::7. I like your suggestion for improving the petition portion. I think we should include a bit about "pestering an admin", unless you object to that notion. <br />
:::::8. So maybe we say "while Bureaucrats cannot be warned, their comments can be censored just like any other post"? I like the third party idea. The only problem with that is suppose someone insults you three times, but no other admins are online for a week (which I don't think has '''ever''' happened). You should have the authority and the ability to remove these bad comments and warn the user. <br />
:::::Lastly, to Hooper's point: I'm not sure how I feel about "Admins didn't catch the edit within X weeks, they can't be warned". While it sounds reasonable, admins have a ton of stuff to do (here, and in the real world). I know I don't read every single update (though I skim most of them). If someone is being uncivil, they should be warned no matter how long it's been. Notice we are granting amnesty to all comments before this system is set into place, though. I think that's reasonable enough. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:18, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I feel that civility should be kept as well. I feel that something along the lines of "''Warnings result in predetermined feelings. Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters. Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings. For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable.''"<br />
::::::I agree that IPs should not be included. A feature like [[Special:CheckUser]] does not exist for them.<br />
::::::Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards.<br />
::::::Warnings should go away after 6 months if the user is in good standing. The reasoning could include something along the lines of "''If a registered user remains in good standing for six months after receiving a warning the warning will be removed. If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed. Call some friends over and play some D&D&ndash; try to keep your mind off the predetermined feeling(s) which w/as(ere) received.''"<br />
::::::I am fine with bureaucrats being above the warning policy. Although this leaves a large hole open for problems, I can say with certainty [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] and I will not abuse the system.<br />
::::::I disagree with petitions to unblock. If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked. If the reasoning is solid then they should be blocked. I do not think that there should be the possibility for circumvention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:54, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Look good? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:36, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I've reverted the changes for two reasons. First, all the above comments are based on what was there (and is there again), so changing that much will change how all those comments apply. Secondly, your use of some very key phrases are confusing to me (and presumably other users). For example "If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed." is not a complete sentence, and I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. The suggestions you've brought up are, on the whole, good ones, and should be included. However, those monumental changes are not the best way to go about implementing said changes. if you could better explain your meaning, we could work out what changes need to take place. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:38, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::This is a sandbox which is a subsection of your userpage. If you want to revert the changes whatever. Keep in mind that one can always look at a older version of the page (based off the dates of the comments) for such a scenario.<br />
:::::::::I think that "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''" is a complete sentence. "''If there are [bears who fish salmon] know that [they do fish salmon].''" The adjective is lasting feelings and the verb is passed. However, I am no grammatical expert.<br />
:::::::::I mean what my comment above mentions. If you would like a better explanation please go through my comment above and let me know where your confusion arises from. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:46, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm aware that this is a subpage, and history/comment dates would make it possible to see what exactly everyone means, but it would be easier to just make a large edit once we've resolved all our concerns, and then strike through/comment out the existing discussion.<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm just going to go through your previous comment one line at a time, pointing out where I would like clarity. ''"I feel that civility should be kept as well"''. Got that, clear and concise. ''"Warnings result in predetermined feelings"''. I have no idea what that means. What are "pre-determined feelings", in this sense?''"Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters."'' This much I understand, too. Warnings are the sorts of things that are unacceptable, but not worthy of a block. ''" Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings."'' Right, not sure what this means. Do you mean "Admins can correct small things, like indentation, and not warn the contributor"? That is what I think you mean by your next sentence ''"For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable."'' ''"Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards."'' is another confusing sentence, for me. Do you mean to suggest that you should be able to issue three warnings for three successive inappropriate posts, and thereby block someone, without giving them time to adjust their behaviors? I think, and others agree, that this mentality turns a warning policy into a punishment policy. I don't think that is a good rule. The rest of your post I think I understand. I'm fine with removing the petition to unblock if warnings go away 6 months after they were issued. That seems like a solid plan, to me. <br />
<br />
::::::::::Back to that one confusing sentence: if that is how you intend for your comment to be interpreted, then it is improperly punctuated; but, that's a minor detail. However, if that is your sentence, then it is a tautology that adds nothing to the policy. "If there are feelings, then there are feelings" doesn't help to describe what these feelings are, or what ramifications these feelings have. Could you better describe what you mean by "predetermined feelings"? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:05, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::By "predetermined" I mean that when someone says something they intend a result for someone else. By "''Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings''" I mean that "You may edit" (just worded for the context).<br />
:::::::::::When I mention that edits should be the base for warnings this is because blocking can be of varying length. Why can they be of varying length? They vary in length because of severity. Making warnings work with edits makes use of severity. Also, it is not fair if someone insults someone multiple times and someone else insults someone a single time and they get the same result.<br />
:::::::::::Oh, everything I added are tautologies. They are there to explain the reasoning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:51, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::The whole point of numbering was to try and keep the different points straight, but I see that's gone down the crapper. I'm going to try to summarize, then hopefully we can stay organized from here on out.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::1 (Warning system logistics) It sounds like we are leaning towards an expiring warning system.<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with this, and I don't think it takes too much work. Really, all you have to do is check the age of the last warnings before you ban someone. If the oldest warning is less than 6 months old, then none of them have expired yet. Displaying "expired" warnings doesn't have any negative consequences, so nobody needs to rigorously patrol the page for expired warnings.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::2/3 (Etiquette and Civility) I think we are going to keep it as is for now.<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with Badger, the language suggested by Green Dragon does not make a lot of sense to me, and I'm not sure it's necessary. For one thing, "discretionable" is not a real word. I think what you are getting at is that admins have discretion to define "civility" and "etiquette". While I don't really like this (as it leaves it open to abuse -- especially with no method of appeal), I don't see a better way around it right now.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::4 (Blocking IPs) It's agreed that there's no need to block IPs.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::5 (How to count blocks) There is no consensus here.<br />
:::::::::::::Badger mentioned the "rule" that you can't be warned more than once in one comment. This should be enumerated within the rules for it to be official. Green Dragon, your scenario is fair in one way but unfair in another. Yes, your way three warnings always equals 1 block. But one user got 2 warnings to cease his behavior before he was blocked, and the other got 0. This is unfair. I'll say it again: if the point of the block policy is to ''change'' behavior, then you must go off of the number of actual ''warnings'' (i.e. how many times the user was told "don't do that or else"). If the purpose of the warning policy is to ''punish'' people, then you must go off of the number of ''offenses'' (this would even count for multiple offenses within a single post). If we are trying to build a community, I can only support a behavior-changing policy. I also, for the same reason, think there should be a statute of limitations. While admins may be busy, we really should be checking over all edits, especially in discussions that are likely to devolve into uncivil behavior. I don't think a week is too short a time frame; most weeks you can view a week's worth of edits on the recent changes log. If we ''don't'' have a statute of limitations, there's nothing stopping an unscrupulous admin from "storing" warnings and unleashing them all when he wants to get rid of a user for a while.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::6 (Exception for spammers/vandals) I think there is agreement on this point.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::7 (Petitioning) Badger and Jazzman are for, and GD is against.<br />
:::::::::::::I really see no reason against allowing an appeal. Admins are humans, and humans make mistakes. You even say yourself, "If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked." So what if the reasoning wasn't solid, but you blocked anyway? Again, if we are going for a behavior-changing policy, we need the ability to have some leeway here. <br />
<br />
::::::::::::8 (Bureaucratic Immunity) It's agreed that Bureaucrats are immune to the warning policy, but not admins. It has been suggested that a third party must intervene if an admin is involved in the uncivil behavior, but not agreed upon the details.<br />
:::::::::::::The whole point of rule of law (or rule of rule, in this case) sort of breaks down if you just take the Bureaucrats at their word... but that being said we don't really have any way around it, so I begrudgingly agree that they should just get blanket immunity. There's nothing we can do about it anyway. As for the case where only one admin is around, I think that it's rare enough that we shouldn't have to worry about it. If there is someone who is genuinely disruptive and no other admin responds in, say, 24 hours, the primary admin should be able to block. This is another reason to allow petitioning: if an admin is in an argument with a user, they could find a serious of excuses to block that user for 6 months. Without an appeal process, that user is screwed.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think this is everything. If I have misrepresented anyone or any idea please let me know. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 11:29, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I agree that the tautologies should be added elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages.<br />
:::::::::::::In accordance with number five mentioned above I would like to say that warnings are based off edits. This means that if the edit is older then six months then it (because of the time frame) would not be useable. This, then, removes the abuse of the system you mention above. Severity is also important because one does not ''learn'' through such a process. If you want to learn read [[Meta Pages]]. Editing is not learning necessarily and merging the two together is a mistake.<br />
:::::::::::::I don't disagree with appeals. I just don't feel that the medium is appropriate. If there is a problem they may wait out there time frame (if it is the last edit which is a problem) or if it is an intermediate edit, post on [[Talk:Warning Policy]] and discuss the problem. This is in accordance with wiki. We ''do not'' want D&D Wiki to function outside of wiki. This would undermine the very idea of wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:31, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:GD, I'm not sure you know what tautologies are. They are "using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity". There is absolutely ''no'' reason to intentionally include a tautology in our policies. If I understand you correctly, the statute of limitations on warnings should be 6 months, starting the day the comment was posted, rather than the day it was found. I'm not sure I like that. I'd support a month for the SoL, but have warnings expire 6 months after they are issued, not after the original comment is left. I think the goal of this policy should be learning, not punishment. We can't honestly expect every contributor to read the entirety of the Meta Pages before posting. I don't think I got around to reading them all until after I became admin (and I'm not even sure I've read them all, they are hard to find sometimes). I think "learning by doing" is the best approach to this situation, and that means we should combine editing with teaching. Finally, your last point is dead wrong. I pulled the notion of appeals directly from Wikipedia policy (making small alterations, to better suit it to our wiki). That section of their policy can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_and_discussions here]. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:53, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::As tautologies explain the same thing (just give some backing to the reasoning for clarification) they should be moved elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages, as I mentioned above.<br />
::The goal of the policy should not be learning. If we do not have varying severity people will use D&D Wiki contributors as vents. There is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have varying severity punishments. Saying that removing this is better then having this present is something which is wrong. If you kill someone and someone else crosses the street illegally a slap on the wrist for both instances is not acceptable. Most people (since they must interact with respect for various reasons) already know how to interact so the learning curve is pretty much non-existent anyway.<br />
::What is wrong with the reasoning for clarification of "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''"? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::For one thing, it isn't clear - negating its ability to clarify. Its obtuse almost. We need clear and concise language. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:21, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Feeling not feelings is a minor grammatical mistake above. If you want to improve the language, of course, go for it.<br />
::::Also, I agree that non-wiki arbitration is good to have. I created http://groups.google.com/group/dd-wiki-non-wiki-arbitration for non-wiki arbitration. Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok, where is this "severity of punishments" thing coming from? We have exactly one punishment -- banning -- and its severity is determined by the quantity, not quality, of your offenses. I simply can not, and will not, ever be in favor of a punitive system of warnings. It's not conducive to a collective-editing environment, it's harsh on new users and therefore insulating to a community that's already way to small to begin with, and it's just plain unnecessary when you consider the types of offenses we are actually dealing with here. Nobody is going to be deterred from ''offending'' by a threatening system, they will be deterred from ''editing''. If you don't agree with this then we will have to agree to disagree because you won't convince me otherwise. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:10, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Edit to add: that whole lasting feelings statement doesn't make any sense to me at all. Are you trying to say "let bygones be bygones"? If so, why do we need that in a warning policy anyway? What's the point of that arbitration thing? Is that to be used with the appeals process you think is unnecessary? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::A few points: <br />
:::::::Tautologies don't really explain things. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps you instead mean "definition" or "explanation". <br />
:::::::While the goal of most policy should not be learning, most of us feel that the goal of the warning policy should be for learning. We want to use the warning policy as a system to teach right from wrong, not just punish those who are doing wrong. If someone is persistently upsetting the community and not contributing in any way, I'm likely to just block them for a week, despite the warning policy. It is my opinion that the warning policy should be for making sure conversations stay civil, and censoring the occasional bad post from a generally good contributor. <br />
:::::::No one is suggesting that we remove institutionalized punishments that fit the crime. To continue your metaphor, there is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have an appeals system. If someone is given 20 years in prison for jaywalking, they should be able to appeal to have their sentence commuted. The idea of appeals isn't to let the guilty walk free, but rather to help the unjustly punished.<br />
:::::::I've joined that group you've created. I'm not sure if it's the best method, but I suppose it'll do for now. You should check that users are who they say they are (based on the email they use to join). In joining, I just got to choose a random username, and I could have picked "Badger" just as easily as I could have picked "Blue Dragon" or "JazzMan831".<br />
:::::::I really want to figure out what you mean by "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''". Do you mean to say ''"If you are still upset about a mean thing someone has said, know that they said it 6 months ago and they may no longer feel that way."''? If that's not what you mean, can you try to rephrase it another way, because I am totally confused. <br />
::::::Given that you've created this off-wiki method for arbitration, I suppose it's safe to assume that an appeals system is something you now like?--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:22, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I wonder if a off-site group is the right way to go for one major reason: anonymity. Yes, I am not that fond of it myself - and I may be willing to use my real name everywhere, but not everyone is. Should we force a user who doesn't wish to connect his online profile with others or his real name into signing up to a group - especially one like google where it is so easy for personal information to leak through ''(trust me, I'm a debt collector. Google and facebook are awesome for us when it comes to tracking)''? Again, personally, I'm anti-anonymity, but I understand that others seek it out. I mean, I doubt Badger wants us to know that he may be "James T. Badger from Badgerville" ''(just an example)'' or such. Maybe this is making sense, but I feel like I'm just blabering on. Basically: TL<nowiki>;</nowiki>DR = love and feel the need for a appeals process, but is off-site the right channel? Do we have the ability to program a few pages to allow even blocked users to edit, like their own talk page or a central Admin Noticeboard? <br />
:::::::Also, what do we do in cases like [[User_talk:Hooper#Spammer_Block_Oddity|this]]? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:47, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::If we were to remove severity and consider an aspect of learning as the base does this include everyone? If someone insults me multiple times will that annoy me more? If someone gets the same punishment as another user for a lesser offense will they even learn (I think this has been proven to be a learning barrier by the way)? If someone insults anyone multiple times will that annoy the admin more (more dealing with this learning base of work)? Why should everything relate to the abuser and not the abused? Why should those who "do their homework" (for lack of a better term) not be better off? Is that not part of learning? I just don't understand how removing severity and considering an aspect of learning as the base can be fair. If its not fair then we ''will'' have a problem with users considering the administration as biased and not compatible.<br />
::::::::Yes, "''bygones be bygones''". Don't worry about all that&ndash; it will be used in the help pages.<br />
::::::::I attempted to infer that yes, I do agree with an arbitration method. For the arbitration to have an effect (in its current state), yes, one must verify the user (email for a message or something). If we do not want to deal with this level of anonymity then does anyone know of a fitting extension for the above suggestions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:02, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, so one thing to point out, we're all in favor of keeping the scaling block lengths. If someone repetitively insults users, they will ''not'' have a good case for arbitration. Arbitration, and commuted block lengths, will only occur when something has legitimately gone wrong. Apparently a patch to the MediaWiki software continues to prevent a blocked user from editing a wiki, but allows users to still edit their talk page. I'm not sure if we have that capability, but if we do, that'd be the best way to go about this. Users could post on their talk page, and admins could leave their opinions. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:17, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The problem with a correlation there is that in some cases multiple things have legitimately gone wrong with only one result. Which extension [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki.org] were you referring to above? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:08, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand where your problem is. Can you give a hypothetical situation where your problem would arise? That would be immensely helpful. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgBlockAllowsUTEdit This] extension (not actually an extension, but existing code) allows blocked users to edit their talk page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:34, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::For example if I edit a page and do not treat another use with civility I have completed an edit. This edit would (in your method) go into a pool until the user gets warned. The pool could have thousands of edits which are not done with civility. The admin would only see the pool and remove the pool as a single occurrence with a single warning relating to the commuted block length. I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The commuted block length should be based of occurrences so this pool problem does not exist.<br />
::::::::::::That extension is an option. I am not a fan of it. When a user is ''blocked'' they are ''blocked''. They did something wrong, so why should they be given lieniency? I would rather do something which does not relate to wiki D&D Wiki (or a mailing list from the email user preferences). Is there an extension for such a thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Well, here's the thing. The "pool" would only exist if admins aren't vigilant in their duties. The idea is that admins should stay on top of these things. Secondly, think about this: Suppose you are a user who is leaving comments. You don't think there is anything wrong with your comments. Suddenly an admin comes online and warns you three times in two minutes. Suddenly you're blocked, and you had no idea you were doing anything wrong. Does that seem fair? <br />
:::::::::::::I'm not sure moving things off-wiki is necessarily the best decision. We've always been adamant that we should keep everything on-site, and I don't get why this would be any different. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Actually, I forgot about that extension. I think it's a good idea -- but only if it's also possible to additionally block a user from using their talk page. Everyone has the right to appeal, but not to spam the recent changes out of spite.<br />
<br />
:As for "abuser" vs. "abused", since we have agreed on a system where only an admin can hand out warnings, and pointing out offenses of others can itself be warn-able, then obviously this is biased towards the "abuser" method. And really we have good reason. If, for example, user A is in an argument with user B, he shouldn't be given the option to pick three different times in the past where he felt "abused" by user B in order to get him blocked for a week. Additionally, admins should not have to be put in a position where they have to say "well actually I don't feel that you are actually being abused, even though that's how you feel". [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:46, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How does the fairness of block lengths make its way into this system?<br />
::The fairness of block lengths is present if the duty relies solely on the ''timing'' of admins. Why should everything be about the timing? Do the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles|improving, reviewing, and removing article]] templates make it so the timing can be used to the fullest? Why should we change the warning system to be worse then such a method?<br />
::The above example does seem fair to me. If I could not control my words I need to learn and a system which explains to me which words were appropriate, treats me the same as other people, and treats the person I was rude to the same as everyone else who was mistreated works best.<br />
::I am against something here being onsite since IP's are only posting spam on their talk pages and being blocked means one is blocked.<br />
::I don't agree with admins being the only one's able to ''deal'' with warnings. See also [[Warning Policy#Warnings Issued]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:50, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't think it's fair to punish someone because, as an admin, I'm slacking on my job. If you make three potentially offensive edits in the span of twenty minutes, you should be given a fair chance to change your behavior. Suppose someone swears in a comment. They don't swear at anyone, they just say something like "Fighters should have the best damn BAB possible". They may not know that comments like that are a violation of policy (Hell, I'm not even sure if they are against policy). Do you think it's fair to ban someone because they leave three comments like that? On my [[Talk:Hooker_(3.5e_Class)|Hooker talk page]], I, an active user, ask what our policy on swearing is. You can't expect a new user to know if users (and admins) as active as Jazzman and I are don't know. Expecting every contributor to spend thirty minutes reading policy before posting is idealistic and naive. Any policy that could block someone for comments like that is completely asinine, and I can't support it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:12, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Should we just do as Wikipedia does? We are basically only talking about a "level of harassment" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility]) which is a block (the word ''may'' not ''can''). What I am mentioning above is more kind then what Wikipedia uses and making it kinder again is a mistake. Wikipedia knows how to handle users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:15, 15 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::GD: which of my 8 points above do you agree with (be explicit, as in, using the actual numbers). Since we are all almost in agreement about those things, can we add them to the real policy page? It'd be nice to have some defined rules around here. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:59, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea of integrity. It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system. Warnings should be applicable until a warning is given then the expiration of the warning can begin to happen. If this does not happen then we lose integrity. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:20, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::First of all, why did you move this? The running vote, and, most importantly, the thing we are discussing in the first place are not on this page. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean. Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? You do disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? Since the current vote is unanimous on several portions of the proposed policy, can we make any of it official? I will respond to your point after I get the answer to these questions, so as not to get distracted. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:37, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::The votes were placed where they should be. The same is for this discussion (what it is discussing should be its main page). Voting is not done. See also [[Meta Pages#Policies]] ''"As [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Supermajority Supermajority] (and many others) failed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] is only used under the rules of D&D, under editing, and in other special instances."'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:52, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::When is voting done, then? And I'm glad you brought up that line; I hadn't noticed it before in Meta Pages. I also am not sure what it's supposed to mean (there's a critical comma or something missing in there). Also, I ask again, as these important questions have yet to be answered: Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? Do you disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? And since voting is apparently not finished (though no one's added a vote in months now) I'll add another: when is voting finished, and what is the procedure for changing this policy? (Do we even *have* a procedure?) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:27, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::As per the above ''"It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system.''" I think I have mentioned what I agree and disagree with above multiple times to refine this... The quote here is my problem with it. And, consensus is done&ndash; voting is not done (special means things like aesthetics, etc). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:41, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Hey guys, sorry I've been missing these past few weeks, I've been swamped with stuff. What have I missed? It seems like we're talking about implementing my new version of the warning policy. Sweet! Let's see, where are we... Right, well, it appears that we're going to use consensus (my favorite thing) to talk about implementation. Judging by what I've read the only thing standing between us and consensus is the notion of a statute of limitations on warnings. Is that right? Awesome! From what I can tell, there are two sides here. Some of us feel that warning people multiple times before given the chance to change their ways is wrong. Others feel if we don't warn people for every offense, we lose integrity in the system. Let me be the first to state that I am in the former camp. Official pardons, states of limitations, and other "secondary laws" have been in effect in America since our inception. I don't think that it can be fairly argued that the American legal system lacks "integrity" because of this. Would someone like to give an example where the integrity of D&D-Wiki would be put in danger because of the proposed policy changes? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:50, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::If you replied to it without giving a warning, it should ''not'' be given a warning later. If it's acceptable to you then, you shouldn't get to change your mind. I can understand if you just now entered the discussion--and even then, the warning should be one along with a statement to straighten up. That discussion went for many, many pages before Green Dragon decided Wrecan wasn't kosher. What made him change his mind? That Wrecan's tone had gotten snippy? Then that should be a warning for when Wrecan's tone and behavior became unacceptable and that post only, not for what was said two weeks ago and replied to a dozen times. Furthermore, multiple warnings in one swoop aren't good. They aren't good ''at all''. I can't imagine the acrobatics required to decide it's acceptable exercise of power, to discuss something ''for weeks'' and then block the other side of the discussion for posts weeks old. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.215|173.245.56.215]] 13:33, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I can't agree with the IP more. What happened to Wrecan should never have happened -- either he should have been blocked days before, or he should not have been blocked at all. To respond to something ''multiple times'' is to give consent to it. You can not then go back and block. It makes the blocker look bad, and it makes the site look bad, end of story. It also doesn't help when YOU POINT OUT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO WARN SOMEONE LATER and then not do it! It just makes you look like a tyrant (and GD, I'm not calling you a tyrant; I'm pointing out that someone new to this site who saw something like that would likely consider the behavior tyrannical). <br />
:::::::::::::Note, also, that GD has decided it's ok to tell users they have done something warn-worthy ''without actually warning them''. [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warning_Policy&diff=prev&oldid=542429].<br />
:::::::::::::Lastly: when will voting be done? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:37, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:The American Legal System is not in the same situation. When a judge makes a decision he makes the decision. There are no court cases that people don't listen to and then ''later'' the judge listens to them.<br />
:Some comments are not necessarily acceptable to anyone anytime. Policy relating to acceptable behavior comes from the Wikipedia pages. No one is changing their mind&ndash; they are just later having the time to deal with the situation.<br />
:I warned [[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] before the time when he received multiple blocks. The time I have to issue warnings (it does take time&ndash; reading everything so critically while constantly referencing Wikipedia and then the formatting that is related, etc) is when I will issue them. Mentioning comments as being warning-worthy is because I have not had the time the process (mentioned above) requires yet. Is this what is being mentioned above? Seems like it is the same thing. Is it antagonizing? I think it may be a fine line.<br />
:Voting is not done. See above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:30, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Ok, GD, let me just say "No". Your reason for delaying a warning isn't acceptable. At all. If you have the time to reply to comments, you have the time to warn someone. End of Discussion. You gave 8 warnings in a single edit. If anything, it should have been a single warning. What you have done is wholly unacceptable. None other administrator would have done what you did. That should have been a clue that something wasn't quite right. <br />
::Jazzman, as a point of order, what do you mean by "When will voting be done"?<br />
::*Under what circumstances should we vote on something?<br />
::*When will discussion come to a close on this issue?<br />
::I feel like that might change the discussion. Are you using the word "voting" to mean "discussion and debate" instead of actual "voting"? <br />
::Finally, I think you've misunderstood my metaphor about the American legal system. Rather than try to explain it to you, I'm just going to ask that you ignore it.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 9 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Let me verify this please&ndash; you're telling me how to spend my time? You understand how my time is organized then?<br />
:::Since this is consensus the point I will make follows. Read the policy. If you don't know what you're doing read the policy. If you don't know how to interact with other humans, read the policy (it may help you). We are not going to organize time in any manner&ndash; that's not right. We'll assume people who care will care and if you do not care then you will suffer the consequences. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:18, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::The point of this discussion is none of us like the policy, and we'd like to change it. I would suggest that if maybe you don't know how to interact with other humans, you should let others write policy. It may help the the website, in the long run. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:13, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Luckily that's a theoretical comment above and then later not direct. I agree that if you don't know how to interact with humans you should let others write policy.<br />
:::::I am talking about a successful model used throughout the world. Again, if you don't know how to interact (making a new model for example that is an experiment (perform the experiment elsewhere okay)) how about you let others write the policy.<br />
:::::The clarification of my above comment is that I am talking about people who receive warnings. If you get a warning you have a problem interacting with humans (do you just go up to someone and belittle them?). I am saying that if they do not read the policy and or understand it then they should learn through the process anyway. Does this simple comment finally make sense? I can't understand how this is not understandable to others. You go to school. You learn. If you don't do your homework you get a bad grade. It's the same thing. The level of used throughout the world is large, so why oh why are the comments I am getting back just not getting this?<br />
:::::Have you ever ruined a class by making the curriculum based off your understanding? The structure of classes is not like this. You sign up for a class. You learn the material that is presented on the syllabus the first day. It doesn't matter if you get it or not&ndash; your grade reflects that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:27, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::We all agree that if you are belittled you should be warned. That isn't the issue being debated here. What we're saying is that 8 warnings at once is an issue. Teachers don't give you a test, and then later count it as eight tests. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:10, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Obviously. They do, however, mark you down for eight questions when you missed eight questions. Giving a Pass/Fail on understanding the test is ''not'' what they do. Any questions this time around? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:35, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::GD, do you agree that the Warning policy should be designed to get users to change their ways by showing them what is not ok, and giving them a chance to change? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:36, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Partly. Learning fairly by repercussions and through reading. I don't agree with unfair learning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:24, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::And tell me, did you give Wrecan time to change his ways between the 2nd and 3rd edits? Or the 3rd and 4th? If the point was to get him to change is ways, shouldn't you have given him a chance to change before banning him for 6 weeks? After reading the conversation, I know I wouldn't have warned him for what he said. Those warnings would have come as a shock to me, and I'm an admin. Don't you think that a single warning would have been more acceptable? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:18, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Did Wrecan read the policy? There is more then one person involved in any discussion. By this I mean that others are also reading it and also care about how a person says things. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:34, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::You did not answer the question. If you were offended, were you offended the first time you read it? Were you offended the second time you read it? Were you offended the third time you read it? Notwithstanding that I still don't believe his comments were inappropriate, how is it that you were ok with them the first ''seven'' times you read them, and then all the sudden you realized they were offensive?<br />
<br />
::::::::::::To use your test metaphor, this is like giving someone 100% on 7 one-question pop quizzes, and then when they get the answer wrong on the 8th, retroactively changing his grade on the other 7. It's one thing if you honestly never saw those posts, say, if the discussion were taking place elsewhere and you were not an active participant. I still don't believe these should be back-warned, but I'll let it slide if it's the deciding factor. But this was not the case here. You were involved in the conversation and by replying &mdash; multiple times, mind you &mdash; you gave the impression, whether intentionally or unintentionally, that what Wrecan was saying was ok by policy. Let's face it, the policy is, at worst, vague and confusing or, at best, open to wide interpretation. As administrators, I believe it is our duty (again, not really defined anywhere) to help other users understand the rules of the site. As such, they should be able to look up to us to know how to act. If I reply to someone's comments with anything other than "you are hereby warned about X", they can be confident that I am satisfied with their manner of posting. I just don't think the same thing applies when GD replies to someone's post, and I believe that makes for a difficult work environment.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::To answer your question from a while ago, Badger, what I was trying to ferret out (heh, rodent pun) was this: if voting is "not yet finished" according to GD, what is the criteria for it being finished? Do we need to wait a certain amount of time? Do we need a certain amount of votes? Do we need to wait until GD votes? Do we need to wait until there is a majority against (we already have a majority for? I don't know the criteria, is all. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:12, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I was offended the entire time that this user was telling me such things. I just didn't have the time (or initiative) to warn Wrecan (just like I didn't have the time (or initiative) to fix the indentation here until now).<br />
:::::::::::::It's actually like being able to read the book on an open-book test and then getting the answer wrong. When it gets graded, you already know the outcome (or you will learn through it).<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with "''As administrators, I believe it is our duty (again, not really defined anywhere) to help other users understand the rules of the site.''" Users learn through repercussions, unless they are unfair (this will be conductive to optimization).<br />
:::::::::::::Voting is not done. Consensus is done. The relevant Wikipedia pages, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Supermajority Wikipedia:Supermajority] may interest you. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:40, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Green Dragon, stop saying "Voting is not done". We all know that. We get it, we're using consensus. Stop linking to their pages. We know the links. We've read the pages. <br />
:If you were offended the entire time, why didn't you say something? After reading your comments, I don't recall you saying in one of your comments something to the effect of "Wrecan, what you are posting is considered a warnable offense. If you don't stop, I will be forced to warn you". Don't say "He should have read the policy and known". Yes, he should have known, but you still could have told him. It would have been the nice thing to do. <br />
:Users don't have to learn through repercussions. Our users are smarter than dogs. They can learn what is right without being punished for doing wrong. <br />
:I have no idea what "unless they are unfair (this will be conductive to optimization)." means. What do you think it means? I think being banned for 6 weeks because all your mistakes get caught at once counts as unfair. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:57, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::{{Warning/Text}} {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 07:44, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWarning_Policy&action=historysubmit&diff=542875&oldid=542874|brokenpolicy=direct rudeness: belittling|warningnumber=1|warningbannumber=2|issuedate=Issued on 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::Please stop asking when voting will be done.<br />
:::I am offended reading this discussion. I feel that people are just testing admin positions through this discussion and wasting time because they maybe 1) do not know what to say and 2) do not know how to approach the situation.<br />
:::''"Users don't have to learn through repercussions. Our users are smarter than dogs. They can learn what is right without being punished for doing wrong."''. &mdash; Have you ever trained a dog? If they do five bad things in a day and you don't give them lunch for 5 days they will have no idea what's going on. The system that I am not proposing is treating users like dogs. Like the model throughout the ENTIRE WORLD I am talking about people are not treated like dogs.<br />
:::People will optimize systems. They will be rude and then "oops! No idea sorry!!" although they really knew and they just wanted to be jerks.<br />
:::Since this discussion has now turned circular, it is over. No one has had anything constructive to say except for undermining what they are proposing (through the dog example). Since this is the case consensus is done, and so is this discussion. The policy will be changed soon. If there are any problems with it please bring it up in a truly analytical manner. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::You are basing your policy under the assumption that users are going to game the system. Isn't one of they key policies of Wikipedia "Assume good faith"? <br />
::::You unilaterally declaring a discussion "over" isn't constructive in the least. If you feel you've reached consensus, you do not have a solid grasp of the definition of consensus. <br />
::::How would you like me to analytically bring up my objections to the policy as it stands? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:31, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::How am I assuming that they will game the system? It's in the same reasoning that the people that people are being jerks to deserve to be impartially dealt with. I mentioned that to get the point across.<br />
:::::You are the one who made the system that is there now (the wording is a little corrected), but go for it. Bring up the problems on a quote by quote basis. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Problems with the Warning Policy ==<br />
<br />
1. Warnings result in predetermined feelings.<br />
:What does that mean?<br />
2. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude.<br />
:Blocks are not offenses at all.<br />
3. Warnings also are not petty matters.<br />
:What do you mean by "petty matters"?<br />
4. Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings.<br />
:How do you correct petty matters? What are discretionable feelings?<br />
5. For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable.<br />
:What is a contributor of low importance?<br />
:What is a feeling which is predetermined?<br />
:How does a predetermined feeling differ from a discretionable one?<br />
6. If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed<br />
:If six months have passed I should be ok with someone using a racial slur? This sentence doesn't make any sense.<br />
7. Call some friends over and play some D&D– try to keep your mind off the predetermined feeling(s) which w/as(ere) received.<br />
:Still not sure what predetermined feelings. Are you suggesting that users should just stop caring if they were insulted? <br />
8. IPs with warn-able offenses will be automatically blocked and the block reason should say "IP leaving comments in violation of warning policy"<br />
:How long will they be banned? A day? A week? A year? Forever?<br />
9. Warnings have been removed after 6 months.<br />
:This is unacceptable. The text is still offensive. Text that has been censored should remain censored. After six months, you can move the warning to a new list of "expired warnings". However, you should, under no circumstances un-censor a post that has been censored. You need to go through and re-censor all the posts that have been uncensored since you implemented these changes.<br />
These are my problems with the current system, and they need to be addressed before I'm willing to accept it. I'd also like to see amnesty granted to all posts made before today, as they were made before the system was clear. I'd also like to see a system to address blocks, and consider commuting blocks. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:29, 13 December 2011 (MST)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:How_do_I_ask_for_another_user%27s_homebrew_class/race_for_my_campaign_setting%3F&diff=542951Discussion:How do I ask for another user's homebrew class/race for my campaign setting?2011-12-14T03:44:03Z<p>Badger: /* I want a class for my campaign setting. */</p>
<hr />
<div>== I want a class for my campaign setting. == <br />
<br />
I am building the campaign setting [[Helios (3.5e Campaign Setting)|Helios]] and I want to use a few classes. How do I do it? The classes I want are [[Battlemage (3.5e Class)]], [[Hobo (3.5e Class)]], [[Jumper (3.5e Class)]], [[Time Bender (3.5e Class)]], and [[Gravity Warrior (3.5e Class)]] if that matters. --[[User:Cool Dude 123|Cool Dude 123]] 19:51, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Badger|Badger]]&nbsp;<small><small>20:44, 13 December 2011 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
Leave a comment on each relevant talk page. Most contributors will be watching "their" pages, and are more than willing to help you implement "their" creations. You might also consider checking the history of the page (by clicking the history tab at the top of the page) and finding out who the major contributor is. You can go to their user page, and either send them an email, or leave a comment on their talk page. <br />
<br />
I've been using the phrase their in quotation marks. Technically, once someone submits it to the wiki, it becomes part of the wiki, and you're free to use it without asking. Still, it's the polite thing to do. <br />
<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Badger/sandbox13&diff=542950User:Badger/sandbox132011-12-14T03:36:12Z<p>Badger: Undo revision 542879 by Green Dragon (talk) I'll thank you to not edit my userpages</p>
<hr />
<div>=Building a Better [[Warning_Policy|Warning Policy]]=<br />
Alright, well, I suppose it's maybe that time. We've been putting it off long enough. Let's roll up our sleeves and write a policy for warning people.<br />
<br />
==Current text==<br />
When one does not edit with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility civility] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette etiquette] one gets a warning for each time (posted in the discussion; kept in tab with a per user system of warnings and bans combined). Warnings are given by admins; an admin should post one indent earlier then the post which is not civil with <nowiki><code>''</nowiki><!-Contributors' text in the post which warrants the warning. Seperate with commas and and.-> (<!-broken policy relating to the warning - see also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility civility] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette etiquette]->) (<!-the users warning number -1,2,3:the users warning ban number).<nowiki>''</code> --~~~~</nowiki>. After that post it should continue along the same post thread as before (two later). The ban length starts with one week at three warnings and then increases exponentially from the sixth warning (2 weeks) for each three warnings received.<noinclude><br />
<br />
==Proposed New Text==<br />
When a registered user does not edit with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility civility] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette etiquette] they will be issued a warning. Each warning, will be tallied on [[Warning_Policy|this page]]. Warnings are given by exclusively administrators. After a warning, the original discussion should continue along the same post thread as before. Block lengths start with one week after three warnings, and then increase exponentially after the sixth warning (2 weeks) for each three warnings received. <br />
<br />
===What causes a warning===<br />
*First and foremost, as mentioned above, editing without civility and etiquette, as defined by Wikipedia Policy, warrants a warning. This includes, but is not exclusively limited to, the following offenses:<br />
**Harassment<br />
**Personal attacks such as racial, ethnic, sexual, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities<br />
**Verbal abuse<br />
**Profanity <br />
**Belittling another contributor<br />
**Lying <br />
**Quoting another editor out of context<br />
**Rudeness: insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions<br />
*Secondly, pointing out another's offenses to an administrator can be considered a warn-able offense (as determined by the administrator). These will traditionally be considered warn-able offenses when a user persistently points out violations of one or many users. An informal and un-official warning should tell the contributor to cease these actions before a warning is issued.<br />
<br />
===How warnings are issued===<br />
*When a user's offending comment, written after 15:50, 4 September 2011 (MDT) is identified, an administrator will issue a warning.<br />
**Administrators will post one indent earlier than the offending comment with <nowiki><code>''</nowiki><!-Contributors' text in the post which warrants the warning; Separating with commas-> (<!-broken policy relating to the warning->) (<!-the users warning number -1,2,3:the users warning ban number).<nowiki>''</code> --~~~~</nowiki>.<br />
*Comments by users with offending text before 15:50, 4 September 2011 (MDT) will be granted amnesty, as they were written before this system was set into place.<br />
**Any comment with offending text written before 15:50, 4 September 2011 (MDT) shall be edited by an admin like any other comment, but no warning will be added to that user's total. <br />
*Comments with offending text written, at any time, by IPs will be edited like every other warn-able offense, but no warning will be issued. <br />
**IPs with warn-able offenses will be automatically blocked for at least 1 day, and the block reason should say "IP leaving comments in violation of warning policy".<br />
<br />
===How to revert a ban or block===<br />
If a user is banned for more than a single week, then they may petition, via email, that the sentence be commuted. After one week, blocked members may petition the admin that blocked them. Each email after the first, however, may be considered pestering an administrator, and cause for another warning. Blocks of users of any duration, may be commuted if an admin petitions on their behalf to the admin that blocked the user, at any time. As with other petitions, messages after the first may be considered pestering, and cause for a warning. For all petitions, a second message may be sent after 48 hours if the admin does not respond to the first message. While considered polite, an admin is '''not''' required to respond to the petitions of users or fellow admins.<br />
<br />
===Admins and Blocks===<br />
Administrators are not "above the law". That is to say, any admin can be warned, and subsequently blocked. If an administrator vote occurs during their block, they are permitted to vote, via email.<br />
<br />
If an administrator is issued three warnings, and a subsequent block, their administrator standing will be put to a vote. After the block is over, they will be RfA'd, and removed from power if they are found to no longer be upholding the values of the community.<br />
<br />
===Warning Policy and [[User:Badger/sandbox1|the Tavern]] (aka [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|Badger's hope springs eternal]])=== <br />
Because the wiki and the tavern are separate entities, blocks and bans will be issued independently. At the present admin's discretion a user may be kicked from the tavern without warning. Users blocked from the tavern aren't necessarily blocked from the wiki, and vice versa. Any administrator blocked on the wiki, however, will be disallowed from being a channel admin until their block is over.</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Warning_Policy&diff=542949Help talk:Warning Policy2011-12-14T03:31:48Z<p>Badger: /* Policy Changes */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Missing Warnings? ==<br />
<br />
Where are the first warnings for TK-Squared, Jota, and S1Q3T3? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 17:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:In this time I did not reference the areas so I forgot some. They have them however where are they?<br />
:I know [[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] had three warnings however he/she was first banned for only one warning (the policy was still young) and then he acquired at least up to three warnings and was not banned to compensate (see his talk - history if needed). I at least remember it was with someone (maybe [[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] however I don't rememberer exactly. Do you know?<br />
:I put (2:1) on [[User:Jota|Jota's]] last warning and I do not think I was wrong. Do you know where the other is? Is there another?<br />
:[[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] was banned for a (3:1) however were are they all? I also don't remember.<br />
:If you know any of the areas I am talking about supplying a link would be appreciated.<br />
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where warnings have been given and are not referenced here supplying a link would be appreciated.<br />
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where people deserve warnings and were not given them supplying a link would be appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Although it is a moot point, I can see the advantage of making sure we try to accurately back-log and keep track for all future purposes. I [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Yo5&defl=en&q=define:hope&ei=-Yt5S8XIO47cnAfKr5GyCQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE doubt] the user who did it will ever be back, but [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Bagby&diff=prev&oldid=395263 this edit] seems to me to be a warning-level offense. Maybe I'm wrong, but here it is for an admin to decide.<br />
::Additionally, I was wondering if we are going to have an enforced warning system that is in effect for Edit Wars? I know that even I have been a part of many, and it is something we should avoid. Just curious. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::As seen in [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:White_Wolf&curid=72522&diff=457366&oldid=457360 this diff], [[User:Jota]] tried to sneak bits of another user's ''(myself)'' previous comments, trying to disguise the removal as part of a different edit. Even more poignant, the main section removed was where I quoted Jota from a previous location where he admitted enjoying arguing on this wiki (arguably an act of trolling). Though the edits leading up to it can be deemed a Edit War of which I am equally to blame ''(though correct in my reasoning)'', Jota's edit went against all forms of wiki civility and protocol.<br />
:::This is not the first time Jota has done such. He has even removed or discounted other user's or IP's ratings of his own content when it wasn't to his liking. Being so brunt with other user's talk page postings should be forbidden. At most, altering extremely foul language or helping fix link/formatting should be the only allowable reason to do such a thing ''(barring of course obvious spam/vandalism)''. For this reason, I believe a warning is necessary. I leave it to the admin to decide. I understand if I also receive one for the edit war that took place, though in that case Jota should receive two. <br />
:::Jota did respond on that page that he removed the content to save me from ''"..direct rudeness, name calling, and belittle comments.."'' however the main portion of content removed was a quote from Jota, not myself. So that is invalid. The small other portion was not name calling nor do I perceive it as rude - those in managerial positions see things differently than those who are not, irl. Hence the classic phrase ''"can't see the forest because of all the trees"'' and all of it's variants. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::So arguing is trolling now? Lolwut? My actions were in keeping with your (Hooper) past actions, as noted on the Biomancer's talk page. If what I did was an offense against Wiki civility, so was what Hooper did. I just see him not getting warned for his actions, so I assume their okay under this wiki's policy, even though I find them questionable in nature. Furthermore, yes I remove ratings from content, not just IP ratings and not just my own material. If the rating is "lulz, overpowered" that does nothing for no one and is better off removed. "Obvious" spam is subjective, and should be left to an admin or bureaucrat, of which Hooper is neither. Personally, I would subscribe to FIFA's approach to warnings. Asking for someone else to be warned is a warn-worthy offense. Admins know the rules. Telling an admin someone needs to be warned is only an attempt to unjustly sway their opinion, and as such should merit a warning. Given [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law ex post facto law], Hooper's previous offense could be ignored, but its just a suggestion. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Irrelevant. As anyone can see on the policy pages in the help portal, most notable the Behavior Page, and from GD's actions and own statements, we no longer tolerate solicitation or links to competing sites. As noted in the diffs on biomancer, Eiji was soliciting and I removed it '''per policy'''. Stop straw manning. <br />
:::::Green Dragon is attempting to be notified because he is the only majorly active admin currently and has way too much to go through, hence it is easy for him to not see all that goes on, sadly. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Obvious is subjective, and therefore not your call to make. You want the power, nominate yourself for adminship. You're just creating more clutter by bringing subjective arguments to the table. Besides, it's not like this wiki is so active one cannot see an entire day's worth of activity on the recent changes page. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::Everything I need to do here on the wiki doesn't require adminship, nor do I want it. I thought I needed it long ago to help speed up editing but still don't need it today. Some of us have power in real life and realize that adminship is just responsibility, not power.<br />
:::::::Besides, I'd be too bad of an admin. I'd just permaban all the transientwiki people who think that continuing to cause circular talks and bog down progress on the site is fun. I'd also permaban anyone making content with the word Naruto in it. So, subjective or not, it's obvious I don't need adminship. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Official Policy ==<br />
<br />
So I have a few quick questions concerning actual policy. <br />
*If an Admin gets 3 warnings (and thusly banned for a week), should they be RfA'd to (potentially) remove adminship? It seems reasonable to have some sort of policy in place to that effect. Naturally, we'd all like to think admins are calm, level-headed contributors all the time, but everyone gets upset and says (or does) something stupid every so often. <br />
*Are all warnings the same? Can a single action provoke 2 <s>attacks of opportunity</s> warnings? <br />
*Is there a statute of limitations on warnings? We have a message up there asking for any missed warnings. Should we really be going back 4 and 5 months to find warn-able offenses? Some of those offenses took place before the warning policy existed. <br />
*Are we warning for every violation of civility according to that list? Forgetting to sign your post, and not answering questions both are on that list. Neither seem worth a warning.<br />
*My last question is a very specific one. Green Dragon, as we all ''now'' know, cannot be removed from adminship. Can he still be warned? If he is warned 3 times can he be banned?<br />
Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:First off I just recently saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption] and civility is actually present. As such, do we need this now maybe extraneous policy? I don't know. If so I would prefer we rollback or censor the problem text/post. Thoughts?<br />
:Should an admin be RfA'ed. Good question. I think so as it means one has not been upholding the values of an admin.<br />
:Warnings have been given based off each post, not an "action". Within the post, although their may be multiple violations, I have been counting it as one post to one warning.<br />
:There should not be a statue of limitations on warnings. The problem text is still present and as such something needs to be done regarding it.<br />
:Maybe you are referring to how the "etiquette" portion may not be relevant. That could be case. Should this be changed to just civility? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Hmm. I don't know. Should this page be a subpage of [[Help:Behavioral_Policy]]? &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I think Wikipedia's policy (as you linked above) is a good one. However, I think that policy almost requires us to keep the warning policy. If, for example, you decide to ban me for "Persistent Gross Incivility", I'd demand a few examples of that. The warning policy, as we have it, keeps a running log of all infractions to present if the banned individual should they ask for evidence. Whether or not we decide to stick with the "3 warns equals 1 week ban" policy is a different question. I think the policy is a solid one (once we more clearly define infractions and consequences). I personally am opposed to "perma-bans" (with the exception of users solely dedicated to causing problems, as defined by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption disruptions only]); I don't know how you feel on the subject, however. To address Hooper's question, I think the final decisions should for sure be a sub-page of Behavioral policy, I don't know that this discussion has made any concrete decisions yet though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Vagueishness ==<br />
<br />
The criteria for warning seem somewhat vague, and, since they link to an offsite page over which we have no control, are subject to unwarned change. If I read this literally, I could be giving out warnings for people who don't sign their posts, which doesn't really seem necessary, or for abusing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule WP:3RR], which isn't clearly a policy on this site. It's probably time that we broke from WikiP and just created our own pages on civility and etiquette. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This could make sense. Want to give it a go and we can see where we are from there? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:29, 4 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I could do it (though I don't have a lot of time right now), but since you do all of the warning, I would think you have a better idea of what's warnable and what's not. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:12, 9 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Hooper ==<br />
<br />
He got two warnings at the same time. It's not really a "warning" if he doesn't have a chance to learn from it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:16, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Interestingly, one of those messages was followed by three or four other comments before it was warned. To an outside observer, it might appear as though someone was just looking for a reason to block him for a week and warned him for something that didn't really warrant a warning. I know we've decided that warnable offenses don't have a statute of limitations, but that's a tad silly, IMO. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:21, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree that the first one was weak at best; stating that one can't follow another's statements is certainly not a personal attack if it's true, and doesn't really justify a warning. Even if Hooper had said something invoking the hygiene of another's mother, however, he still should have a chance to learn from his mistake before being warned a second time. Otherwise it's not a warning policy, it's a punishment policy. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:36, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::The learning curve is non-existent. If you don't know how to edit, look into D&D Wiki's policies. If that confuses you don't chime into discussions which are so variable. Also, it's that we are intended to warn backwards in time to be fair. Did it happen? Yes. Done. Is there any other way? Not unless you want to disregard wikis (when you edit you edit) entirely for certain users for who knows what reason. There may be more warning problems. I am so tired of pointless discussions I have stopped reading them. If I see more warning problems sometime when I may read them for whatever reason, yes, I will give more warnings. It's the fair way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:50, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::So answer me this, if someone says three different insults in the same single post, do you count it as one warning or three? If you aren't going to stay on top of the ball, but still want to keep away any statute of limitations, the only "fair" way to do it is to count every one you find at the same time as the same warning. It's all arbitrary, anyway, as I stated above (no work has been done on trying to clarify what is actually warnable), but if we are going to block a good user, it'd be nice to know we have good reason. Also, it's be nice to not be paranoid that I can all-the-sudden be banned for extended periods of time because of something I wrote that I didn't know was offensive, that all got caught all at once. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:29, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Each time one edits. You can say whatever in one editing time, however multiple times are multiple times. I agree about it being nice, however it would also be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]] (for example). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ok, see, that's not a very good argument, GD. Sure, it'd be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]], but it'd be really hard and time consuming to do that. It'd be very easy to do what Jazzman described. For example, I'm sure there are several things on this wiki that I've written that could potentially be considered warnable, but I've never been warned. Would it be fair to quickly find 3 things, and then ban me for a week, without giving me time to change my ways? No. A single warning would say "this sort of thing is unacceptable, cut it out", and I probably would. That'd be nice, reasonable, fair, and everyone would enjoy it more. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:18, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::After a unjustified ban, I can attest that the policy should be defined. Additionally, if we're following in Wikipedia's footsteps properly, then we should establish proper ban-reversal procedure. For example, if two admins oppose a third admin's block, the block should be reversed (wikipedia has a similar policy, and if it was already in effect here - then this recent unwarranted block wouldn't of happened). Plus, blocks are meant to prevent or pause problematic editors, not editors who are actively contributing, fighting spam, and working collaboratively.<br />
:::::::There should also be a time limit put into effect where admins can not back-warning. This was made obvious recently, as it can lead to abuse. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:27, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I do know Green Dragon gave Surgo and TK-Squared multiple warnings in February of 2010, for language/rudeness violations committed in March/May of 2009. And considering Surgo stopped posting in September of 2009...well, I can't see what good Green Dragon thought he was doing. Seeing as how he was warning for someone for offenses almost a year old, and ''five months'' after the user in question ceased activies on the wiki. <br />
<br />
== Admin Violations ==<br />
<br />
The current warning policy does not state that admins are "above the policy" and actually showcases many former admins who have received warnings. However, it also states that only admins may give out warnings. Though I may be just "asking for it," I am intending to request a second administrator's look at recent comments by Green Dragon to see if they are deemed necessary of a warning or warnings. <br />
On the discussing recently held on the Main Page's discussion page, GD said ''"If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out."'', ''"If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this."'', and my personal favorite ''"...Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a [[Warning Policy]]). They must fix the problem or get banned."'' All three of these comments come across as either directly rude or belittling to the people they're referring to, and the last one actually directly interferes with our existing [[Warning Policy]] and implies that I was banned for allegedly-uncivil actions off-site.<br />
Now, however, the most directly uncivil reply was recently posted to the GNU's talk page. Here, GD amazingly flat out states that he will not follow consensus or collaborative discussion (even though he recently added Consensus to the Meta pages) when he declares that ''"...I could care less who thinks what about what. I will do as it is done. I'll listen to reasonableness. I don't care if it comes from God or a bacteria."''. Could other admins please discuss this, and could Green Dragon please reply and let me know if I have misread his intent or tone, especially with the last quote. I also wish to reiterate that I'm not trying to directly attack, its just that at the time these statements were made I was unable to reply - and after reviewing the numerous moves and reformatting of the licensing discussion, am trying to host a civil discussion on a serious issue on the most appropriate page. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ah, and you've spotted a flaw in the system. As I pointed out [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|just above here]], GD is seemingly "above the law". In fact, historically, blocking GD has been grounds for a block in it's own right. In addressing my questions about the finer points of warning policy, GD seemed to gloss over the objection I raised on that front. <br />
:Personally, as an admin, I refuse to "warn" anyone (IP, registered user, administrator, or owner) until a complete and fair guide has been written and is visible to all contributors. As Jazzman mentioned, if we don't have clearly defined rules the "warning policy" becomes more of a "punishment policy". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:03, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes, I can attest to having no warning at all when I was hit with multiple at once, and still have no clear clue what I said that was wrong. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:12, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've started working on a new, more clear, warning policy. It can be seen [[User:Badger/sandbox13|here]]. Feel free to join the discussion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:55, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yes, there are answers to things for the above (looking into it more, reading the block reason, etc). Yes, the world also turns. Is "''the world also turns''" condescending? Nah. Are you going to make accusations as such? When I get the time I will issue warnings appropriately for the above comment (e.g. accusations) if appropriate. Was that condescending too? Nah. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:55, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Umm, okay? Going past the you-blocked-me thing ''(whatever, we can both agree we want the best for the future of the site. right?)'', I'm more interested in your discussion on Badger's rough draft of a warning policy overhaul. Especially on how it may affect admins and bureaucrats. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:59, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Warnings Issued on 4e Campaign Settings Caliphate Supplement ==<br />
<br />
:''Discussion moved from [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caliphate_%28Patronage_Supplement%29&oldid=542259 Talk:Caliphate (Patronage Supplement)#Titles].'' <small>--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
Ok point of order here, I'm not going to bother reading this whole discussion because it's long and half of it is hidden in warning text (and ultimately I know what the outcome will be anyway), but some of those "warning texts" are not appropriate. You can't just warn people for saying something you don't like. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:58, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Right. They are related to specific Wikipedia pages. Where are you coming from exactly? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I don't know where you are coming from with that one. To be more specific, the following statements are all statements you removed from Wrecan's posts, and warned him about. All of them are, in my opinion, not warnable offenses:<br />
::# Why are you imposing this policy on my campaign setting? What gives you the right to do this, and to prevent me from restoring what I had originally written?<br />
::# It's not tied to any language in the Wiki policy you cited and<br />
::# What admins should not do is invent an unwritten policy and impose them on others without going through the process of adoption. <br />
::# Your interpretation of the policy is not supported by the language of the policy. If you want this website to consider personal attacks to include any use of epithets considered offensive by "organizations and people... on a large scale" then go through the process of amending this wiki's policies.<br />
::# There is no violation for giving a fictional character a title of "Caliph", just as there would be no violation for giving a fictional character the title of "Pope" or "Chief Rabbi" of "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire"... even if millions of people would be offended by the act. The only behavior banned (of relevance here) is applying a religious term to describe a contributor. That's the Wikipedia (and this site's) policy. If you want this site to have a different policy, you need to go through the process of amended this site's policy.<br />
::# Did you really think I wouldn't fact-check you, GD?<br />
::# When you edited the Patronage pages, you weren't acting as administrator; you were acting as a contributor. Administrators don't make substantive contributions to wiki pages in their capacity as administrators<br />
<br />
::In addition, you edited some of his text for reasons other than warnings, which is explicitly against our editing policy. In addition, as mentioned before (in a discussion I think you moved to this page), it's simply not fair (and makes your behavior look to outsiders who don't know the situation &mdash;at best&mdash; lazy or &mdash;at worst&mdash; malevolent, ''especially'' when the content you are warning/removing refers to your improper warning/removing of text!) to respond to something multiple times before you hand out a warning for it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:31, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::None of that is improper. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 relate to lying. 3 and 6 are rude to [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:04, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::The correct grammar is "None of those are improper, and I feel silly for having censored them." --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.104|173.245.48.104]] 20:32, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not necessarily. I meant that none of the reasons for giving them are improper. You'll see what I mean if you check the reasons. The context is about the warning, ergo the warning is being discussed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:23, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::{{Warning/Text}}. But it's on record that I disagree and that I think it makes you look very improper. In the future, I would be happy to mediate any dispute between you and another user. There's a Wikipedia policy for that somewhere (and actually I think I've done that once before on WP). Also, I'm reinstating the historical link to the page from which you moved this text, because my comments apply to a historical revision of that page, not the page as it stands now, or whenever in the future some user happens to view it. If that talk page gets archived, the link will no longer work and my comments here will lack context (which is why I commented there, and not here, in the first place). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:21, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWarning_Policy&action=historysubmit&diff=542875&oldid=542874|brokenpolicy=direct rudeness: belittling a fellow editor|warningnumber=1|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::If you are pointing something out then please add the link to your comments. If its a diff archiving will not do anything... Um... You can read the policy to understand the warnings. If someone is saying something is done a wrong way then they are lying. It's pretty straightforward. Also, you earned yourself some warnings above! "Won't ever change your mind" is belittling. I'll warn you sometime. The dispute resolution is not needed here. Everything is straightforward. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:35, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::If it's a warning please warn me right now. Otherwise I'm not going to count it. (And you know what else is belittling? Telling someone they earned some warnings and then threatening to warn them later). Saying something is done a wrong way is only lying if Wrecan knows it was, in fact, done correctly: it's only lying if he's ''intending'' to ''mislead'' you. If Wrecan actually believes that you are not following policy even though you are, that is not lying. It's pretty straightforward. Point number 2, by the way, can not, by definition be lying: you can not lie by asking someone a question! "How was your day?" "LIAR!!!"<br />
<br />
:::::::As for the link: I don't need to refer back to what I am talking about on the other page, because when I said what I said, ''I said it on the other page''. Can you please explain to me what your problem is with adding a more accurate link? If it's a diff archiving will not do anything... which is why I added the diff! We don't want anything to affect where this link points to. If you keep the link how you have it, and then later that talk page is archived, this link will be broken. My link will be correct no matter what you do to the other page (so long as you don't delete it)<br />
<br />
::::::::1 is a little interesting. I guess I could remove it. I would like some input on the thinking behind it before any action though. I considered that these circular discussions are pointless and waste people's time. The problem with them is that they need to get resolved (as far as I can tell). One cannot have administrative-related discussions left open since that will imply that users are ''okay'' to not engage in consensus and that they can just "slam the door on other users" while disregarding them.<br />
::::::::It would be fully true that warnings need to be in the time frame of the post if our comments here served the only purpose of taking actions. They, however, do not. Many times I post things without taking any action afterwards (such as after this post) and others do not take actions from my post.<br />
::::::::Additionally if I had more time I could do all the things I want to do. If I had more time I would improve areas of D&D Wiki. I don't have the time right now. So, my lack of time is not a problem. I find that a lack of time leading to problems is not constructive. Therefore, warnings are based off the ''text''. Therefore, it is not belittling. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Policy Changes ==<br />
<br />
:''See also [[User:Badger/sandbox13]]''<br />
:''Discussion moved from [[User talk:Badger/sandbox13#Warning Policy]].'' <small>--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:44, 5 December 2011 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
Obviously, I wrote all this so I rather like it. However, is there anything that should be added? Anything that should be clarified? Anything that should be removed? Thoughts? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:51, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:The following bullet points are [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]'s comments/issues:<br />
:1. Just a suggestion for the warning of block lengths. It should go something like "The ban length starts with one week at three warnings and then increases exponentially for every 3 warnings received (2 weeks after the 6th warning, 4 weeks after the 9th, 8 weeks after the 12th, etc.)". Also, I wonder if previously banned people should get less leeway? Maybe 3 bans = 1 week, 5 = 2 weeks, then every new warning increases the ban length. Then again, maybe not, because then it would be too tempting to find any one thing to be able to ban someone. But then again, then again, if someone's already got 5 bans, they probably aren't that great of a member anyway. I'm undecided on this one.<br />
:2. Civility and harassment are wishy-washy terms, and their wishy-washiness has lead to some questionable bans in the past. I'm not sure it's possible to define them in a way that's usable for our purposes, but perhaps we should have a few examples of what are ''not'' uncivil or harassing behavior. Asking for clarification of someone else's post is (usually) not uncivil. Going off-topic or responding to a topic which has been "settled" should also not be a ban-able offense.<br />
:3. Ettiquette breaches should, in most cases, ''not'' be a ban- or warn-able offense. Going by the letter of the law, you could get a warning for mis-indenting a page or for adding a new comment to the top. This should also probably be defined somewhere. I would love it if we didn't have to link to Wikipedia at all, since we have no control over the content there, and aren't notified if their policies change.<br />
:4. I like the separation of IPs from everyone else, because it basically makes no sense to warn IPs.<br />
:5. I think that there should be some sort of statute of limitations in effect, or otherwise some way to keep from being banned as Hooper recently was. I'd say any time an administrator issues a warning, all violations at the same time count as the same warning. This means if someone, say, posts rude comments on 5 different talk pages (though see below), they would count as 1 warning, since there's only 1 chance for the user to correct their behavior, not 5. Speaking of warnings, if the whole point of a warning system is corrective and not punitive, I think any user given a warning should, you know, actually be warned, say, on their talk page. The administrator giving out the warning should leave a message on that user's talk page stating exactly why they received a warning; this way the user has an immediate chance to clean up their act or clear up any miscommunications.<br />
:6. There should be some sort of exception to the rule for certain types of offenders. As written, we can't perma-block those stupid Russian drug company spammers.<br />
:7. The petition section is a little wordy, and is unclear if only the admin who did the banning is allowed to unblock.<br />
:8. Admin blocks: GD (and I think BD) are automatically exempt from being de-sysopped, so I wonder if they should be exempt from banning (though not warning) as well? I mean, they can take away the blocking power from anyone who can block them, so if they ever ''deserved'' to be blocked, what good would it do?<br />
:I mostly support it, but there are a couple of things I think we could change (See section below). I'll change my vote when these items are discussed more. Of my original 8 points below, I am now satisfied with 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. I'm not sure I can support a policy that allows unappealable (7) insta-blocks (5), but as those discussions are not settled I haven't changed my vote yet.<br />
:This is probably a little nit-picky, but with something as tumultuous and fickle and emotional as banning, I think it's better we have an absolute iron-clad policy now, then have to find all the exceptions later and risk appearing to play favorites. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:31, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've numbered them, and will reply to them by number here:<br />
::1. I think that sets of 3 warnings to a block is a good system. Suppose Hooper gets another warning in 6 months, and then another 8 months after that. Two warnings in the span of 14 months hardly seems worth a 2 week block. Plus, then every subsequent warning is a longer and longer block. (Sorry to use you as an example, Hooper, but you make such a good one). <br />
::2. I think we need some level of "wiggle room" in our terminology. The last thing I want is some trouble-making user leave bad comments and then say "yeah, but technically it's not listed under warnable offenses." I figure since only admins are giving out warnings, we can say "use some logic and reasonableness".<br />
::3. Honestly, I don't really like etiquette, but it was included like 4 times in the original system, so I left it in. I can't make a rational argument for or against it. It seems to me that again an admin could say "dude just miscounted colons, I'm not going to warn him for an etiquette violation." but it would catch people intentionally not signing comments that are offensive. (If anyone would be dumb enough to try that, still signed in). <br />
::5. I have no idea how to word it, but I want to suggest something like "you can't be warned on comments between warnings", which I know makes no sense. Let me clarify: When you're warned for a comment "c1", and then again for comment "c5". Any comments left between c1 and c5 (c2-4) can be censored to remove offending content, but don't count towards your warning level. I think a system about leaving comments on warned user's talk pages is also a good idea. <br />
::6. The way I see it, the warning policy applies almost exclusively to comments left on talk/user pages. Considering we don't warn link spammers, we just delete their pages and perma-ban them I see no need for this policy to concern them. We should probably make it more clear that this policy applies mainly to comments, and not spam/vandalism. <br />
::7. I'm not sure how to better word the petition section. I think that only the blocking admin should be allowed to revert the block, though. <br />
::8. If they are "above" banning (as it seems they are) they might as well be "above" warnings too. The only punishment for a warning is a block. Unless you mean you'd like to be able to censor offending posts. I guess that makes enough sense.<br />
::Right, so, these are my thoughts on the matter. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:16, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Support, if time restraint put on warnings (see comments)<br />
:::I like what you've got here. It is clear and concise. Even I can tell what I'm guilty of ''(my tendency to highlight others rudeness and ignore my own)''. My only thought is that we should consider some time of time limit. Obviously, admins can't see everything right away - especially if one user cusses another out at say midnight on a sunday. Still, there should be some clear line-in-the-sand that says unless you specifically did x (say, actually cussed out a user) you can not be officially warned if the item was not caught within the time limit. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:49, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::1. Fair enough. I actually had a thought that might solve a few of our problems at once. What if the warnings "timed out" after a certain period (probably no less than three but no more than 12 months). After the set time period you remove the last warning. Truly disruptive users will ramp up their warnings quickly, but someone who, say, occasionally posts something harsher than they intended won't be so severely penalized. You could even combine the two: it takes 3 warnings to get a block, then every warning after 3 also gets a block, but you remove a warning every 3 months. Or something along these lines.<br />
::::2. I agree with wiggle room, I just also worry that "admin discresion" could be used to liberally as well. I don't know, maybe let's keep it how it is currently then update it if there are problems.<br />
::::3. If (at least) two of us don't like the etiquette part, maybe we should think about removing it altogether from the list of warn-able offenses. I'm not even sure if anyone ever got a warning based off of etiquette before. Or again, we could leave it for now and fix it if we run into problems later. <br />
::::5. What about a simpler solution: an admin can only hand out one warning at a time to a person, no matter how many offenses the admin finds at the same time. I think this says what we want to say without getting too technical.<br />
::::6. Fair enough. Maybe we just need a line that says something to the effect of "vandals and spammers will be dealt with immediately, regardless of their current warning status"?<br />
::::7. How about this: "A user may appeal a block by petitioning the blocking admin via email. The decision to reverse a block is entirely at the discretion of the admin. If the admin does not respond after 48 hours, a blocked user may contact another admin. If this second admin can not contact the original blocking admin, they may decide to reverse the block at their discretion.<br />
::::Any user who is blocked for a period of greater than 1 month can ask for a formal appeal. The user must email all active admins their appeal, after which the admin may request additional information, or may decide as written. A user must get a 2/3's vote from all currently active admins to appeal their block. If the vote fails, they may appeal again after 6 months."<br />
::::8. It's probably a moot point, but yeah, censoring was part of it. Really, though, we don't want admins to be at each other's throats, so maybe we shouldn't delve into this too far. I wonder if we should put in a clause that uncivil language directed at an admin can not be warned by that admin. In other words, a warn must always be from a third-party. Pointing out such offenses would obviously be exempt from the "pointing out offenses is an offense" rule, because administrators don't always read conversations if they know another admin is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:06, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::1. I'm not sure how I feel about warnings going away after a period of time. I mean, it sounds reasonable enough, but the notion of having to go and check on warning expiration dates seems like one more thing to do, with no concrete advantage. I'm all for more work, if it's worth it. I'd also argue "if you are blocked for 3 warnings that span more than a year, you have a strong case for a petition to commute the block". <br />
:::::2/3. How about we keep the "admin discretion" point from comment 2, and remove etiquette from 3? I think that solution would probably do the most good, and the least expense. <br />
:::::5. We currently have a rule that says [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|a single post can't create more than one warning]]. Want to somehow explain how that would extend to all existing comments? <br />
:::::6. We can (and probably should) add that line in somewhere.<br />
:::::7. I like your suggestion for improving the petition portion. I think we should include a bit about "pestering an admin", unless you object to that notion. <br />
:::::8. So maybe we say "while Bureaucrats cannot be warned, their comments can be censored just like any other post"? I like the third party idea. The only problem with that is suppose someone insults you three times, but no other admins are online for a week (which I don't think has '''ever''' happened). You should have the authority and the ability to remove these bad comments and warn the user. <br />
:::::Lastly, to Hooper's point: I'm not sure how I feel about "Admins didn't catch the edit within X weeks, they can't be warned". While it sounds reasonable, admins have a ton of stuff to do (here, and in the real world). I know I don't read every single update (though I skim most of them). If someone is being uncivil, they should be warned no matter how long it's been. Notice we are granting amnesty to all comments before this system is set into place, though. I think that's reasonable enough. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:18, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I feel that civility should be kept as well. I feel that something along the lines of "''Warnings result in predetermined feelings. Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters. Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings. For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable.''"<br />
::::::I agree that IPs should not be included. A feature like [[Special:CheckUser]] does not exist for them.<br />
::::::Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards.<br />
::::::Warnings should go away after 6 months if the user is in good standing. The reasoning could include something along the lines of "''If a registered user remains in good standing for six months after receiving a warning the warning will be removed. If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed. Call some friends over and play some D&D&ndash; try to keep your mind off the predetermined feeling(s) which w/as(ere) received.''"<br />
::::::I am fine with bureaucrats being above the warning policy. Although this leaves a large hole open for problems, I can say with certainty [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] and I will not abuse the system.<br />
::::::I disagree with petitions to unblock. If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked. If the reasoning is solid then they should be blocked. I do not think that there should be the possibility for circumvention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:54, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Look good? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:36, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I've reverted the changes for two reasons. First, all the above comments are based on what was there (and is there again), so changing that much will change how all those comments apply. Secondly, your use of some very key phrases are confusing to me (and presumably other users). For example "If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed." is not a complete sentence, and I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. The suggestions you've brought up are, on the whole, good ones, and should be included. However, those monumental changes are not the best way to go about implementing said changes. if you could better explain your meaning, we could work out what changes need to take place. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:38, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::This is a sandbox which is a subsection of your userpage. If you want to revert the changes whatever. Keep in mind that one can always look at a older version of the page (based off the dates of the comments) for such a scenario.<br />
:::::::::I think that "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''" is a complete sentence. "''If there are [bears who fish salmon] know that [they do fish salmon].''" The adjective is lasting feelings and the verb is passed. However, I am no grammatical expert.<br />
:::::::::I mean what my comment above mentions. If you would like a better explanation please go through my comment above and let me know where your confusion arises from. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:46, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm aware that this is a subpage, and history/comment dates would make it possible to see what exactly everyone means, but it would be easier to just make a large edit once we've resolved all our concerns, and then strike through/comment out the existing discussion.<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm just going to go through your previous comment one line at a time, pointing out where I would like clarity. ''"I feel that civility should be kept as well"''. Got that, clear and concise. ''"Warnings result in predetermined feelings"''. I have no idea what that means. What are "pre-determined feelings", in this sense?''"Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters."'' This much I understand, too. Warnings are the sorts of things that are unacceptable, but not worthy of a block. ''" Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings."'' Right, not sure what this means. Do you mean "Admins can correct small things, like indentation, and not warn the contributor"? That is what I think you mean by your next sentence ''"For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable."'' ''"Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards."'' is another confusing sentence, for me. Do you mean to suggest that you should be able to issue three warnings for three successive inappropriate posts, and thereby block someone, without giving them time to adjust their behaviors? I think, and others agree, that this mentality turns a warning policy into a punishment policy. I don't think that is a good rule. The rest of your post I think I understand. I'm fine with removing the petition to unblock if warnings go away 6 months after they were issued. That seems like a solid plan, to me. <br />
<br />
::::::::::Back to that one confusing sentence: if that is how you intend for your comment to be interpreted, then it is improperly punctuated; but, that's a minor detail. However, if that is your sentence, then it is a tautology that adds nothing to the policy. "If there are feelings, then there are feelings" doesn't help to describe what these feelings are, or what ramifications these feelings have. Could you better describe what you mean by "predetermined feelings"? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:05, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::By "predetermined" I mean that when someone says something they intend a result for someone else. By "''Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings''" I mean that "You may edit" (just worded for the context).<br />
:::::::::::When I mention that edits should be the base for warnings this is because blocking can be of varying length. Why can they be of varying length? They vary in length because of severity. Making warnings work with edits makes use of severity. Also, it is not fair if someone insults someone multiple times and someone else insults someone a single time and they get the same result.<br />
:::::::::::Oh, everything I added are tautologies. They are there to explain the reasoning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:51, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::The whole point of numbering was to try and keep the different points straight, but I see that's gone down the crapper. I'm going to try to summarize, then hopefully we can stay organized from here on out.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::1 (Warning system logistics) It sounds like we are leaning towards an expiring warning system.<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with this, and I don't think it takes too much work. Really, all you have to do is check the age of the last warnings before you ban someone. If the oldest warning is less than 6 months old, then none of them have expired yet. Displaying "expired" warnings doesn't have any negative consequences, so nobody needs to rigorously patrol the page for expired warnings.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::2/3 (Etiquette and Civility) I think we are going to keep it as is for now.<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with Badger, the language suggested by Green Dragon does not make a lot of sense to me, and I'm not sure it's necessary. For one thing, "discretionable" is not a real word. I think what you are getting at is that admins have discretion to define "civility" and "etiquette". While I don't really like this (as it leaves it open to abuse -- especially with no method of appeal), I don't see a better way around it right now.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::4 (Blocking IPs) It's agreed that there's no need to block IPs.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::5 (How to count blocks) There is no consensus here.<br />
:::::::::::::Badger mentioned the "rule" that you can't be warned more than once in one comment. This should be enumerated within the rules for it to be official. Green Dragon, your scenario is fair in one way but unfair in another. Yes, your way three warnings always equals 1 block. But one user got 2 warnings to cease his behavior before he was blocked, and the other got 0. This is unfair. I'll say it again: if the point of the block policy is to ''change'' behavior, then you must go off of the number of actual ''warnings'' (i.e. how many times the user was told "don't do that or else"). If the purpose of the warning policy is to ''punish'' people, then you must go off of the number of ''offenses'' (this would even count for multiple offenses within a single post). If we are trying to build a community, I can only support a behavior-changing policy. I also, for the same reason, think there should be a statute of limitations. While admins may be busy, we really should be checking over all edits, especially in discussions that are likely to devolve into uncivil behavior. I don't think a week is too short a time frame; most weeks you can view a week's worth of edits on the recent changes log. If we ''don't'' have a statute of limitations, there's nothing stopping an unscrupulous admin from "storing" warnings and unleashing them all when he wants to get rid of a user for a while.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::6 (Exception for spammers/vandals) I think there is agreement on this point.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::7 (Petitioning) Badger and Jazzman are for, and GD is against.<br />
:::::::::::::I really see no reason against allowing an appeal. Admins are humans, and humans make mistakes. You even say yourself, "If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked." So what if the reasoning wasn't solid, but you blocked anyway? Again, if we are going for a behavior-changing policy, we need the ability to have some leeway here. <br />
<br />
::::::::::::8 (Bureaucratic Immunity) It's agreed that Bureaucrats are immune to the warning policy, but not admins. It has been suggested that a third party must intervene if an admin is involved in the uncivil behavior, but not agreed upon the details.<br />
:::::::::::::The whole point of rule of law (or rule of rule, in this case) sort of breaks down if you just take the Bureaucrats at their word... but that being said we don't really have any way around it, so I begrudgingly agree that they should just get blanket immunity. There's nothing we can do about it anyway. As for the case where only one admin is around, I think that it's rare enough that we shouldn't have to worry about it. If there is someone who is genuinely disruptive and no other admin responds in, say, 24 hours, the primary admin should be able to block. This is another reason to allow petitioning: if an admin is in an argument with a user, they could find a serious of excuses to block that user for 6 months. Without an appeal process, that user is screwed.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think this is everything. If I have misrepresented anyone or any idea please let me know. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 11:29, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I agree that the tautologies should be added elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages.<br />
:::::::::::::In accordance with number five mentioned above I would like to say that warnings are based off edits. This means that if the edit is older then six months then it (because of the time frame) would not be useable. This, then, removes the abuse of the system you mention above. Severity is also important because one does not ''learn'' through such a process. If you want to learn read [[Meta Pages]]. Editing is not learning necessarily and merging the two together is a mistake.<br />
:::::::::::::I don't disagree with appeals. I just don't feel that the medium is appropriate. If there is a problem they may wait out there time frame (if it is the last edit which is a problem) or if it is an intermediate edit, post on [[Talk:Warning Policy]] and discuss the problem. This is in accordance with wiki. We ''do not'' want D&D Wiki to function outside of wiki. This would undermine the very idea of wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:31, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:GD, I'm not sure you know what tautologies are. They are "using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity". There is absolutely ''no'' reason to intentionally include a tautology in our policies. If I understand you correctly, the statute of limitations on warnings should be 6 months, starting the day the comment was posted, rather than the day it was found. I'm not sure I like that. I'd support a month for the SoL, but have warnings expire 6 months after they are issued, not after the original comment is left. I think the goal of this policy should be learning, not punishment. We can't honestly expect every contributor to read the entirety of the Meta Pages before posting. I don't think I got around to reading them all until after I became admin (and I'm not even sure I've read them all, they are hard to find sometimes). I think "learning by doing" is the best approach to this situation, and that means we should combine editing with teaching. Finally, your last point is dead wrong. I pulled the notion of appeals directly from Wikipedia policy (making small alterations, to better suit it to our wiki). That section of their policy can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_and_discussions here]. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:53, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::As tautologies explain the same thing (just give some backing to the reasoning for clarification) they should be moved elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages, as I mentioned above.<br />
::The goal of the policy should not be learning. If we do not have varying severity people will use D&D Wiki contributors as vents. There is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have varying severity punishments. Saying that removing this is better then having this present is something which is wrong. If you kill someone and someone else crosses the street illegally a slap on the wrist for both instances is not acceptable. Most people (since they must interact with respect for various reasons) already know how to interact so the learning curve is pretty much non-existent anyway.<br />
::What is wrong with the reasoning for clarification of "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''"? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::For one thing, it isn't clear - negating its ability to clarify. Its obtuse almost. We need clear and concise language. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:21, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Feeling not feelings is a minor grammatical mistake above. If you want to improve the language, of course, go for it.<br />
::::Also, I agree that non-wiki arbitration is good to have. I created http://groups.google.com/group/dd-wiki-non-wiki-arbitration for non-wiki arbitration. Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok, where is this "severity of punishments" thing coming from? We have exactly one punishment -- banning -- and its severity is determined by the quantity, not quality, of your offenses. I simply can not, and will not, ever be in favor of a punitive system of warnings. It's not conducive to a collective-editing environment, it's harsh on new users and therefore insulating to a community that's already way to small to begin with, and it's just plain unnecessary when you consider the types of offenses we are actually dealing with here. Nobody is going to be deterred from ''offending'' by a threatening system, they will be deterred from ''editing''. If you don't agree with this then we will have to agree to disagree because you won't convince me otherwise. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:10, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Edit to add: that whole lasting feelings statement doesn't make any sense to me at all. Are you trying to say "let bygones be bygones"? If so, why do we need that in a warning policy anyway? What's the point of that arbitration thing? Is that to be used with the appeals process you think is unnecessary? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::A few points: <br />
:::::::Tautologies don't really explain things. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps you instead mean "definition" or "explanation". <br />
:::::::While the goal of most policy should not be learning, most of us feel that the goal of the warning policy should be for learning. We want to use the warning policy as a system to teach right from wrong, not just punish those who are doing wrong. If someone is persistently upsetting the community and not contributing in any way, I'm likely to just block them for a week, despite the warning policy. It is my opinion that the warning policy should be for making sure conversations stay civil, and censoring the occasional bad post from a generally good contributor. <br />
:::::::No one is suggesting that we remove institutionalized punishments that fit the crime. To continue your metaphor, there is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have an appeals system. If someone is given 20 years in prison for jaywalking, they should be able to appeal to have their sentence commuted. The idea of appeals isn't to let the guilty walk free, but rather to help the unjustly punished.<br />
:::::::I've joined that group you've created. I'm not sure if it's the best method, but I suppose it'll do for now. You should check that users are who they say they are (based on the email they use to join). In joining, I just got to choose a random username, and I could have picked "Badger" just as easily as I could have picked "Blue Dragon" or "JazzMan831".<br />
:::::::I really want to figure out what you mean by "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''". Do you mean to say ''"If you are still upset about a mean thing someone has said, know that they said it 6 months ago and they may no longer feel that way."''? If that's not what you mean, can you try to rephrase it another way, because I am totally confused. <br />
::::::Given that you've created this off-wiki method for arbitration, I suppose it's safe to assume that an appeals system is something you now like?--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:22, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I wonder if a off-site group is the right way to go for one major reason: anonymity. Yes, I am not that fond of it myself - and I may be willing to use my real name everywhere, but not everyone is. Should we force a user who doesn't wish to connect his online profile with others or his real name into signing up to a group - especially one like google where it is so easy for personal information to leak through ''(trust me, I'm a debt collector. Google and facebook are awesome for us when it comes to tracking)''? Again, personally, I'm anti-anonymity, but I understand that others seek it out. I mean, I doubt Badger wants us to know that he may be "James T. Badger from Badgerville" ''(just an example)'' or such. Maybe this is making sense, but I feel like I'm just blabering on. Basically: TL<nowiki>;</nowiki>DR = love and feel the need for a appeals process, but is off-site the right channel? Do we have the ability to program a few pages to allow even blocked users to edit, like their own talk page or a central Admin Noticeboard? <br />
:::::::Also, what do we do in cases like [[User_talk:Hooper#Spammer_Block_Oddity|this]]? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:47, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::If we were to remove severity and consider an aspect of learning as the base does this include everyone? If someone insults me multiple times will that annoy me more? If someone gets the same punishment as another user for a lesser offense will they even learn (I think this has been proven to be a learning barrier by the way)? If someone insults anyone multiple times will that annoy the admin more (more dealing with this learning base of work)? Why should everything relate to the abuser and not the abused? Why should those who "do their homework" (for lack of a better term) not be better off? Is that not part of learning? I just don't understand how removing severity and considering an aspect of learning as the base can be fair. If its not fair then we ''will'' have a problem with users considering the administration as biased and not compatible.<br />
::::::::Yes, "''bygones be bygones''". Don't worry about all that&ndash; it will be used in the help pages.<br />
::::::::I attempted to infer that yes, I do agree with an arbitration method. For the arbitration to have an effect (in its current state), yes, one must verify the user (email for a message or something). If we do not want to deal with this level of anonymity then does anyone know of a fitting extension for the above suggestions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:02, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, so one thing to point out, we're all in favor of keeping the scaling block lengths. If someone repetitively insults users, they will ''not'' have a good case for arbitration. Arbitration, and commuted block lengths, will only occur when something has legitimately gone wrong. Apparently a patch to the MediaWiki software continues to prevent a blocked user from editing a wiki, but allows users to still edit their talk page. I'm not sure if we have that capability, but if we do, that'd be the best way to go about this. Users could post on their talk page, and admins could leave their opinions. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:17, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The problem with a correlation there is that in some cases multiple things have legitimately gone wrong with only one result. Which extension [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki.org] were you referring to above? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:08, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand where your problem is. Can you give a hypothetical situation where your problem would arise? That would be immensely helpful. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgBlockAllowsUTEdit This] extension (not actually an extension, but existing code) allows blocked users to edit their talk page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:34, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::For example if I edit a page and do not treat another use with civility I have completed an edit. This edit would (in your method) go into a pool until the user gets warned. The pool could have thousands of edits which are not done with civility. The admin would only see the pool and remove the pool as a single occurrence with a single warning relating to the commuted block length. I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The commuted block length should be based of occurrences so this pool problem does not exist.<br />
::::::::::::That extension is an option. I am not a fan of it. When a user is ''blocked'' they are ''blocked''. They did something wrong, so why should they be given lieniency? I would rather do something which does not relate to wiki D&D Wiki (or a mailing list from the email user preferences). Is there an extension for such a thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Well, here's the thing. The "pool" would only exist if admins aren't vigilant in their duties. The idea is that admins should stay on top of these things. Secondly, think about this: Suppose you are a user who is leaving comments. You don't think there is anything wrong with your comments. Suddenly an admin comes online and warns you three times in two minutes. Suddenly you're blocked, and you had no idea you were doing anything wrong. Does that seem fair? <br />
:::::::::::::I'm not sure moving things off-wiki is necessarily the best decision. We've always been adamant that we should keep everything on-site, and I don't get why this would be any different. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Actually, I forgot about that extension. I think it's a good idea -- but only if it's also possible to additionally block a user from using their talk page. Everyone has the right to appeal, but not to spam the recent changes out of spite.<br />
<br />
:As for "abuser" vs. "abused", since we have agreed on a system where only an admin can hand out warnings, and pointing out offenses of others can itself be warn-able, then obviously this is biased towards the "abuser" method. And really we have good reason. If, for example, user A is in an argument with user B, he shouldn't be given the option to pick three different times in the past where he felt "abused" by user B in order to get him blocked for a week. Additionally, admins should not have to be put in a position where they have to say "well actually I don't feel that you are actually being abused, even though that's how you feel". [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:46, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How does the fairness of block lengths make its way into this system?<br />
::The fairness of block lengths is present if the duty relies solely on the ''timing'' of admins. Why should everything be about the timing? Do the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles|improving, reviewing, and removing article]] templates make it so the timing can be used to the fullest? Why should we change the warning system to be worse then such a method?<br />
::The above example does seem fair to me. If I could not control my words I need to learn and a system which explains to me which words were appropriate, treats me the same as other people, and treats the person I was rude to the same as everyone else who was mistreated works best.<br />
::I am against something here being onsite since IP's are only posting spam on their talk pages and being blocked means one is blocked.<br />
::I don't agree with admins being the only one's able to ''deal'' with warnings. See also [[Warning Policy#Warnings Issued]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:50, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't think it's fair to punish someone because, as an admin, I'm slacking on my job. If you make three potentially offensive edits in the span of twenty minutes, you should be given a fair chance to change your behavior. Suppose someone swears in a comment. They don't swear at anyone, they just say something like "Fighters should have the best damn BAB possible". They may not know that comments like that are a violation of policy (Hell, I'm not even sure if they are against policy). Do you think it's fair to ban someone because they leave three comments like that? On my [[Talk:Hooker_(3.5e_Class)|Hooker talk page]], I, an active user, ask what our policy on swearing is. You can't expect a new user to know if users (and admins) as active as Jazzman and I are don't know. Expecting every contributor to spend thirty minutes reading policy before posting is idealistic and naive. Any policy that could block someone for comments like that is completely asinine, and I can't support it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:12, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Should we just do as Wikipedia does? We are basically only talking about a "level of harassment" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility]) which is a block (the word ''may'' not ''can''). What I am mentioning above is more kind then what Wikipedia uses and making it kinder again is a mistake. Wikipedia knows how to handle users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:15, 15 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::GD: which of my 8 points above do you agree with (be explicit, as in, using the actual numbers). Since we are all almost in agreement about those things, can we add them to the real policy page? It'd be nice to have some defined rules around here. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:59, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea of integrity. It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system. Warnings should be applicable until a warning is given then the expiration of the warning can begin to happen. If this does not happen then we lose integrity. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:20, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::First of all, why did you move this? The running vote, and, most importantly, the thing we are discussing in the first place are not on this page. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean. Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? You do disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? Since the current vote is unanimous on several portions of the proposed policy, can we make any of it official? I will respond to your point after I get the answer to these questions, so as not to get distracted. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:37, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::The votes were placed where they should be. The same is for this discussion (what it is discussing should be its main page). Voting is not done. See also [[Meta Pages#Policies]] ''"As [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Supermajority Supermajority] (and many others) failed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] is only used under the rules of D&D, under editing, and in other special instances."'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:52, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::When is voting done, then? And I'm glad you brought up that line; I hadn't noticed it before in Meta Pages. I also am not sure what it's supposed to mean (there's a critical comma or something missing in there). Also, I ask again, as these important questions have yet to be answered: Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? Do you disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? And since voting is apparently not finished (though no one's added a vote in months now) I'll add another: when is voting finished, and what is the procedure for changing this policy? (Do we even *have* a procedure?) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:27, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::As per the above ''"It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system.''" I think I have mentioned what I agree and disagree with above multiple times to refine this... The quote here is my problem with it. And, consensus is done&ndash; voting is not done (special means things like aesthetics, etc). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:41, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Hey guys, sorry I've been missing these past few weeks, I've been swamped with stuff. What have I missed? It seems like we're talking about implementing my new version of the warning policy. Sweet! Let's see, where are we... Right, well, it appears that we're going to use consensus (my favorite thing) to talk about implementation. Judging by what I've read the only thing standing between us and consensus is the notion of a statute of limitations on warnings. Is that right? Awesome! From what I can tell, there are two sides here. Some of us feel that warning people multiple times before given the chance to change their ways is wrong. Others feel if we don't warn people for every offense, we lose integrity in the system. Let me be the first to state that I am in the former camp. Official pardons, states of limitations, and other "secondary laws" have been in effect in America since our inception. I don't think that it can be fairly argued that the American legal system lacks "integrity" because of this. Would someone like to give an example where the integrity of D&D-Wiki would be put in danger because of the proposed policy changes? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:50, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::If you replied to it without giving a warning, it should ''not'' be given a warning later. If it's acceptable to you then, you shouldn't get to change your mind. I can understand if you just now entered the discussion--and even then, the warning should be one along with a statement to straighten up. That discussion went for many, many pages before Green Dragon decided Wrecan wasn't kosher. What made him change his mind? That Wrecan's tone had gotten snippy? Then that should be a warning for when Wrecan's tone and behavior became unacceptable and that post only, not for what was said two weeks ago and replied to a dozen times. Furthermore, multiple warnings in one swoop aren't good. They aren't good ''at all''. I can't imagine the acrobatics required to decide it's acceptable exercise of power, to discuss something ''for weeks'' and then block the other side of the discussion for posts weeks old. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.215|173.245.56.215]] 13:33, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I can't agree with the IP more. What happened to Wrecan should never have happened -- either he should have been blocked days before, or he should not have been blocked at all. To respond to something ''multiple times'' is to give consent to it. You can not then go back and block. It makes the blocker look bad, and it makes the site look bad, end of story. It also doesn't help when YOU POINT OUT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO WARN SOMEONE LATER and then not do it! It just makes you look like a tyrant (and GD, I'm not calling you a tyrant; I'm pointing out that someone new to this site who saw something like that would likely consider the behavior tyrannical). <br />
:::::::::::::Note, also, that GD has decided it's ok to tell users they have done something warn-worthy ''without actually warning them''. [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warning_Policy&diff=prev&oldid=542429].<br />
:::::::::::::Lastly: when will voting be done? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:37, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:The American Legal System is not in the same situation. When a judge makes a decision he makes the decision. There are no court cases that people don't listen to and then ''later'' the judge listens to them.<br />
:Some comments are not necessarily acceptable to anyone anytime. Policy relating to acceptable behavior comes from the Wikipedia pages. No one is changing their mind&ndash; they are just later having the time to deal with the situation.<br />
:I warned [[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] before the time when he received multiple blocks. The time I have to issue warnings (it does take time&ndash; reading everything so critically while constantly referencing Wikipedia and then the formatting that is related, etc) is when I will issue them. Mentioning comments as being warning-worthy is because I have not had the time the process (mentioned above) requires yet. Is this what is being mentioned above? Seems like it is the same thing. Is it antagonizing? I think it may be a fine line.<br />
:Voting is not done. See above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:30, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Ok, GD, let me just say "No". Your reason for delaying a warning isn't acceptable. At all. If you have the time to reply to comments, you have the time to warn someone. End of Discussion. You gave 8 warnings in a single edit. If anything, it should have been a single warning. What you have done is wholly unacceptable. None other administrator would have done what you did. That should have been a clue that something wasn't quite right. <br />
::Jazzman, as a point of order, what do you mean by "When will voting be done"?<br />
::*Under what circumstances should we vote on something?<br />
::*When will discussion come to a close on this issue?<br />
::I feel like that might change the discussion. Are you using the word "voting" to mean "discussion and debate" instead of actual "voting"? <br />
::Finally, I think you've misunderstood my metaphor about the American legal system. Rather than try to explain it to you, I'm just going to ask that you ignore it.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 9 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Let me verify this please&ndash; you're telling me how to spend my time? You understand how my time is organized then?<br />
:::Since this is consensus the point I will make follows. Read the policy. If you don't know what you're doing read the policy. If you don't know how to interact with other humans, read the policy (it may help you). We are not going to organize time in any manner&ndash; that's not right. We'll assume people who care will care and if you do not care then you will suffer the consequences. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:18, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::The point of this discussion is none of us like the policy, and we'd like to change it. I would suggest that if maybe you don't know how to interact with other humans, you should let others write policy. It may help the the website, in the long run. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:13, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Luckily that's a theoretical comment above and then later not direct. I agree that if you don't know how to interact with humans you should let others write policy.<br />
:::::I am talking about a successful model used throughout the world. Again, if you don't know how to interact (making a new model for example that is an experiment (perform the experiment elsewhere okay)) how about you let others write the policy.<br />
:::::The clarification of my above comment is that I am talking about people who receive warnings. If you get a warning you have a problem interacting with humans (do you just go up to someone and belittle them?). I am saying that if they do not read the policy and or understand it then they should learn through the process anyway. Does this simple comment finally make sense? I can't understand how this is not understandable to others. You go to school. You learn. If you don't do your homework you get a bad grade. It's the same thing. The level of used throughout the world is large, so why oh why are the comments I am getting back just not getting this?<br />
:::::Have you ever ruined a class by making the curriculum based off your understanding? The structure of classes is not like this. You sign up for a class. You learn the material that is presented on the syllabus the first day. It doesn't matter if you get it or not&ndash; your grade reflects that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:27, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::We all agree that if you are belittled you should be warned. That isn't the issue being debated here. What we're saying is that 8 warnings at once is an issue. Teachers don't give you a test, and then later count it as eight tests. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:10, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Obviously. They do, however, mark you down for eight questions when you missed eight questions. Giving a Pass/Fail on understanding the test is ''not'' what they do. Any questions this time around? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:35, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::GD, do you agree that the Warning policy should be designed to get users to change their ways by showing them what is not ok, and giving them a chance to change? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:36, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Partly. Learning fairly by repercussions and through reading. I don't agree with unfair learning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:24, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::And tell me, did you give Wrecan time to change his ways between the 2nd and 3rd edits? Or the 3rd and 4th? If the point was to get him to change is ways, shouldn't you have given him a chance to change before banning him for 6 weeks? After reading the conversation, I know I wouldn't have warned him for what he said. Those warnings would have come as a shock to me, and I'm an admin. Don't you think that a single warning would have been more acceptable? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:18, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Did Wrecan read the policy? There is more then one person involved in any discussion. By this I mean that others are also reading it and also care about how a person says things. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:34, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::You did not answer the question. If you were offended, were you offended the first time you read it? Were you offended the second time you read it? Were you offended the third time you read it? Notwithstanding that I still don't believe his comments were inappropriate, how is it that you were ok with them the first ''seven'' times you read them, and then all the sudden you realized they were offensive?<br />
<br />
::::::::::::To use your test metaphor, this is like giving someone 100% on 7 one-question pop quizzes, and then when they get the answer wrong on the 8th, retroactively changing his grade on the other 7. It's one thing if you honestly never saw those posts, say, if the discussion were taking place elsewhere and you were not an active participant. I still don't believe these should be back-warned, but I'll let it slide if it's the deciding factor. But this was not the case here. You were involved in the conversation and by replying &mdash; multiple times, mind you &mdash; you gave the impression, whether intentionally or unintentionally, that what Wrecan was saying was ok by policy. Let's face it, the policy is, at worst, vague and confusing or, at best, open to wide interpretation. As administrators, I believe it is our duty (again, not really defined anywhere) to help other users understand the rules of the site. As such, they should be able to look up to us to know how to act. If I reply to someone's comments with anything other than "you are hereby warned about X", they can be confident that I am satisfied with their manner of posting. I just don't think the same thing applies when GD replies to someone's post, and I believe that makes for a difficult work environment.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::To answer your question from a while ago, Badger, what I was trying to ferret out (heh, rodent pun) was this: if voting is "not yet finished" according to GD, what is the criteria for it being finished? Do we need to wait a certain amount of time? Do we need a certain amount of votes? Do we need to wait until GD votes? Do we need to wait until there is a majority against (we already have a majority for? I don't know the criteria, is all. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:12, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I was offended the entire time that this user was telling me such things. I just didn't have the time (or initiative) to warn Wrecan (just like I didn't have the time (or initiative) to fix the indentation here until now).<br />
:::::::::::::It's actually like being able to read the book on an open-book test and then getting the answer wrong. When it gets graded, you already know the outcome (or you will learn through it).<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with "''As administrators, I believe it is our duty (again, not really defined anywhere) to help other users understand the rules of the site.''" Users learn through repercussions, unless they are unfair (this will be conductive to optimization).<br />
:::::::::::::Voting is not done. Consensus is done. The relevant Wikipedia pages, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Supermajority Wikipedia:Supermajority] may interest you. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:40, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Green Dragon, stop saying "Voting is not done". We all know that. We get it, we're using consensus. Stop linking to their pages. We know the links. We've read the pages. <br />
:If you were offended the entire time, why didn't you say something? After reading your comments, I don't recall you saying in one of your comments something to the effect of "Wrecan, what you are posting is considered a warnable offense. If you don't stop, I will be forced to warn you". Don't say "He should have read the policy and known". Yes, he should have known, but you still could have told him. It would have been the nice thing to do. <br />
:Users don't have to learn through repercussions. Our users are smarter than dogs. They can learn what is right without being punished for doing wrong. <br />
:I have no idea what "unless they are unfair (this will be conductive to optimization)." means. What do you think it means? I think being banned for 6 weeks because all your mistakes get caught at once counts as unfair. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:57, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::{{Warning/Text}} {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 07:44, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWarning_Policy&action=historysubmit&diff=542875&oldid=542874|brokenpolicy=direct rudeness: belittling|warningnumber=1|warningbannumber=2|issuedate=Issued on 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::Please stop asking when voting will be done.<br />
:::I am offended reading this discussion. I feel that people are just testing admin positions through this discussion and wasting time because they maybe 1) do not know what to say and 2) do not know how to approach the situation.<br />
:::''"Users don't have to learn through repercussions. Our users are smarter than dogs. They can learn what is right without being punished for doing wrong."''. &mdash; Have you ever trained a dog? If they do five bad things in a day and you don't give them lunch for 5 days they will have no idea what's going on. The system that I am not proposing is treating users like dogs. Like the model throughout the ENTIRE WORLD I am talking about people are not treated like dogs.<br />
:::People will optimize systems. They will be rude and then "oops! No idea sorry!!" although they really knew and they just wanted to be jerks.<br />
:::Since this discussion has now turned circular, it is over. No one has had anything constructive to say except for undermining what they are proposing (through the dog example). Since this is the case consensus is done, and so is this discussion. The policy will be changed soon. If there are any problems with it please bring it up in a truly analytical manner. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::You are basing your policy under the assumption that users are going to game the system. Isn't one of they key policies of Wikipedia "Assume good faith"? <br />
::::You unilaterally declaring a discussion "over" isn't constructive in the least. If you feel you've reached consensus, you do not have a solid grasp of the definition of consensus. <br />
::::How would you like me to analytically bring up my objections to the policy as it stands? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:31, 13 December 2011 (MST)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Warning_Policy&diff=542835Help talk:Warning Policy2011-12-13T02:57:44Z<p>Badger: /* Policy Changes */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Missing Warnings? ==<br />
<br />
Where are the first warnings for TK-Squared, Jota, and S1Q3T3? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 17:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:In this time I did not reference the areas so I forgot some. They have them however where are they?<br />
:I know [[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] had three warnings however he/she was first banned for only one warning (the policy was still young) and then he acquired at least up to three warnings and was not banned to compensate (see his talk - history if needed). I at least remember it was with someone (maybe [[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] however I don't rememberer exactly. Do you know?<br />
:I put (2:1) on [[User:Jota|Jota's]] last warning and I do not think I was wrong. Do you know where the other is? Is there another?<br />
:[[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] was banned for a (3:1) however were are they all? I also don't remember.<br />
:If you know any of the areas I am talking about supplying a link would be appreciated.<br />
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where warnings have been given and are not referenced here supplying a link would be appreciated.<br />
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where people deserve warnings and were not given them supplying a link would be appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Although it is a moot point, I can see the advantage of making sure we try to accurately back-log and keep track for all future purposes. I [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Yo5&defl=en&q=define:hope&ei=-Yt5S8XIO47cnAfKr5GyCQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE doubt] the user who did it will ever be back, but [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Bagby&diff=prev&oldid=395263 this edit] seems to me to be a warning-level offense. Maybe I'm wrong, but here it is for an admin to decide.<br />
::Additionally, I was wondering if we are going to have an enforced warning system that is in effect for Edit Wars? I know that even I have been a part of many, and it is something we should avoid. Just curious. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::As seen in [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:White_Wolf&curid=72522&diff=457366&oldid=457360 this diff], [[User:Jota]] tried to sneak bits of another user's ''(myself)'' previous comments, trying to disguise the removal as part of a different edit. Even more poignant, the main section removed was where I quoted Jota from a previous location where he admitted enjoying arguing on this wiki (arguably an act of trolling). Though the edits leading up to it can be deemed a Edit War of which I am equally to blame ''(though correct in my reasoning)'', Jota's edit went against all forms of wiki civility and protocol.<br />
:::This is not the first time Jota has done such. He has even removed or discounted other user's or IP's ratings of his own content when it wasn't to his liking. Being so brunt with other user's talk page postings should be forbidden. At most, altering extremely foul language or helping fix link/formatting should be the only allowable reason to do such a thing ''(barring of course obvious spam/vandalism)''. For this reason, I believe a warning is necessary. I leave it to the admin to decide. I understand if I also receive one for the edit war that took place, though in that case Jota should receive two. <br />
:::Jota did respond on that page that he removed the content to save me from ''"..direct rudeness, name calling, and belittle comments.."'' however the main portion of content removed was a quote from Jota, not myself. So that is invalid. The small other portion was not name calling nor do I perceive it as rude - those in managerial positions see things differently than those who are not, irl. Hence the classic phrase ''"can't see the forest because of all the trees"'' and all of it's variants. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::So arguing is trolling now? Lolwut? My actions were in keeping with your (Hooper) past actions, as noted on the Biomancer's talk page. If what I did was an offense against Wiki civility, so was what Hooper did. I just see him not getting warned for his actions, so I assume their okay under this wiki's policy, even though I find them questionable in nature. Furthermore, yes I remove ratings from content, not just IP ratings and not just my own material. If the rating is "lulz, overpowered" that does nothing for no one and is better off removed. "Obvious" spam is subjective, and should be left to an admin or bureaucrat, of which Hooper is neither. Personally, I would subscribe to FIFA's approach to warnings. Asking for someone else to be warned is a warn-worthy offense. Admins know the rules. Telling an admin someone needs to be warned is only an attempt to unjustly sway their opinion, and as such should merit a warning. Given [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law ex post facto law], Hooper's previous offense could be ignored, but its just a suggestion. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Irrelevant. As anyone can see on the policy pages in the help portal, most notable the Behavior Page, and from GD's actions and own statements, we no longer tolerate solicitation or links to competing sites. As noted in the diffs on biomancer, Eiji was soliciting and I removed it '''per policy'''. Stop straw manning. <br />
:::::Green Dragon is attempting to be notified because he is the only majorly active admin currently and has way too much to go through, hence it is easy for him to not see all that goes on, sadly. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Obvious is subjective, and therefore not your call to make. You want the power, nominate yourself for adminship. You're just creating more clutter by bringing subjective arguments to the table. Besides, it's not like this wiki is so active one cannot see an entire day's worth of activity on the recent changes page. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::Everything I need to do here on the wiki doesn't require adminship, nor do I want it. I thought I needed it long ago to help speed up editing but still don't need it today. Some of us have power in real life and realize that adminship is just responsibility, not power.<br />
:::::::Besides, I'd be too bad of an admin. I'd just permaban all the transientwiki people who think that continuing to cause circular talks and bog down progress on the site is fun. I'd also permaban anyone making content with the word Naruto in it. So, subjective or not, it's obvious I don't need adminship. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Official Policy ==<br />
<br />
So I have a few quick questions concerning actual policy. <br />
*If an Admin gets 3 warnings (and thusly banned for a week), should they be RfA'd to (potentially) remove adminship? It seems reasonable to have some sort of policy in place to that effect. Naturally, we'd all like to think admins are calm, level-headed contributors all the time, but everyone gets upset and says (or does) something stupid every so often. <br />
*Are all warnings the same? Can a single action provoke 2 <s>attacks of opportunity</s> warnings? <br />
*Is there a statute of limitations on warnings? We have a message up there asking for any missed warnings. Should we really be going back 4 and 5 months to find warn-able offenses? Some of those offenses took place before the warning policy existed. <br />
*Are we warning for every violation of civility according to that list? Forgetting to sign your post, and not answering questions both are on that list. Neither seem worth a warning.<br />
*My last question is a very specific one. Green Dragon, as we all ''now'' know, cannot be removed from adminship. Can he still be warned? If he is warned 3 times can he be banned?<br />
Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:First off I just recently saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption] and civility is actually present. As such, do we need this now maybe extraneous policy? I don't know. If so I would prefer we rollback or censor the problem text/post. Thoughts?<br />
:Should an admin be RfA'ed. Good question. I think so as it means one has not been upholding the values of an admin.<br />
:Warnings have been given based off each post, not an "action". Within the post, although their may be multiple violations, I have been counting it as one post to one warning.<br />
:There should not be a statue of limitations on warnings. The problem text is still present and as such something needs to be done regarding it.<br />
:Maybe you are referring to how the "etiquette" portion may not be relevant. That could be case. Should this be changed to just civility? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Hmm. I don't know. Should this page be a subpage of [[Help:Behavioral_Policy]]? &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I think Wikipedia's policy (as you linked above) is a good one. However, I think that policy almost requires us to keep the warning policy. If, for example, you decide to ban me for "Persistent Gross Incivility", I'd demand a few examples of that. The warning policy, as we have it, keeps a running log of all infractions to present if the banned individual should they ask for evidence. Whether or not we decide to stick with the "3 warns equals 1 week ban" policy is a different question. I think the policy is a solid one (once we more clearly define infractions and consequences). I personally am opposed to "perma-bans" (with the exception of users solely dedicated to causing problems, as defined by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption disruptions only]); I don't know how you feel on the subject, however. To address Hooper's question, I think the final decisions should for sure be a sub-page of Behavioral policy, I don't know that this discussion has made any concrete decisions yet though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Vagueishness ==<br />
<br />
The criteria for warning seem somewhat vague, and, since they link to an offsite page over which we have no control, are subject to unwarned change. If I read this literally, I could be giving out warnings for people who don't sign their posts, which doesn't really seem necessary, or for abusing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule WP:3RR], which isn't clearly a policy on this site. It's probably time that we broke from WikiP and just created our own pages on civility and etiquette. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This could make sense. Want to give it a go and we can see where we are from there? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:29, 4 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I could do it (though I don't have a lot of time right now), but since you do all of the warning, I would think you have a better idea of what's warnable and what's not. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:12, 9 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Hooper ==<br />
<br />
He got two warnings at the same time. It's not really a "warning" if he doesn't have a chance to learn from it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:16, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Interestingly, one of those messages was followed by three or four other comments before it was warned. To an outside observer, it might appear as though someone was just looking for a reason to block him for a week and warned him for something that didn't really warrant a warning. I know we've decided that warnable offenses don't have a statute of limitations, but that's a tad silly, IMO. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:21, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree that the first one was weak at best; stating that one can't follow another's statements is certainly not a personal attack if it's true, and doesn't really justify a warning. Even if Hooper had said something invoking the hygiene of another's mother, however, he still should have a chance to learn from his mistake before being warned a second time. Otherwise it's not a warning policy, it's a punishment policy. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:36, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::The learning curve is non-existent. If you don't know how to edit, look into D&D Wiki's policies. If that confuses you don't chime into discussions which are so variable. Also, it's that we are intended to warn backwards in time to be fair. Did it happen? Yes. Done. Is there any other way? Not unless you want to disregard wikis (when you edit you edit) entirely for certain users for who knows what reason. There may be more warning problems. I am so tired of pointless discussions I have stopped reading them. If I see more warning problems sometime when I may read them for whatever reason, yes, I will give more warnings. It's the fair way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:50, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::So answer me this, if someone says three different insults in the same single post, do you count it as one warning or three? If you aren't going to stay on top of the ball, but still want to keep away any statute of limitations, the only "fair" way to do it is to count every one you find at the same time as the same warning. It's all arbitrary, anyway, as I stated above (no work has been done on trying to clarify what is actually warnable), but if we are going to block a good user, it'd be nice to know we have good reason. Also, it's be nice to not be paranoid that I can all-the-sudden be banned for extended periods of time because of something I wrote that I didn't know was offensive, that all got caught all at once. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:29, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Each time one edits. You can say whatever in one editing time, however multiple times are multiple times. I agree about it being nice, however it would also be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]] (for example). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ok, see, that's not a very good argument, GD. Sure, it'd be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]], but it'd be really hard and time consuming to do that. It'd be very easy to do what Jazzman described. For example, I'm sure there are several things on this wiki that I've written that could potentially be considered warnable, but I've never been warned. Would it be fair to quickly find 3 things, and then ban me for a week, without giving me time to change my ways? No. A single warning would say "this sort of thing is unacceptable, cut it out", and I probably would. That'd be nice, reasonable, fair, and everyone would enjoy it more. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:18, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::After a unjustified ban, I can attest that the policy should be defined. Additionally, if we're following in Wikipedia's footsteps properly, then we should establish proper ban-reversal procedure. For example, if two admins oppose a third admin's block, the block should be reversed (wikipedia has a similar policy, and if it was already in effect here - then this recent unwarranted block wouldn't of happened). Plus, blocks are meant to prevent or pause problematic editors, not editors who are actively contributing, fighting spam, and working collaboratively.<br />
:::::::There should also be a time limit put into effect where admins can not back-warning. This was made obvious recently, as it can lead to abuse. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:27, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I do know Green Dragon gave Surgo and TK-Squared multiple warnings in February of 2010, for language/rudeness violations committed in March/May of 2009. And considering Surgo stopped posting in September of 2009...well, I can't see what good Green Dragon thought he was doing. Seeing as how he was warning for someone for offenses almost a year old, and ''five months'' after the user in question ceased activies on the wiki. <br />
<br />
== Admin Violations ==<br />
<br />
The current warning policy does not state that admins are "above the policy" and actually showcases many former admins who have received warnings. However, it also states that only admins may give out warnings. Though I may be just "asking for it," I am intending to request a second administrator's look at recent comments by Green Dragon to see if they are deemed necessary of a warning or warnings. <br />
On the discussing recently held on the Main Page's discussion page, GD said ''"If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out."'', ''"If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this."'', and my personal favorite ''"...Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a [[Warning Policy]]). They must fix the problem or get banned."'' All three of these comments come across as either directly rude or belittling to the people they're referring to, and the last one actually directly interferes with our existing [[Warning Policy]] and implies that I was banned for allegedly-uncivil actions off-site.<br />
Now, however, the most directly uncivil reply was recently posted to the GNU's talk page. Here, GD amazingly flat out states that he will not follow consensus or collaborative discussion (even though he recently added Consensus to the Meta pages) when he declares that ''"...I could care less who thinks what about what. I will do as it is done. I'll listen to reasonableness. I don't care if it comes from God or a bacteria."''. Could other admins please discuss this, and could Green Dragon please reply and let me know if I have misread his intent or tone, especially with the last quote. I also wish to reiterate that I'm not trying to directly attack, its just that at the time these statements were made I was unable to reply - and after reviewing the numerous moves and reformatting of the licensing discussion, am trying to host a civil discussion on a serious issue on the most appropriate page. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ah, and you've spotted a flaw in the system. As I pointed out [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|just above here]], GD is seemingly "above the law". In fact, historically, blocking GD has been grounds for a block in it's own right. In addressing my questions about the finer points of warning policy, GD seemed to gloss over the objection I raised on that front. <br />
:Personally, as an admin, I refuse to "warn" anyone (IP, registered user, administrator, or owner) until a complete and fair guide has been written and is visible to all contributors. As Jazzman mentioned, if we don't have clearly defined rules the "warning policy" becomes more of a "punishment policy". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:03, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes, I can attest to having no warning at all when I was hit with multiple at once, and still have no clear clue what I said that was wrong. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:12, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've started working on a new, more clear, warning policy. It can be seen [[User:Badger/sandbox13|here]]. Feel free to join the discussion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:55, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yes, there are answers to things for the above (looking into it more, reading the block reason, etc). Yes, the world also turns. Is "''the world also turns''" condescending? Nah. Are you going to make accusations as such? When I get the time I will issue warnings appropriately for the above comment (e.g. accusations) if appropriate. Was that condescending too? Nah. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:55, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Umm, okay? Going past the you-blocked-me thing ''(whatever, we can both agree we want the best for the future of the site. right?)'', I'm more interested in your discussion on Badger's rough draft of a warning policy overhaul. Especially on how it may affect admins and bureaucrats. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:59, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Warnings Issued on 4e Campaign Settings Caliphate Supplement ==<br />
<br />
:''Discussion moved from [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caliphate_%28Patronage_Supplement%29&oldid=542259 Talk:Caliphate (Patronage Supplement)#Titles].'' <small>--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
Ok point of order here, I'm not going to bother reading this whole discussion because it's long and half of it is hidden in warning text (and ultimately I know what the outcome will be anyway), but some of those "warning texts" are not appropriate. You can't just warn people for saying something you don't like. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:58, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Right. They are related to specific Wikipedia pages. Where are you coming from exactly? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I don't know where you are coming from with that one. To be more specific, the following statements are all statements you removed from Wrecan's posts, and warned him about. All of them are, in my opinion, not warnable offenses:<br />
::# Why are you imposing this policy on my campaign setting? What gives you the right to do this, and to prevent me from restoring what I had originally written?<br />
::# It's not tied to any language in the Wiki policy you cited and<br />
::# What admins should not do is invent an unwritten policy and impose them on others without going through the process of adoption. <br />
::# Your interpretation of the policy is not supported by the language of the policy. If you want this website to consider personal attacks to include any use of epithets considered offensive by "organizations and people... on a large scale" then go through the process of amending this wiki's policies.<br />
::# There is no violation for giving a fictional character a title of "Caliph", just as there would be no violation for giving a fictional character the title of "Pope" or "Chief Rabbi" of "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire"... even if millions of people would be offended by the act. The only behavior banned (of relevance here) is applying a religious term to describe a contributor. That's the Wikipedia (and this site's) policy. If you want this site to have a different policy, you need to go through the process of amended this site's policy.<br />
::# Did you really think I wouldn't fact-check you, GD?<br />
::# When you edited the Patronage pages, you weren't acting as administrator; you were acting as a contributor. Administrators don't make substantive contributions to wiki pages in their capacity as administrators<br />
<br />
::In addition, you edited some of his text for reasons other than warnings, which is explicitly against our editing policy. In addition, as mentioned before (in a discussion I think you moved to this page), it's simply not fair (and makes your behavior look to outsiders who don't know the situation &mdash;at best&mdash; lazy or &mdash;at worst&mdash; malevolent, ''especially'' when the content you are warning/removing refers to your improper warning/removing of text!) to respond to something multiple times before you hand out a warning for it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:31, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::None of that is improper. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 relate to lying. 3 and 6 are rude to [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:04, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::The correct grammar is "None of those are improper, and I feel silly for having censored them." --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.104|173.245.48.104]] 20:32, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not necessarily. I meant that none of the reasons for giving them are improper. You'll see what I mean if you check the reasons. The context is about the warning, ergo the warning is being discussed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:23, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::There's no point in arguing, seeing as how you won't ever change your mind. But it's on record that I disagree and that I think it makes you look very improper. In the future, I would be happy to mediate any dispute between you and another user. There's a Wikipedia policy for that somewhere (and actually I think I've done that once before on WP). Also, I'm reinstating the historical link to the page from which you moved this text, because my comments apply to a historical revision of that page, not the page as it stands now, or whenever in the future some user happens to view it. If that talk page gets archived, the link will no longer work and my comments here will lack context (which is why I commented there, and not here, in the first place). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:21, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::If you are pointing something out then please add the link to your comments. If its a diff archiving will not do anything... Um... You can read the policy to understand the warnings. If someone is saying something is done a wrong way then they are lying. It's pretty straightforward. Also, you earned yourself some warnings above! "Won't ever change your mind" is belittling. I'll warn you sometime. The dispute resolution is not needed here. Everything is straightforward. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:35, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::If it's a warning please warn me right now. Otherwise I'm not going to count it. (And you know what else is belittling? Telling someone they earned some warnings and then threatening to warn them later). Saying something is done a wrong way is only lying if Wrecan knows it was, in fact, done correctly: it's only lying if he's ''intending'' to ''mislead'' you. If Wrecan actually believes that you are not following policy even though you are, that is not lying. It's pretty straightforward. Point number 2, by the way, can not, by definition be lying: you can not lie by asking someone a question! "How was your day?" "LIAR!!!"<br />
<br />
:::::::As for the link: I don't need to refer back to what I am talking about on the other page, because when I said what I said, ''I said it on the other page''. Can you please explain to me what your problem is with adding a more accurate link? If it's a diff archiving will not do anything... which is why I added the diff! We don't want anything to affect where this link points to. If you keep the link how you have it, and then later that talk page is archived, this link will be broken. My link will be correct no matter what you do to the other page (so long as you don't delete it)<br />
<br />
::::::::1 is a little interesting. I guess I could remove it. I would like some input on the thinking behind it before any action though. I considered that these circular discussions are pointless and waste people's time. The problem with them is that they need to get resolved (as far as I can tell). One cannot have administrative-related discussions left open since that will imply that users are ''okay'' to not engage in consensus and that they can just "slam the door on other users" while disregarding them.<br />
::::::::It would be fully true that warnings need to be in the time frame of the post if our comments here served the only purpose of taking actions. They, however, do not. Many times I post things without taking any action afterwards (such as after this post) and others do not take actions from my post.<br />
::::::::Additionally if I had more time I could do all the things I want to do. If I had more time I would improve areas of D&D Wiki. I don't have the time right now. So, my lack of time is not a problem. I find that a lack of time leading to problems is not constructive. Therefore, warnings are based off the ''text''. Therefore, it is not belittling. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Policy Changes ==<br />
<br />
:''See also [[User:Badger/sandbox13]]''<br />
:''Discussion moved from [[User talk:Badger/sandbox13#Warning Policy]].'' <small>--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:44, 5 December 2011 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
Obviously, I wrote all this so I rather like it. However, is there anything that should be added? Anything that should be clarified? Anything that should be removed? Thoughts? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:51, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:The following bullet points are [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]'s comments/issues:<br />
:1. Just a suggestion for the warning of block lengths. It should go something like "The ban length starts with one week at three warnings and then increases exponentially for every 3 warnings received (2 weeks after the 6th warning, 4 weeks after the 9th, 8 weeks after the 12th, etc.)". Also, I wonder if previously banned people should get less leeway? Maybe 3 bans = 1 week, 5 = 2 weeks, then every new warning increases the ban length. Then again, maybe not, because then it would be too tempting to find any one thing to be able to ban someone. But then again, then again, if someone's already got 5 bans, they probably aren't that great of a member anyway. I'm undecided on this one.<br />
:2. Civility and harassment are wishy-washy terms, and their wishy-washiness has lead to some questionable bans in the past. I'm not sure it's possible to define them in a way that's usable for our purposes, but perhaps we should have a few examples of what are ''not'' uncivil or harassing behavior. Asking for clarification of someone else's post is (usually) not uncivil. Going off-topic or responding to a topic which has been "settled" should also not be a ban-able offense.<br />
:3. Ettiquette breaches should, in most cases, ''not'' be a ban- or warn-able offense. Going by the letter of the law, you could get a warning for mis-indenting a page or for adding a new comment to the top. This should also probably be defined somewhere. I would love it if we didn't have to link to Wikipedia at all, since we have no control over the content there, and aren't notified if their policies change.<br />
:4. I like the separation of IPs from everyone else, because it basically makes no sense to warn IPs.<br />
:5. I think that there should be some sort of statute of limitations in effect, or otherwise some way to keep from being banned as Hooper recently was. I'd say any time an administrator issues a warning, all violations at the same time count as the same warning. This means if someone, say, posts rude comments on 5 different talk pages (though see below), they would count as 1 warning, since there's only 1 chance for the user to correct their behavior, not 5. Speaking of warnings, if the whole point of a warning system is corrective and not punitive, I think any user given a warning should, you know, actually be warned, say, on their talk page. The administrator giving out the warning should leave a message on that user's talk page stating exactly why they received a warning; this way the user has an immediate chance to clean up their act or clear up any miscommunications.<br />
:6. There should be some sort of exception to the rule for certain types of offenders. As written, we can't perma-block those stupid Russian drug company spammers.<br />
:7. The petition section is a little wordy, and is unclear if only the admin who did the banning is allowed to unblock.<br />
:8. Admin blocks: GD (and I think BD) are automatically exempt from being de-sysopped, so I wonder if they should be exempt from banning (though not warning) as well? I mean, they can take away the blocking power from anyone who can block them, so if they ever ''deserved'' to be blocked, what good would it do?<br />
:I mostly support it, but there are a couple of things I think we could change (See section below). I'll change my vote when these items are discussed more. Of my original 8 points below, I am now satisfied with 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. I'm not sure I can support a policy that allows unappealable (7) insta-blocks (5), but as those discussions are not settled I haven't changed my vote yet.<br />
:This is probably a little nit-picky, but with something as tumultuous and fickle and emotional as banning, I think it's better we have an absolute iron-clad policy now, then have to find all the exceptions later and risk appearing to play favorites. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:31, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've numbered them, and will reply to them by number here:<br />
::1. I think that sets of 3 warnings to a block is a good system. Suppose Hooper gets another warning in 6 months, and then another 8 months after that. Two warnings in the span of 14 months hardly seems worth a 2 week block. Plus, then every subsequent warning is a longer and longer block. (Sorry to use you as an example, Hooper, but you make such a good one). <br />
::2. I think we need some level of "wiggle room" in our terminology. The last thing I want is some trouble-making user leave bad comments and then say "yeah, but technically it's not listed under warnable offenses." I figure since only admins are giving out warnings, we can say "use some logic and reasonableness".<br />
::3. Honestly, I don't really like etiquette, but it was included like 4 times in the original system, so I left it in. I can't make a rational argument for or against it. It seems to me that again an admin could say "dude just miscounted colons, I'm not going to warn him for an etiquette violation." but it would catch people intentionally not signing comments that are offensive. (If anyone would be dumb enough to try that, still signed in). <br />
::5. I have no idea how to word it, but I want to suggest something like "you can't be warned on comments between warnings", which I know makes no sense. Let me clarify: When you're warned for a comment "c1", and then again for comment "c5". Any comments left between c1 and c5 (c2-4) can be censored to remove offending content, but don't count towards your warning level. I think a system about leaving comments on warned user's talk pages is also a good idea. <br />
::6. The way I see it, the warning policy applies almost exclusively to comments left on talk/user pages. Considering we don't warn link spammers, we just delete their pages and perma-ban them I see no need for this policy to concern them. We should probably make it more clear that this policy applies mainly to comments, and not spam/vandalism. <br />
::7. I'm not sure how to better word the petition section. I think that only the blocking admin should be allowed to revert the block, though. <br />
::8. If they are "above" banning (as it seems they are) they might as well be "above" warnings too. The only punishment for a warning is a block. Unless you mean you'd like to be able to censor offending posts. I guess that makes enough sense.<br />
::Right, so, these are my thoughts on the matter. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:16, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Support, if time restraint put on warnings (see comments)<br />
:::I like what you've got here. It is clear and concise. Even I can tell what I'm guilty of ''(my tendency to highlight others rudeness and ignore my own)''. My only thought is that we should consider some time of time limit. Obviously, admins can't see everything right away - especially if one user cusses another out at say midnight on a sunday. Still, there should be some clear line-in-the-sand that says unless you specifically did x (say, actually cussed out a user) you can not be officially warned if the item was not caught within the time limit. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:49, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::1. Fair enough. I actually had a thought that might solve a few of our problems at once. What if the warnings "timed out" after a certain period (probably no less than three but no more than 12 months). After the set time period you remove the last warning. Truly disruptive users will ramp up their warnings quickly, but someone who, say, occasionally posts something harsher than they intended won't be so severely penalized. You could even combine the two: it takes 3 warnings to get a block, then every warning after 3 also gets a block, but you remove a warning every 3 months. Or something along these lines.<br />
::::2. I agree with wiggle room, I just also worry that "admin discresion" could be used to liberally as well. I don't know, maybe let's keep it how it is currently then update it if there are problems.<br />
::::3. If (at least) two of us don't like the etiquette part, maybe we should think about removing it altogether from the list of warn-able offenses. I'm not even sure if anyone ever got a warning based off of etiquette before. Or again, we could leave it for now and fix it if we run into problems later. <br />
::::5. What about a simpler solution: an admin can only hand out one warning at a time to a person, no matter how many offenses the admin finds at the same time. I think this says what we want to say without getting too technical.<br />
::::6. Fair enough. Maybe we just need a line that says something to the effect of "vandals and spammers will be dealt with immediately, regardless of their current warning status"?<br />
::::7. How about this: "A user may appeal a block by petitioning the blocking admin via email. The decision to reverse a block is entirely at the discretion of the admin. If the admin does not respond after 48 hours, a blocked user may contact another admin. If this second admin can not contact the original blocking admin, they may decide to reverse the block at their discretion.<br />
::::Any user who is blocked for a period of greater than 1 month can ask for a formal appeal. The user must email all active admins their appeal, after which the admin may request additional information, or may decide as written. A user must get a 2/3's vote from all currently active admins to appeal their block. If the vote fails, they may appeal again after 6 months."<br />
::::8. It's probably a moot point, but yeah, censoring was part of it. Really, though, we don't want admins to be at each other's throats, so maybe we shouldn't delve into this too far. I wonder if we should put in a clause that uncivil language directed at an admin can not be warned by that admin. In other words, a warn must always be from a third-party. Pointing out such offenses would obviously be exempt from the "pointing out offenses is an offense" rule, because administrators don't always read conversations if they know another admin is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:06, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::1. I'm not sure how I feel about warnings going away after a period of time. I mean, it sounds reasonable enough, but the notion of having to go and check on warning expiration dates seems like one more thing to do, with no concrete advantage. I'm all for more work, if it's worth it. I'd also argue "if you are blocked for 3 warnings that span more than a year, you have a strong case for a petition to commute the block". <br />
:::::2/3. How about we keep the "admin discretion" point from comment 2, and remove etiquette from 3? I think that solution would probably do the most good, and the least expense. <br />
:::::5. We currently have a rule that says [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|a single post can't create more than one warning]]. Want to somehow explain how that would extend to all existing comments? <br />
:::::6. We can (and probably should) add that line in somewhere.<br />
:::::7. I like your suggestion for improving the petition portion. I think we should include a bit about "pestering an admin", unless you object to that notion. <br />
:::::8. So maybe we say "while Bureaucrats cannot be warned, their comments can be censored just like any other post"? I like the third party idea. The only problem with that is suppose someone insults you three times, but no other admins are online for a week (which I don't think has '''ever''' happened). You should have the authority and the ability to remove these bad comments and warn the user. <br />
:::::Lastly, to Hooper's point: I'm not sure how I feel about "Admins didn't catch the edit within X weeks, they can't be warned". While it sounds reasonable, admins have a ton of stuff to do (here, and in the real world). I know I don't read every single update (though I skim most of them). If someone is being uncivil, they should be warned no matter how long it's been. Notice we are granting amnesty to all comments before this system is set into place, though. I think that's reasonable enough. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:18, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I feel that civility should be kept as well. I feel that something along the lines of "''Warnings result in predetermined feelings. Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters. Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings. For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable.''"<br />
::::::I agree that IPs should not be included. A feature like [[Special:CheckUser]] does not exist for them.<br />
::::::Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards.<br />
::::::Warnings should go away after 6 months if the user is in good standing. The reasoning could include something along the lines of "''If a registered user remains in good standing for six months after receiving a warning the warning will be removed. If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed. Call some friends over and play some D&D&ndash; try to keep your mind off the predetermined feeling(s) which w/as(ere) received.''"<br />
::::::I am fine with bureaucrats being above the warning policy. Although this leaves a large hole open for problems, I can say with certainty [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] and I will not abuse the system.<br />
::::::I disagree with petitions to unblock. If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked. If the reasoning is solid then they should be blocked. I do not think that there should be the possibility for circumvention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:54, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Look good? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:36, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I've reverted the changes for two reasons. First, all the above comments are based on what was there (and is there again), so changing that much will change how all those comments apply. Secondly, your use of some very key phrases are confusing to me (and presumably other users). For example "If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed." is not a complete sentence, and I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. The suggestions you've brought up are, on the whole, good ones, and should be included. However, those monumental changes are not the best way to go about implementing said changes. if you could better explain your meaning, we could work out what changes need to take place. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:38, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::This is a sandbox which is a subsection of your userpage. If you want to revert the changes whatever. Keep in mind that one can always look at a older version of the page (based off the dates of the comments) for such a scenario.<br />
:::::::::I think that "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''" is a complete sentence. "''If there are [bears who fish salmon] know that [they do fish salmon].''" The adjective is lasting feelings and the verb is passed. However, I am no grammatical expert.<br />
:::::::::I mean what my comment above mentions. If you would like a better explanation please go through my comment above and let me know where your confusion arises from. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:46, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm aware that this is a subpage, and history/comment dates would make it possible to see what exactly everyone means, but it would be easier to just make a large edit once we've resolved all our concerns, and then strike through/comment out the existing discussion.<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm just going to go through your previous comment one line at a time, pointing out where I would like clarity. ''"I feel that civility should be kept as well"''. Got that, clear and concise. ''"Warnings result in predetermined feelings"''. I have no idea what that means. What are "pre-determined feelings", in this sense?''"Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters."'' This much I understand, too. Warnings are the sorts of things that are unacceptable, but not worthy of a block. ''" Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings."'' Right, not sure what this means. Do you mean "Admins can correct small things, like indentation, and not warn the contributor"? That is what I think you mean by your next sentence ''"For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable."'' ''"Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards."'' is another confusing sentence, for me. Do you mean to suggest that you should be able to issue three warnings for three successive inappropriate posts, and thereby block someone, without giving them time to adjust their behaviors? I think, and others agree, that this mentality turns a warning policy into a punishment policy. I don't think that is a good rule. The rest of your post I think I understand. I'm fine with removing the petition to unblock if warnings go away 6 months after they were issued. That seems like a solid plan, to me. <br />
<br />
::::::::::Back to that one confusing sentence: if that is how you intend for your comment to be interpreted, then it is improperly punctuated; but, that's a minor detail. However, if that is your sentence, then it is a tautology that adds nothing to the policy. "If there are feelings, then there are feelings" doesn't help to describe what these feelings are, or what ramifications these feelings have. Could you better describe what you mean by "predetermined feelings"? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:05, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::By "predetermined" I mean that when someone says something they intend a result for someone else. By "''Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings''" I mean that "You may edit" (just worded for the context).<br />
:::::::::::When I mention that edits should be the base for warnings this is because blocking can be of varying length. Why can they be of varying length? They vary in length because of severity. Making warnings work with edits makes use of severity. Also, it is not fair if someone insults someone multiple times and someone else insults someone a single time and they get the same result.<br />
:::::::::::Oh, everything I added are tautologies. They are there to explain the reasoning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:51, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::The whole point of numbering was to try and keep the different points straight, but I see that's gone down the crapper. I'm going to try to summarize, then hopefully we can stay organized from here on out.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::1 (Warning system logistics) It sounds like we are leaning towards an expiring warning system.<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with this, and I don't think it takes too much work. Really, all you have to do is check the age of the last warnings before you ban someone. If the oldest warning is less than 6 months old, then none of them have expired yet. Displaying "expired" warnings doesn't have any negative consequences, so nobody needs to rigorously patrol the page for expired warnings.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::2/3 (Etiquette and Civility) I think we are going to keep it as is for now.<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with Badger, the language suggested by Green Dragon does not make a lot of sense to me, and I'm not sure it's necessary. For one thing, "discretionable" is not a real word. I think what you are getting at is that admins have discretion to define "civility" and "etiquette". While I don't really like this (as it leaves it open to abuse -- especially with no method of appeal), I don't see a better way around it right now.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::4 (Blocking IPs) It's agreed that there's no need to block IPs.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::5 (How to count blocks) There is no consensus here.<br />
:::::::::::::Badger mentioned the "rule" that you can't be warned more than once in one comment. This should be enumerated within the rules for it to be official. Green Dragon, your scenario is fair in one way but unfair in another. Yes, your way three warnings always equals 1 block. But one user got 2 warnings to cease his behavior before he was blocked, and the other got 0. This is unfair. I'll say it again: if the point of the block policy is to ''change'' behavior, then you must go off of the number of actual ''warnings'' (i.e. how many times the user was told "don't do that or else"). If the purpose of the warning policy is to ''punish'' people, then you must go off of the number of ''offenses'' (this would even count for multiple offenses within a single post). If we are trying to build a community, I can only support a behavior-changing policy. I also, for the same reason, think there should be a statute of limitations. While admins may be busy, we really should be checking over all edits, especially in discussions that are likely to devolve into uncivil behavior. I don't think a week is too short a time frame; most weeks you can view a week's worth of edits on the recent changes log. If we ''don't'' have a statute of limitations, there's nothing stopping an unscrupulous admin from "storing" warnings and unleashing them all when he wants to get rid of a user for a while.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::6 (Exception for spammers/vandals) I think there is agreement on this point.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::7 (Petitioning) Badger and Jazzman are for, and GD is against.<br />
:::::::::::::I really see no reason against allowing an appeal. Admins are humans, and humans make mistakes. You even say yourself, "If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked." So what if the reasoning wasn't solid, but you blocked anyway? Again, if we are going for a behavior-changing policy, we need the ability to have some leeway here. <br />
<br />
::::::::::::8 (Bureaucratic Immunity) It's agreed that Bureaucrats are immune to the warning policy, but not admins. It has been suggested that a third party must intervene if an admin is involved in the uncivil behavior, but not agreed upon the details.<br />
:::::::::::::The whole point of rule of law (or rule of rule, in this case) sort of breaks down if you just take the Bureaucrats at their word... but that being said we don't really have any way around it, so I begrudgingly agree that they should just get blanket immunity. There's nothing we can do about it anyway. As for the case where only one admin is around, I think that it's rare enough that we shouldn't have to worry about it. If there is someone who is genuinely disruptive and no other admin responds in, say, 24 hours, the primary admin should be able to block. This is another reason to allow petitioning: if an admin is in an argument with a user, they could find a serious of excuses to block that user for 6 months. Without an appeal process, that user is screwed.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think this is everything. If I have misrepresented anyone or any idea please let me know. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 11:29, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I agree that the tautologies should be added elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages.<br />
:::::::::::::In accordance with number five mentioned above I would like to say that warnings are based off edits. This means that if the edit is older then six months then it (because of the time frame) would not be useable. This, then, removes the abuse of the system you mention above. Severity is also important because one does not ''learn'' through such a process. If you want to learn read [[Meta Pages]]. Editing is not learning necessarily and merging the two together is a mistake.<br />
:::::::::::::I don't disagree with appeals. I just don't feel that the medium is appropriate. If there is a problem they may wait out there time frame (if it is the last edit which is a problem) or if it is an intermediate edit, post on [[Talk:Warning Policy]] and discuss the problem. This is in accordance with wiki. We ''do not'' want D&D Wiki to function outside of wiki. This would undermine the very idea of wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:31, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:GD, I'm not sure you know what tautologies are. They are "using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity". There is absolutely ''no'' reason to intentionally include a tautology in our policies. If I understand you correctly, the statute of limitations on warnings should be 6 months, starting the day the comment was posted, rather than the day it was found. I'm not sure I like that. I'd support a month for the SoL, but have warnings expire 6 months after they are issued, not after the original comment is left. I think the goal of this policy should be learning, not punishment. We can't honestly expect every contributor to read the entirety of the Meta Pages before posting. I don't think I got around to reading them all until after I became admin (and I'm not even sure I've read them all, they are hard to find sometimes). I think "learning by doing" is the best approach to this situation, and that means we should combine editing with teaching. Finally, your last point is dead wrong. I pulled the notion of appeals directly from Wikipedia policy (making small alterations, to better suit it to our wiki). That section of their policy can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_and_discussions here]. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:53, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::As tautologies explain the same thing (just give some backing to the reasoning for clarification) they should be moved elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages, as I mentioned above.<br />
::The goal of the policy should not be learning. If we do not have varying severity people will use D&D Wiki contributors as vents. There is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have varying severity punishments. Saying that removing this is better then having this present is something which is wrong. If you kill someone and someone else crosses the street illegally a slap on the wrist for both instances is not acceptable. Most people (since they must interact with respect for various reasons) already know how to interact so the learning curve is pretty much non-existent anyway.<br />
::What is wrong with the reasoning for clarification of "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''"? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::For one thing, it isn't clear - negating its ability to clarify. Its obtuse almost. We need clear and concise language. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:21, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Feeling not feelings is a minor grammatical mistake above. If you want to improve the language, of course, go for it.<br />
::::Also, I agree that non-wiki arbitration is good to have. I created http://groups.google.com/group/dd-wiki-non-wiki-arbitration for non-wiki arbitration. Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok, where is this "severity of punishments" thing coming from? We have exactly one punishment -- banning -- and its severity is determined by the quantity, not quality, of your offenses. I simply can not, and will not, ever be in favor of a punitive system of warnings. It's not conducive to a collective-editing environment, it's harsh on new users and therefore insulating to a community that's already way to small to begin with, and it's just plain unnecessary when you consider the types of offenses we are actually dealing with here. Nobody is going to be deterred from ''offending'' by a threatening system, they will be deterred from ''editing''. If you don't agree with this then we will have to agree to disagree because you won't convince me otherwise. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:10, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Edit to add: that whole lasting feelings statement doesn't make any sense to me at all. Are you trying to say "let bygones be bygones"? If so, why do we need that in a warning policy anyway? What's the point of that arbitration thing? Is that to be used with the appeals process you think is unnecessary? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::A few points: <br />
:::::::Tautologies don't really explain things. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps you instead mean "definition" or "explanation". <br />
:::::::While the goal of most policy should not be learning, most of us feel that the goal of the warning policy should be for learning. We want to use the warning policy as a system to teach right from wrong, not just punish those who are doing wrong. If someone is persistently upsetting the community and not contributing in any way, I'm likely to just block them for a week, despite the warning policy. It is my opinion that the warning policy should be for making sure conversations stay civil, and censoring the occasional bad post from a generally good contributor. <br />
:::::::No one is suggesting that we remove institutionalized punishments that fit the crime. To continue your metaphor, there is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have an appeals system. If someone is given 20 years in prison for jaywalking, they should be able to appeal to have their sentence commuted. The idea of appeals isn't to let the guilty walk free, but rather to help the unjustly punished.<br />
:::::::I've joined that group you've created. I'm not sure if it's the best method, but I suppose it'll do for now. You should check that users are who they say they are (based on the email they use to join). In joining, I just got to choose a random username, and I could have picked "Badger" just as easily as I could have picked "Blue Dragon" or "JazzMan831".<br />
:::::::I really want to figure out what you mean by "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''". Do you mean to say ''"If you are still upset about a mean thing someone has said, know that they said it 6 months ago and they may no longer feel that way."''? If that's not what you mean, can you try to rephrase it another way, because I am totally confused. <br />
::::::Given that you've created this off-wiki method for arbitration, I suppose it's safe to assume that an appeals system is something you now like?--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:22, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I wonder if a off-site group is the right way to go for one major reason: anonymity. Yes, I am not that fond of it myself - and I may be willing to use my real name everywhere, but not everyone is. Should we force a user who doesn't wish to connect his online profile with others or his real name into signing up to a group - especially one like google where it is so easy for personal information to leak through ''(trust me, I'm a debt collector. Google and facebook are awesome for us when it comes to tracking)''? Again, personally, I'm anti-anonymity, but I understand that others seek it out. I mean, I doubt Badger wants us to know that he may be "James T. Badger from Badgerville" ''(just an example)'' or such. Maybe this is making sense, but I feel like I'm just blabering on. Basically: TL<nowiki>;</nowiki>DR = love and feel the need for a appeals process, but is off-site the right channel? Do we have the ability to program a few pages to allow even blocked users to edit, like their own talk page or a central Admin Noticeboard? <br />
:::::::Also, what do we do in cases like [[User_talk:Hooper#Spammer_Block_Oddity|this]]? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:47, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::If we were to remove severity and consider an aspect of learning as the base does this include everyone? If someone insults me multiple times will that annoy me more? If someone gets the same punishment as another user for a lesser offense will they even learn (I think this has been proven to be a learning barrier by the way)? If someone insults anyone multiple times will that annoy the admin more (more dealing with this learning base of work)? Why should everything relate to the abuser and not the abused? Why should those who "do their homework" (for lack of a better term) not be better off? Is that not part of learning? I just don't understand how removing severity and considering an aspect of learning as the base can be fair. If its not fair then we ''will'' have a problem with users considering the administration as biased and not compatible.<br />
::::::::Yes, "''bygones be bygones''". Don't worry about all that&ndash; it will be used in the help pages.<br />
::::::::I attempted to infer that yes, I do agree with an arbitration method. For the arbitration to have an effect (in its current state), yes, one must verify the user (email for a message or something). If we do not want to deal with this level of anonymity then does anyone know of a fitting extension for the above suggestions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:02, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, so one thing to point out, we're all in favor of keeping the scaling block lengths. If someone repetitively insults users, they will ''not'' have a good case for arbitration. Arbitration, and commuted block lengths, will only occur when something has legitimately gone wrong. Apparently a patch to the MediaWiki software continues to prevent a blocked user from editing a wiki, but allows users to still edit their talk page. I'm not sure if we have that capability, but if we do, that'd be the best way to go about this. Users could post on their talk page, and admins could leave their opinions. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:17, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The problem with a correlation there is that in some cases multiple things have legitimately gone wrong with only one result. Which extension [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki.org] were you referring to above? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:08, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand where your problem is. Can you give a hypothetical situation where your problem would arise? That would be immensely helpful. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgBlockAllowsUTEdit This] extension (not actually an extension, but existing code) allows blocked users to edit their talk page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:34, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::For example if I edit a page and do not treat another use with civility I have completed an edit. This edit would (in your method) go into a pool until the user gets warned. The pool could have thousands of edits which are not done with civility. The admin would only see the pool and remove the pool as a single occurrence with a single warning relating to the commuted block length. I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The commuted block length should be based of occurrences so this pool problem does not exist.<br />
::::::::::::That extension is an option. I am not a fan of it. When a user is ''blocked'' they are ''blocked''. They did something wrong, so why should they be given lieniency? I would rather do something which does not relate to wiki D&D Wiki (or a mailing list from the email user preferences). Is there an extension for such a thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Well, here's the thing. The "pool" would only exist if admins aren't vigilant in their duties. The idea is that admins should stay on top of these things. Secondly, think about this: Suppose you are a user who is leaving comments. You don't think there is anything wrong with your comments. Suddenly an admin comes online and warns you three times in two minutes. Suddenly you're blocked, and you had no idea you were doing anything wrong. Does that seem fair? <br />
:::::::::::::I'm not sure moving things off-wiki is necessarily the best decision. We've always been adamant that we should keep everything on-site, and I don't get why this would be any different. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Actually, I forgot about that extension. I think it's a good idea -- but only if it's also possible to additionally block a user from using their talk page. Everyone has the right to appeal, but not to spam the recent changes out of spite.<br />
<br />
:As for "abuser" vs. "abused", since we have agreed on a system where only an admin can hand out warnings, and pointing out offenses of others can itself be warn-able, then obviously this is biased towards the "abuser" method. And really we have good reason. If, for example, user A is in an argument with user B, he shouldn't be given the option to pick three different times in the past where he felt "abused" by user B in order to get him blocked for a week. Additionally, admins should not have to be put in a position where they have to say "well actually I don't feel that you are actually being abused, even though that's how you feel". [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:46, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How does the fairness of block lengths make its way into this system?<br />
::The fairness of block lengths is present if the duty relies solely on the ''timing'' of admins. Why should everything be about the timing? Do the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles|improving, reviewing, and removing article]] templates make it so the timing can be used to the fullest? Why should we change the warning system to be worse then such a method?<br />
::The above example does seem fair to me. If I could not control my words I need to learn and a system which explains to me which words were appropriate, treats me the same as other people, and treats the person I was rude to the same as everyone else who was mistreated works best.<br />
::I am against something here being onsite since IP's are only posting spam on their talk pages and being blocked means one is blocked.<br />
::I don't agree with admins being the only one's able to ''deal'' with warnings. See also [[Warning Policy#Warnings Issued]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:50, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't think it's fair to punish someone because, as an admin, I'm slacking on my job. If you make three potentially offensive edits in the span of twenty minutes, you should be given a fair chance to change your behavior. Suppose someone swears in a comment. They don't swear at anyone, they just say something like "Fighters should have the best damn BAB possible". They may not know that comments like that are a violation of policy (Hell, I'm not even sure if they are against policy). Do you think it's fair to ban someone because they leave three comments like that? On my [[Talk:Hooker_(3.5e_Class)|Hooker talk page]], I, an active user, ask what our policy on swearing is. You can't expect a new user to know if users (and admins) as active as Jazzman and I are don't know. Expecting every contributor to spend thirty minutes reading policy before posting is idealistic and naive. Any policy that could block someone for comments like that is completely asinine, and I can't support it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:12, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Should we just do as Wikipedia does? We are basically only talking about a "level of harassment" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility]) which is a block (the word ''may'' not ''can''). What I am mentioning above is more kind then what Wikipedia uses and making it kinder again is a mistake. Wikipedia knows how to handle users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:15, 15 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::GD: which of my 8 points above do you agree with (be explicit, as in, using the actual numbers). Since we are all almost in agreement about those things, can we add them to the real policy page? It'd be nice to have some defined rules around here. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:59, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea of integrity. It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system. Warnings should be applicable until a warning is given then the expiration of the warning can begin to happen. If this does not happen then we lose integrity. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:20, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::First of all, why did you move this? The running vote, and, most importantly, the thing we are discussing in the first place are not on this page. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean. Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? You do disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? Since the current vote is unanimous on several portions of the proposed policy, can we make any of it official? I will respond to your point after I get the answer to these questions, so as not to get distracted. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:37, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::The votes were placed where they should be. The same is for this discussion (what it is discussing should be its main page). Voting is not done. See also [[Meta Pages#Policies]] ''"As [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Supermajority Supermajority] (and many others) failed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] is only used under the rules of D&D, under editing, and in other special instances."'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:52, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::When is voting done, then? And I'm glad you brought up that line; I hadn't noticed it before in Meta Pages. I also am not sure what it's supposed to mean (there's a critical comma or something missing in there). Also, I ask again, as these important questions have yet to be answered: Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? Do you disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? And since voting is apparently not finished (though no one's added a vote in months now) I'll add another: when is voting finished, and what is the procedure for changing this policy? (Do we even *have* a procedure?) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:27, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::As per the above ''"It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system.''" I think I have mentioned what I agree and disagree with above multiple times to refine this... The quote here is my problem with it. And, consensus is done&ndash; voting is not done (special means things like aesthetics, etc). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:41, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Hey guys, sorry I've been missing these past few weeks, I've been swamped with stuff. What have I missed? It seems like we're talking about implementing my new version of the warning policy. Sweet! Let's see, where are we... Right, well, it appears that we're going to use consensus (my favorite thing) to talk about implementation. Judging by what I've read the only thing standing between us and consensus is the notion of a statute of limitations on warnings. Is that right? Awesome! From what I can tell, there are two sides here. Some of us feel that warning people multiple times before given the chance to change their ways is wrong. Others feel if we don't warn people for every offense, we lose integrity in the system. Let me be the first to state that I am in the former camp. Official pardons, states of limitations, and other "secondary laws" have been in effect in America since our inception. I don't think that it can be fairly argued that the American legal system lacks "integrity" because of this. Would someone like to give an example where the integrity of D&D-Wiki would be put in danger because of the proposed policy changes? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:50, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::If you replied to it without giving a warning, it should ''not'' be given a warning later. If it's acceptable to you then, you shouldn't get to change your mind. I can understand if you just now entered the discussion--and even then, the warning should be one along with a statement to straighten up. That discussion went for many, many pages before Green Dragon decided Wrecan wasn't kosher. What made him change his mind? That Wrecan's tone had gotten snippy? Then that should be a warning for when Wrecan's tone and behavior became unacceptable and that post only, not for what was said two weeks ago and replied to a dozen times. Furthermore, multiple warnings in one swoop aren't good. They aren't good ''at all''. I can't imagine the acrobatics required to decide it's acceptable exercise of power, to discuss something ''for weeks'' and then block the other side of the discussion for posts weeks old. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.215|173.245.56.215]] 13:33, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I can't agree with the IP more. What happened to Wrecan should never have happened -- either he should have been blocked days before, or he should not have been blocked at all. To respond to something ''multiple times'' is to give consent to it. You can not then go back and block. It makes the blocker look bad, and it makes the site look bad, end of story. It also doesn't help when YOU POINT OUT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO WARN SOMEONE LATER and then not do it! It just makes you look like a tyrant (and GD, I'm not calling you a tyrant; I'm pointing out that someone new to this site who saw something like that would likely consider the behavior tyrannical). <br />
:::::::::::::Note, also, that GD has decided it's ok to tell users they have done something warn-worthy ''without actually warning them''. [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warning_Policy&diff=prev&oldid=542429].<br />
:::::::::::::Lastly: when will voting be done? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:37, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:The American Legal System is not in the same situation. When a judge makes a decision he makes the decision. There are no court cases that people don't listen to and then ''later'' the judge listens to them.<br />
:Some comments are not necessarily acceptable to anyone anytime. Policy relating to acceptable behavior comes from the Wikipedia pages. No one is changing their mind&ndash; they are just later having the time to deal with the situation.<br />
:I warned [[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] before the time when he received multiple blocks. The time I have to issue warnings (it does take time&ndash; reading everything so critically while constantly referencing Wikipedia and then the formatting that is related, etc) is when I will issue them. Mentioning comments as being warning-worthy is because I have not had the time the process (mentioned above) requires yet. Is this what is being mentioned above? Seems like it is the same thing. Is it antagonizing? I think it may be a fine line.<br />
:Voting is not done. See above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:30, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Ok, GD, let me just say "No". Your reason for delaying a warning isn't acceptable. At all. If you have the time to reply to comments, you have the time to warn someone. End of Discussion. You gave 8 warnings in a single edit. If anything, it should have been a single warning. What you have done is wholly unacceptable. None other administrator would have done what you did. That should have been a clue that something wasn't quite right. <br />
::Jazzman, as a point of order, what do you mean by "When will voting be done"?<br />
::*Under what circumstances should we vote on something?<br />
::*When will discussion come to a close on this issue?<br />
::I feel like that might change the discussion. Are you using the word "voting" to mean "discussion and debate" instead of actual "voting"? <br />
::Finally, I think you've misunderstood my metaphor about the American legal system. Rather than try to explain it to you, I'm just going to ask that you ignore it.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 9 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Let me verify this please&ndash; you're telling me how to spend my time? You understand how my time is organized then?<br />
:::Since this is consensus the point I will make follows. Read the policy. If you don't know what you're doing read the policy. If you don't know how to interact with other humans, read the policy (it may help you). We are not going to organize time in any manner&ndash; that's not right. We'll assume people who care will care and if you do not care then you will suffer the consequences. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:18, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::The point of this discussion is none of us like the policy, and we'd like to change it. I would suggest that if maybe you don't know how to interact with other humans, you should let others write policy. It may help the the website, in the long run. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:13, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Luckily that's a theoretical comment above and then later not direct. I agree that if you don't know how to interact with humans you should let others write policy.<br />
:::::I am talking about a successful model used throughout the world. Again, if you don't know how to interact (making a new model for example that is an experiment (perform the experiment elsewhere okay)) how about you let others write the policy.<br />
:::::The clarification of my above comment is that I am talking about people who receive warnings. If you get a warning you have a problem interacting with humans (do you just go up to someone and belittle them?). I am saying that if they do not read the policy and or understand it then they should learn through the process anyway. Does this simple comment finally make sense? I can't understand how this is not understandable to others. You go to school. You learn. If you don't do your homework you get a bad grade. It's the same thing. The level of used throughout the world is large, so why oh why are the comments I am getting back just not getting this?<br />
:::::Have you ever ruined a class by making the curriculum based off your understanding? The structure of classes is not like this. You sign up for a class. You learn the material that is presented on the syllabus the first day. It doesn't matter if you get it or not&ndash; your grade reflects that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:27, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::We all agree that if you are belittled you should be warned. That isn't the issue being debated here. What we're saying is that 8 warnings at once is an issue. Teachers don't give you a test, and then later count it as eight tests. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:10, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Obviously. They do, however, mark you down for eight questions when you missed eight questions. Giving a Pass/Fail on understanding the test is ''not'' what they do. Any questions this time around? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:35, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::GD, do you agree that the Warning policy should be designed to get users to change their ways by showing them what is not ok, and giving them a chance to change? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:36, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Partly. Learning fairly by repercussions and through reading. I don't agree with unfair learning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:24, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::And tell me, did you give Wrecan time to change his ways between the 2nd and 3rd edits? Or the 3rd and 4th? If the point was to get him to change is ways, shouldn't you have given him a chance to change before banning him for 6 weeks? After reading the conversation, I know I wouldn't have warned him for what he said. Those warnings would have come as a shock to me, and I'm an admin. Don't you think that a single warning would have been more acceptable? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:18, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Did Wrecan read the policy? There is more then one person involved in any discussion. By this I mean that others are also reading it and also care about how a person says things. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:34, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::You did not answer the question. If you were offended, were you offended the first time you read it? Were you offended the second time you read it? Were you offended the third time you read it? Notwithstanding that I still don't believe his comments were inappropriate, how is it that you were ok with them the first ''seven'' times you read them, and then all the sudden you realized they were offensive?<br />
<br />
::::::::::::To use your test metaphor, this is like giving someone 100% on 7 one-question pop quizzes, and then when they get the answer wrong on the 8th, retroactively changing his grade on the other 7. It's one thing if you honestly never saw those posts, say, if the discussion were taking place elsewhere and you were not an active participant. I still don't believe these should be back-warned, but I'll let it slide if it's the deciding factor. But this was not the case here. You were involved in the conversation and by replying &mdash; multiple times, mind you &mdash; you gave the impression, whether intentionally or unintentionally, that what Wrecan was saying was ok by policy. Let's face it, the policy is, at worst, vague and confusing or, at best, open to wide interpretation. As administrators, I believe it is our duty (again, not really defined anywhere) to help other users understand the rules of the site. As such, they should be able to look up to us to know how to act. If I reply to someone's comments with anything other than "you are hereby warned about X", they can be confident that I am satisfied with their manner of posting. I just don't think the same thing applies when GD replies to someone's post, and I believe that makes for a difficult work environment.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::To answer your question from a while ago, Badger, what I was trying to ferret out (heh, rodent pun) was this: if voting is "not yet finished" according to GD, what is the criteria for it being finished? Do we need to wait a certain amount of time? Do we need a certain amount of votes? Do we need to wait until GD votes? Do we need to wait until there is a majority against (we already have a majority for? I don't know the criteria, is all. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:12, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I was offended the entire time that this user was telling me such things. I just didn't have the time (or initiative) to warn Wrecan (just like I didn't have the time (or initiative) to fix the indentation here until now).<br />
:::::::::::::It's actually like being able to read the book on an open-book test and then getting the answer wrong. When it gets graded, you already know the outcome (or you will learn through it).<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with "''As administrators, I believe it is our duty (again, not really defined anywhere) to help other users understand the rules of the site.''" Users learn through repercussions, unless they are unfair (this will be conductive to optimization).<br />
:::::::::::::Voting is not done. Consensus is done. The relevant Wikipedia pages, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Supermajority Wikipedia:Supermajority] may interest you. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:40, 12 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::Green Dragon, stop saying "Voting is not done". We all know that. We get it, we're using consensus. Stop linking to their pages. We know the links. We've read the pages. <br />
::::::::::::::If you were offended the entire time, why didn't you say something? After reading your comments, I don't recall you saying in one of your comments something to the effect of "Wrecan, what you are posting is considered a warnable offense. If you don't stop, I will be forced to warn you". Don't say "He should have read the policy and known". Yes, he should have known, but you still could have told him. It would have been the nice thing to do. <br />
::::::::::::::Users don't have to learn through repercussions. Our users are smarter than dogs. They can learn what is right without being punished for doing wrong. <br />
::::::::::::::I have no idea what "unless they are unfair (this will be conductive to optimization)." means. What do you think it means? I think being banned for 6 weeks because all your mistakes get caught at once counts as unfair. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:57, 12 December 2011 (MST)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_Base_Classes_Strong_Psionics&diff=542773User Base Classes Strong Psionics2011-12-12T04:46:17Z<p>Badger: Undo revision 542772 by 173.245.55.110 (talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DnD Base Classes Breadcrumb}}<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
To add your own Base Class to D&D Wiki, click '''[[Add New DnD Class|here.]]'''<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
Members of this group are good choices for characters who want their progress toward higher levels of psionics to be uninterrupted.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}" style="text-align: left;"<br />
|+ Homebrew Strong Spellcasting Base Classes<br />
|-<br />
! Name !! style="text-align: center;" | Rating<sup>[[#1|1]]</sup><br/>(out of 20) !! Type<sup>[[#2|2]]</sup> !! Description<sup>[[#3|3]]</sup><br />
{{#dpl:debug=1<br />
|category=DnD<br />
|category=User<br />
|category=Base Class<br />
|category=Strong Psionics<br />
|include={DnD Base Class Infobox}:rating_power:rating_wording:rating_formatting:rating_flavor:type:desc<br />
|mode=userformat<br />
|format=,¦- class="²{Odd-Even}²"\n¦ [[%PAGE%¦²{#replace:%PAGE%¦(3.5e Class)¦}²]]\n,,<br />
|tablerow=¦ style="display:none;" ¦ ²{#vardefine: pow¦%%}², style="display:none;" ¦ ²{#vardefine: word¦%%}², style="display:none;" ¦ ²{#vardefine: form¦%%}²,style="text-align: center;" ¦ ²{#vardefine: flav¦%%}²²{<br />
#switch:<br />
²{<br />
#expr:<br />
²{ #if: ²{#var: pow}² ¦ 8 ¦ 0 }² +<br />
²{ #if: ²{#var: word}² ¦ 4 ¦ 0 }² +<br />
²{ #if: ²{#var: form}² ¦ 2 ¦ 0 }² +<br />
²{ #if: ²{#var: flav}² ¦ 1 ¦ 0 }²<br />
}²<br />
¦0=NR<br />
¦15=²{<br />
#expr: ²{#var: pow}² + ²{#var: word}² + ²{#var: form}² + ²{#var: flav}²<br />
}²<br />
¦NFR<br />
}²,%%,²{#if: %%¦%%¦'''<!No Description Present!>''' Please edit this class and add a description!}²\n<br />
|allowcachedresults=true<br />
}}|-<br />
| colspan="7" class="foot" |<br />
# <span id="1">Shows the rating other users have given the class out of 20. Unrated classes are labeled "NR" and not fully rated classes are labeled "NFR". The rating is from the actual class's page; it is not made on this page. Follow the following link to learn more: [[Rating System]].</span><br />
# <span id="2">A general category the class fits into. e.g. Strong Spellcasting, Combat Focused, etc.</span><br />
# <span id="3"> A concise description of the class&mdash;should advertise the class.</span><br />
|}</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Warning_Policy&diff=542770Help talk:Warning Policy2011-12-12T02:18:52Z<p>Badger: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Missing Warnings? ==<br />
<br />
Where are the first warnings for TK-Squared, Jota, and S1Q3T3? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 17:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:In this time I did not reference the areas so I forgot some. They have them however where are they?<br />
:I know [[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] had three warnings however he/she was first banned for only one warning (the policy was still young) and then he acquired at least up to three warnings and was not banned to compensate (see his talk - history if needed). I at least remember it was with someone (maybe [[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] however I don't rememberer exactly. Do you know?<br />
:I put (2:1) on [[User:Jota|Jota's]] last warning and I do not think I was wrong. Do you know where the other is? Is there another?<br />
:[[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] was banned for a (3:1) however were are they all? I also don't remember.<br />
:If you know any of the areas I am talking about supplying a link would be appreciated.<br />
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where warnings have been given and are not referenced here supplying a link would be appreciated.<br />
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where people deserve warnings and were not given them supplying a link would be appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Although it is a moot point, I can see the advantage of making sure we try to accurately back-log and keep track for all future purposes. I [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Yo5&defl=en&q=define:hope&ei=-Yt5S8XIO47cnAfKr5GyCQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE doubt] the user who did it will ever be back, but [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Bagby&diff=prev&oldid=395263 this edit] seems to me to be a warning-level offense. Maybe I'm wrong, but here it is for an admin to decide.<br />
::Additionally, I was wondering if we are going to have an enforced warning system that is in effect for Edit Wars? I know that even I have been a part of many, and it is something we should avoid. Just curious. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::As seen in [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:White_Wolf&curid=72522&diff=457366&oldid=457360 this diff], [[User:Jota]] tried to sneak bits of another user's ''(myself)'' previous comments, trying to disguise the removal as part of a different edit. Even more poignant, the main section removed was where I quoted Jota from a previous location where he admitted enjoying arguing on this wiki (arguably an act of trolling). Though the edits leading up to it can be deemed a Edit War of which I am equally to blame ''(though correct in my reasoning)'', Jota's edit went against all forms of wiki civility and protocol.<br />
:::This is not the first time Jota has done such. He has even removed or discounted other user's or IP's ratings of his own content when it wasn't to his liking. Being so brunt with other user's talk page postings should be forbidden. At most, altering extremely foul language or helping fix link/formatting should be the only allowable reason to do such a thing ''(barring of course obvious spam/vandalism)''. For this reason, I believe a warning is necessary. I leave it to the admin to decide. I understand if I also receive one for the edit war that took place, though in that case Jota should receive two. <br />
:::Jota did respond on that page that he removed the content to save me from ''"..direct rudeness, name calling, and belittle comments.."'' however the main portion of content removed was a quote from Jota, not myself. So that is invalid. The small other portion was not name calling nor do I perceive it as rude - those in managerial positions see things differently than those who are not, irl. Hence the classic phrase ''"can't see the forest because of all the trees"'' and all of it's variants. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::So arguing is trolling now? Lolwut? My actions were in keeping with your (Hooper) past actions, as noted on the Biomancer's talk page. If what I did was an offense against Wiki civility, so was what Hooper did. I just see him not getting warned for his actions, so I assume their okay under this wiki's policy, even though I find them questionable in nature. Furthermore, yes I remove ratings from content, not just IP ratings and not just my own material. If the rating is "lulz, overpowered" that does nothing for no one and is better off removed. "Obvious" spam is subjective, and should be left to an admin or bureaucrat, of which Hooper is neither. Personally, I would subscribe to FIFA's approach to warnings. Asking for someone else to be warned is a warn-worthy offense. Admins know the rules. Telling an admin someone needs to be warned is only an attempt to unjustly sway their opinion, and as such should merit a warning. Given [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law ex post facto law], Hooper's previous offense could be ignored, but its just a suggestion. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Irrelevant. As anyone can see on the policy pages in the help portal, most notable the Behavior Page, and from GD's actions and own statements, we no longer tolerate solicitation or links to competing sites. As noted in the diffs on biomancer, Eiji was soliciting and I removed it '''per policy'''. Stop straw manning. <br />
:::::Green Dragon is attempting to be notified because he is the only majorly active admin currently and has way too much to go through, hence it is easy for him to not see all that goes on, sadly. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Obvious is subjective, and therefore not your call to make. You want the power, nominate yourself for adminship. You're just creating more clutter by bringing subjective arguments to the table. Besides, it's not like this wiki is so active one cannot see an entire day's worth of activity on the recent changes page. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::Everything I need to do here on the wiki doesn't require adminship, nor do I want it. I thought I needed it long ago to help speed up editing but still don't need it today. Some of us have power in real life and realize that adminship is just responsibility, not power.<br />
:::::::Besides, I'd be too bad of an admin. I'd just permaban all the transientwiki people who think that continuing to cause circular talks and bog down progress on the site is fun. I'd also permaban anyone making content with the word Naruto in it. So, subjective or not, it's obvious I don't need adminship. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Official Policy ==<br />
<br />
So I have a few quick questions concerning actual policy. <br />
*If an Admin gets 3 warnings (and thusly banned for a week), should they be RfA'd to (potentially) remove adminship? It seems reasonable to have some sort of policy in place to that effect. Naturally, we'd all like to think admins are calm, level-headed contributors all the time, but everyone gets upset and says (or does) something stupid every so often. <br />
*Are all warnings the same? Can a single action provoke 2 <s>attacks of opportunity</s> warnings? <br />
*Is there a statute of limitations on warnings? We have a message up there asking for any missed warnings. Should we really be going back 4 and 5 months to find warn-able offenses? Some of those offenses took place before the warning policy existed. <br />
*Are we warning for every violation of civility according to that list? Forgetting to sign your post, and not answering questions both are on that list. Neither seem worth a warning.<br />
*My last question is a very specific one. Green Dragon, as we all ''now'' know, cannot be removed from adminship. Can he still be warned? If he is warned 3 times can he be banned?<br />
Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:First off I just recently saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption] and civility is actually present. As such, do we need this now maybe extraneous policy? I don't know. If so I would prefer we rollback or censor the problem text/post. Thoughts?<br />
:Should an admin be RfA'ed. Good question. I think so as it means one has not been upholding the values of an admin.<br />
:Warnings have been given based off each post, not an "action". Within the post, although their may be multiple violations, I have been counting it as one post to one warning.<br />
:There should not be a statue of limitations on warnings. The problem text is still present and as such something needs to be done regarding it.<br />
:Maybe you are referring to how the "etiquette" portion may not be relevant. That could be case. Should this be changed to just civility? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Hmm. I don't know. Should this page be a subpage of [[Help:Behavioral_Policy]]? &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I think Wikipedia's policy (as you linked above) is a good one. However, I think that policy almost requires us to keep the warning policy. If, for example, you decide to ban me for "Persistent Gross Incivility", I'd demand a few examples of that. The warning policy, as we have it, keeps a running log of all infractions to present if the banned individual should they ask for evidence. Whether or not we decide to stick with the "3 warns equals 1 week ban" policy is a different question. I think the policy is a solid one (once we more clearly define infractions and consequences). I personally am opposed to "perma-bans" (with the exception of users solely dedicated to causing problems, as defined by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption disruptions only]); I don't know how you feel on the subject, however. To address Hooper's question, I think the final decisions should for sure be a sub-page of Behavioral policy, I don't know that this discussion has made any concrete decisions yet though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Vagueishness ==<br />
<br />
The criteria for warning seem somewhat vague, and, since they link to an offsite page over which we have no control, are subject to unwarned change. If I read this literally, I could be giving out warnings for people who don't sign their posts, which doesn't really seem necessary, or for abusing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule WP:3RR], which isn't clearly a policy on this site. It's probably time that we broke from WikiP and just created our own pages on civility and etiquette. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This could make sense. Want to give it a go and we can see where we are from there? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:29, 4 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I could do it (though I don't have a lot of time right now), but since you do all of the warning, I would think you have a better idea of what's warnable and what's not. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:12, 9 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Hooper ==<br />
<br />
He got two warnings at the same time. It's not really a "warning" if he doesn't have a chance to learn from it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:16, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Interestingly, one of those messages was followed by three or four other comments before it was warned. To an outside observer, it might appear as though someone was just looking for a reason to block him for a week and warned him for something that didn't really warrant a warning. I know we've decided that warnable offenses don't have a statute of limitations, but that's a tad silly, IMO. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:21, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree that the first one was weak at best; stating that one can't follow another's statements is certainly not a personal attack if it's true, and doesn't really justify a warning. Even if Hooper had said something invoking the hygiene of another's mother, however, he still should have a chance to learn from his mistake before being warned a second time. Otherwise it's not a warning policy, it's a punishment policy. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:36, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::The learning curve is non-existent. If you don't know how to edit, look into D&D Wiki's policies. If that confuses you don't chime into discussions which are so variable. Also, it's that we are intended to warn backwards in time to be fair. Did it happen? Yes. Done. Is there any other way? Not unless you want to disregard wikis (when you edit you edit) entirely for certain users for who knows what reason. There may be more warning problems. I am so tired of pointless discussions I have stopped reading them. If I see more warning problems sometime when I may read them for whatever reason, yes, I will give more warnings. It's the fair way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:50, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::So answer me this, if someone says three different insults in the same single post, do you count it as one warning or three? If you aren't going to stay on top of the ball, but still want to keep away any statute of limitations, the only "fair" way to do it is to count every one you find at the same time as the same warning. It's all arbitrary, anyway, as I stated above (no work has been done on trying to clarify what is actually warnable), but if we are going to block a good user, it'd be nice to know we have good reason. Also, it's be nice to not be paranoid that I can all-the-sudden be banned for extended periods of time because of something I wrote that I didn't know was offensive, that all got caught all at once. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:29, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Each time one edits. You can say whatever in one editing time, however multiple times are multiple times. I agree about it being nice, however it would also be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]] (for example). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ok, see, that's not a very good argument, GD. Sure, it'd be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]], but it'd be really hard and time consuming to do that. It'd be very easy to do what Jazzman described. For example, I'm sure there are several things on this wiki that I've written that could potentially be considered warnable, but I've never been warned. Would it be fair to quickly find 3 things, and then ban me for a week, without giving me time to change my ways? No. A single warning would say "this sort of thing is unacceptable, cut it out", and I probably would. That'd be nice, reasonable, fair, and everyone would enjoy it more. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:18, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::After a unjustified ban, I can attest that the policy should be defined. Additionally, if we're following in Wikipedia's footsteps properly, then we should establish proper ban-reversal procedure. For example, if two admins oppose a third admin's block, the block should be reversed (wikipedia has a similar policy, and if it was already in effect here - then this recent unwarranted block wouldn't of happened). Plus, blocks are meant to prevent or pause problematic editors, not editors who are actively contributing, fighting spam, and working collaboratively.<br />
:::::::There should also be a time limit put into effect where admins can not back-warning. This was made obvious recently, as it can lead to abuse. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:27, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I do know Green Dragon gave Surgo and TK-Squared multiple warnings in February of 2010, for language/rudeness violations committed in March/May of 2009. And considering Surgo stopped posting in September of 2009...well, I can't see what good Green Dragon thought he was doing. Seeing as how he was warning for someone for offenses almost a year old, and ''five months'' after the user in question ceased activies on the wiki. <br />
<br />
== Admin Violations ==<br />
<br />
The current warning policy does not state that admins are "above the policy" and actually showcases many former admins who have received warnings. However, it also states that only admins may give out warnings. Though I may be just "asking for it," I am intending to request a second administrator's look at recent comments by Green Dragon to see if they are deemed necessary of a warning or warnings. <br />
On the discussing recently held on the Main Page's discussion page, GD said ''"If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out."'', ''"If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this."'', and my personal favorite ''"...Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a [[Warning Policy]]). They must fix the problem or get banned."'' All three of these comments come across as either directly rude or belittling to the people they're referring to, and the last one actually directly interferes with our existing [[Warning Policy]] and implies that I was banned for allegedly-uncivil actions off-site.<br />
Now, however, the most directly uncivil reply was recently posted to the GNU's talk page. Here, GD amazingly flat out states that he will not follow consensus or collaborative discussion (even though he recently added Consensus to the Meta pages) when he declares that ''"...I could care less who thinks what about what. I will do as it is done. I'll listen to reasonableness. I don't care if it comes from God or a bacteria."''. Could other admins please discuss this, and could Green Dragon please reply and let me know if I have misread his intent or tone, especially with the last quote. I also wish to reiterate that I'm not trying to directly attack, its just that at the time these statements were made I was unable to reply - and after reviewing the numerous moves and reformatting of the licensing discussion, am trying to host a civil discussion on a serious issue on the most appropriate page. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ah, and you've spotted a flaw in the system. As I pointed out [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|just above here]], GD is seemingly "above the law". In fact, historically, blocking GD has been grounds for a block in it's own right. In addressing my questions about the finer points of warning policy, GD seemed to gloss over the objection I raised on that front. <br />
:Personally, as an admin, I refuse to "warn" anyone (IP, registered user, administrator, or owner) until a complete and fair guide has been written and is visible to all contributors. As Jazzman mentioned, if we don't have clearly defined rules the "warning policy" becomes more of a "punishment policy". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:03, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes, I can attest to having no warning at all when I was hit with multiple at once, and still have no clear clue what I said that was wrong. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:12, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've started working on a new, more clear, warning policy. It can be seen [[User:Badger/sandbox13|here]]. Feel free to join the discussion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:55, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yes, there are answers to things for the above (looking into it more, reading the block reason, etc). Yes, the world also turns. Is "''the world also turns''" condescending? Nah. Are you going to make accusations as such? When I get the time I will issue warnings appropriately for the above comment (e.g. accusations) if appropriate. Was that condescending too? Nah. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:55, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Umm, okay? Going past the you-blocked-me thing ''(whatever, we can both agree we want the best for the future of the site. right?)'', I'm more interested in your discussion on Badger's rough draft of a warning policy overhaul. Especially on how it may affect admins and bureaucrats. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:59, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Warnings Issued on 4e Campaign Settings Caliphate Supplement ==<br />
<br />
:''Discussion moved from [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caliphate_%28Patronage_Supplement%29&oldid=542259 Talk:Caliphate (Patronage Supplement)#Titles].'' <small>--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
Ok point of order here, I'm not going to bother reading this whole discussion because it's long and half of it is hidden in warning text (and ultimately I know what the outcome will be anyway), but some of those "warning texts" are not appropriate. You can't just warn people for saying something you don't like. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:58, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Right. They are related to specific Wikipedia pages. Where are you coming from exactly? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I don't know where you are coming from with that one. To be more specific, the following statements are all statements you removed from Wrecan's posts, and warned him about. All of them are, in my opinion, not warnable offenses:<br />
::# Why are you imposing this policy on my campaign setting? What gives you the right to do this, and to prevent me from restoring what I had originally written?<br />
::# It's not tied to any language in the Wiki policy you cited and<br />
::# What admins should not do is invent an unwritten policy and impose them on others without going through the process of adoption. <br />
::# Your interpretation of the policy is not supported by the language of the policy. If you want this website to consider personal attacks to include any use of epithets considered offensive by "organizations and people... on a large scale" then go through the process of amending this wiki's policies.<br />
::# There is no violation for giving a fictional character a title of "Caliph", just as there would be no violation for giving a fictional character the title of "Pope" or "Chief Rabbi" of "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire"... even if millions of people would be offended by the act. The only behavior banned (of relevance here) is applying a religious term to describe a contributor. That's the Wikipedia (and this site's) policy. If you want this site to have a different policy, you need to go through the process of amended this site's policy.<br />
::# Did you really think I wouldn't fact-check you, GD?<br />
::# When you edited the Patronage pages, you weren't acting as administrator; you were acting as a contributor. Administrators don't make substantive contributions to wiki pages in their capacity as administrators<br />
<br />
::In addition, you edited some of his text for reasons other than warnings, which is explicitly against our editing policy. In addition, as mentioned before (in a discussion I think you moved to this page), it's simply not fair (and makes your behavior look to outsiders who don't know the situation &mdash;at best&mdash; lazy or &mdash;at worst&mdash; malevolent, ''especially'' when the content you are warning/removing refers to your improper warning/removing of text!) to respond to something multiple times before you hand out a warning for it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:31, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::None of that is improper. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 relate to lying. 3 and 6 are rude to [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:04, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::The correct grammar is "None of those are improper, and I feel silly for having censored them." --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.104|173.245.48.104]] 20:32, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not necessarily. I meant that none of the reasons for giving them are improper. You'll see what I mean if you check the reasons. The context is about the warning, ergo the warning is being discussed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:23, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::There's no point in arguing, seeing as how you won't ever change your mind. But it's on record that I disagree and that I think it makes you look very improper. In the future, I would be happy to mediate any dispute between you and another user. There's a Wikipedia policy for that somewhere (and actually I think I've done that once before on WP). Also, I'm reinstating the historical link to the page from which you moved this text, because my comments apply to a historical revision of that page, not the page as it stands now, or whenever in the future some user happens to view it. If that talk page gets archived, the link will no longer work and my comments here will lack context (which is why I commented there, and not here, in the first place). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:21, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::If you are pointing something out then please add the link to your comments. If its a diff archiving will not do anything... Um... You can read the policy to understand the warnings. If someone is saying something is done a wrong way then they are lying. It's pretty straightforward. Also, you earned yourself some warnings above! "Won't ever change your mind" is belittling. I'll warn you sometime. The dispute resolution is not needed here. Everything is straightforward. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:35, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::If it's a warning please warn me right now. Otherwise I'm not going to count it. (And you know what else is belittling? Telling someone they earned some warnings and then threatening to warn them later). Saying something is done a wrong way is only lying if Wrecan knows it was, in fact, done correctly: it's only lying if he's ''intending'' to ''mislead'' you. If Wrecan actually believes that you are not following policy even though you are, that is not lying. It's pretty straightforward. Point number 2, by the way, can not, by definition be lying: you can not lie by asking someone a question! "How was your day?" "LIAR!!!"<br />
<br />
:::::::As for the link: I don't need to refer back to what I am talking about on the other page, because when I said what I said, ''I said it on the other page''. Can you please explain to me what your problem is with adding a more accurate link? If it's a diff archiving will not do anything... which is why I added the diff! We don't want anything to affect where this link points to. If you keep the link how you have it, and then later that talk page is archived, this link will be broken. My link will be correct no matter what you do to the other page (so long as you don't delete it)<br />
<br />
::::::::1 is a little interesting. I guess I could remove it. I would like some input on the thinking behind it before any action though. I considered that these circular discussions are pointless and waste people's time. The problem with them is that they need to get resolved (as far as I can tell). One cannot have administrative-related discussions left open since that will imply that users are ''okay'' to not engage in consensus and that they can just "slam the door on other users" while disregarding them.<br />
::::::::It would be fully true that warnings need to be in the time frame of the post if our comments here served the only purpose of taking actions. They, however, do not. Many times I post things without taking any action afterwards (such as after this post) and others do not take actions from my post.<br />
::::::::Additionally if I had more time I could do all the things I want to do. If I had more time I would improve areas of D&D Wiki. I don't have the time right now. So, my lack of time is not a problem. I find that a lack of time leading to problems is not constructive. Therefore, warnings are based off the ''text''. Therefore, it is not belittling. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Policy Changes ==<br />
<br />
:''See also [[User:Badger/sandbox13]]''<br />
:''Discussion moved from [[User talk:Badger/sandbox13#Warning Policy]].'' <small>--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:44, 5 December 2011 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
Obviously, I wrote all this so I rather like it. However, is there anything that should be added? Anything that should be clarified? Anything that should be removed? Thoughts? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:51, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:The following bullet points are [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]'s comments/issues:<br />
:1. Just a suggestion for the warning of block lengths. It should go something like "The ban length starts with one week at three warnings and then increases exponentially for every 3 warnings received (2 weeks after the 6th warning, 4 weeks after the 9th, 8 weeks after the 12th, etc.)". Also, I wonder if previously banned people should get less leeway? Maybe 3 bans = 1 week, 5 = 2 weeks, then every new warning increases the ban length. Then again, maybe not, because then it would be too tempting to find any one thing to be able to ban someone. But then again, then again, if someone's already got 5 bans, they probably aren't that great of a member anyway. I'm undecided on this one.<br />
:2. Civility and harassment are wishy-washy terms, and their wishy-washiness has lead to some questionable bans in the past. I'm not sure it's possible to define them in a way that's usable for our purposes, but perhaps we should have a few examples of what are ''not'' uncivil or harassing behavior. Asking for clarification of someone else's post is (usually) not uncivil. Going off-topic or responding to a topic which has been "settled" should also not be a ban-able offense.<br />
:3. Ettiquette breaches should, in most cases, ''not'' be a ban- or warn-able offense. Going by the letter of the law, you could get a warning for mis-indenting a page or for adding a new comment to the top. This should also probably be defined somewhere. I would love it if we didn't have to link to Wikipedia at all, since we have no control over the content there, and aren't notified if their policies change.<br />
:4. I like the separation of IPs from everyone else, because it basically makes no sense to warn IPs.<br />
:5. I think that there should be some sort of statute of limitations in effect, or otherwise some way to keep from being banned as Hooper recently was. I'd say any time an administrator issues a warning, all violations at the same time count as the same warning. This means if someone, say, posts rude comments on 5 different talk pages (though see below), they would count as 1 warning, since there's only 1 chance for the user to correct their behavior, not 5. Speaking of warnings, if the whole point of a warning system is corrective and not punitive, I think any user given a warning should, you know, actually be warned, say, on their talk page. The administrator giving out the warning should leave a message on that user's talk page stating exactly why they received a warning; this way the user has an immediate chance to clean up their act or clear up any miscommunications.<br />
:6. There should be some sort of exception to the rule for certain types of offenders. As written, we can't perma-block those stupid Russian drug company spammers.<br />
:7. The petition section is a little wordy, and is unclear if only the admin who did the banning is allowed to unblock.<br />
:8. Admin blocks: GD (and I think BD) are automatically exempt from being de-sysopped, so I wonder if they should be exempt from banning (though not warning) as well? I mean, they can take away the blocking power from anyone who can block them, so if they ever ''deserved'' to be blocked, what good would it do?<br />
:I mostly support it, but there are a couple of things I think we could change (See section below). I'll change my vote when these items are discussed more. Of my original 8 points below, I am now satisfied with 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. I'm not sure I can support a policy that allows unappealable (7) insta-blocks (5), but as those discussions are not settled I haven't changed my vote yet.<br />
:This is probably a little nit-picky, but with something as tumultuous and fickle and emotional as banning, I think it's better we have an absolute iron-clad policy now, then have to find all the exceptions later and risk appearing to play favorites. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:31, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've numbered them, and will reply to them by number here:<br />
::1. I think that sets of 3 warnings to a block is a good system. Suppose Hooper gets another warning in 6 months, and then another 8 months after that. Two warnings in the span of 14 months hardly seems worth a 2 week block. Plus, then every subsequent warning is a longer and longer block. (Sorry to use you as an example, Hooper, but you make such a good one). <br />
::2. I think we need some level of "wiggle room" in our terminology. The last thing I want is some trouble-making user leave bad comments and then say "yeah, but technically it's not listed under warnable offenses." I figure since only admins are giving out warnings, we can say "use some logic and reasonableness".<br />
::3. Honestly, I don't really like etiquette, but it was included like 4 times in the original system, so I left it in. I can't make a rational argument for or against it. It seems to me that again an admin could say "dude just miscounted colons, I'm not going to warn him for an etiquette violation." but it would catch people intentionally not signing comments that are offensive. (If anyone would be dumb enough to try that, still signed in). <br />
::5. I have no idea how to word it, but I want to suggest something like "you can't be warned on comments between warnings", which I know makes no sense. Let me clarify: When you're warned for a comment "c1", and then again for comment "c5". Any comments left between c1 and c5 (c2-4) can be censored to remove offending content, but don't count towards your warning level. I think a system about leaving comments on warned user's talk pages is also a good idea. <br />
::6. The way I see it, the warning policy applies almost exclusively to comments left on talk/user pages. Considering we don't warn link spammers, we just delete their pages and perma-ban them I see no need for this policy to concern them. We should probably make it more clear that this policy applies mainly to comments, and not spam/vandalism. <br />
::7. I'm not sure how to better word the petition section. I think that only the blocking admin should be allowed to revert the block, though. <br />
::8. If they are "above" banning (as it seems they are) they might as well be "above" warnings too. The only punishment for a warning is a block. Unless you mean you'd like to be able to censor offending posts. I guess that makes enough sense.<br />
::Right, so, these are my thoughts on the matter. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:16, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Support, if time restraint put on warnings (see comments)<br />
:::I like what you've got here. It is clear and concise. Even I can tell what I'm guilty of ''(my tendency to highlight others rudeness and ignore my own)''. My only thought is that we should consider some time of time limit. Obviously, admins can't see everything right away - especially if one user cusses another out at say midnight on a sunday. Still, there should be some clear line-in-the-sand that says unless you specifically did x (say, actually cussed out a user) you can not be officially warned if the item was not caught within the time limit. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:49, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::1. Fair enough. I actually had a thought that might solve a few of our problems at once. What if the warnings "timed out" after a certain period (probably no less than three but no more than 12 months). After the set time period you remove the last warning. Truly disruptive users will ramp up their warnings quickly, but someone who, say, occasionally posts something harsher than they intended won't be so severely penalized. You could even combine the two: it takes 3 warnings to get a block, then every warning after 3 also gets a block, but you remove a warning every 3 months. Or something along these lines.<br />
::::2. I agree with wiggle room, I just also worry that "admin discresion" could be used to liberally as well. I don't know, maybe let's keep it how it is currently then update it if there are problems.<br />
::::3. If (at least) two of us don't like the etiquette part, maybe we should think about removing it altogether from the list of warn-able offenses. I'm not even sure if anyone ever got a warning based off of etiquette before. Or again, we could leave it for now and fix it if we run into problems later. <br />
::::5. What about a simpler solution: an admin can only hand out one warning at a time to a person, no matter how many offenses the admin finds at the same time. I think this says what we want to say without getting too technical.<br />
::::6. Fair enough. Maybe we just need a line that says something to the effect of "vandals and spammers will be dealt with immediately, regardless of their current warning status"?<br />
::::7. How about this: "A user may appeal a block by petitioning the blocking admin via email. The decision to reverse a block is entirely at the discretion of the admin. If the admin does not respond after 48 hours, a blocked user may contact another admin. If this second admin can not contact the original blocking admin, they may decide to reverse the block at their discretion.<br />
::::Any user who is blocked for a period of greater than 1 month can ask for a formal appeal. The user must email all active admins their appeal, after which the admin may request additional information, or may decide as written. A user must get a 2/3's vote from all currently active admins to appeal their block. If the vote fails, they may appeal again after 6 months."<br />
::::8. It's probably a moot point, but yeah, censoring was part of it. Really, though, we don't want admins to be at each other's throats, so maybe we shouldn't delve into this too far. I wonder if we should put in a clause that uncivil language directed at an admin can not be warned by that admin. In other words, a warn must always be from a third-party. Pointing out such offenses would obviously be exempt from the "pointing out offenses is an offense" rule, because administrators don't always read conversations if they know another admin is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:06, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::1. I'm not sure how I feel about warnings going away after a period of time. I mean, it sounds reasonable enough, but the notion of having to go and check on warning expiration dates seems like one more thing to do, with no concrete advantage. I'm all for more work, if it's worth it. I'd also argue "if you are blocked for 3 warnings that span more than a year, you have a strong case for a petition to commute the block". <br />
:::::2/3. How about we keep the "admin discretion" point from comment 2, and remove etiquette from 3? I think that solution would probably do the most good, and the least expense. <br />
:::::5. We currently have a rule that says [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|a single post can't create more than one warning]]. Want to somehow explain how that would extend to all existing comments? <br />
:::::6. We can (and probably should) add that line in somewhere.<br />
:::::7. I like your suggestion for improving the petition portion. I think we should include a bit about "pestering an admin", unless you object to that notion. <br />
:::::8. So maybe we say "while Bureaucrats cannot be warned, their comments can be censored just like any other post"? I like the third party idea. The only problem with that is suppose someone insults you three times, but no other admins are online for a week (which I don't think has '''ever''' happened). You should have the authority and the ability to remove these bad comments and warn the user. <br />
:::::Lastly, to Hooper's point: I'm not sure how I feel about "Admins didn't catch the edit within X weeks, they can't be warned". While it sounds reasonable, admins have a ton of stuff to do (here, and in the real world). I know I don't read every single update (though I skim most of them). If someone is being uncivil, they should be warned no matter how long it's been. Notice we are granting amnesty to all comments before this system is set into place, though. I think that's reasonable enough. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:18, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I feel that civility should be kept as well. I feel that something along the lines of "''Warnings result in predetermined feelings. Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters. Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings. For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable.''"<br />
::::::I agree that IPs should not be included. A feature like [[Special:CheckUser]] does not exist for them.<br />
::::::Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards.<br />
::::::Warnings should go away after 6 months if the user is in good standing. The reasoning could include something along the lines of "''If a registered user remains in good standing for six months after receiving a warning the warning will be removed. If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed. Call some friends over and play some D&D&ndash; try to keep your mind off the predetermined feeling(s) which w/as(ere) received.''"<br />
::::::I am fine with bureaucrats being above the warning policy. Although this leaves a large hole open for problems, I can say with certainty [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] and I will not abuse the system.<br />
::::::I disagree with petitions to unblock. If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked. If the reasoning is solid then they should be blocked. I do not think that there should be the possibility for circumvention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:54, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Look good? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:36, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I've reverted the changes for two reasons. First, all the above comments are based on what was there (and is there again), so changing that much will change how all those comments apply. Secondly, your use of some very key phrases are confusing to me (and presumably other users). For example "If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed." is not a complete sentence, and I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. The suggestions you've brought up are, on the whole, good ones, and should be included. However, those monumental changes are not the best way to go about implementing said changes. if you could better explain your meaning, we could work out what changes need to take place. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:38, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::This is a sandbox which is a subsection of your userpage. If you want to revert the changes whatever. Keep in mind that one can always look at a older version of the page (based off the dates of the comments) for such a scenario.<br />
:::::::::I think that "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''" is a complete sentence. "''If there are [bears who fish salmon] know that [they do fish salmon].''" The adjective is lasting feelings and the verb is passed. However, I am no grammatical expert.<br />
:::::::::I mean what my comment above mentions. If you would like a better explanation please go through my comment above and let me know where your confusion arises from. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:46, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm aware that this is a subpage, and history/comment dates would make it possible to see what exactly everyone means, but it would be easier to just make a large edit once we've resolved all our concerns, and then strike through/comment out the existing discussion.<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm just going to go through your previous comment one line at a time, pointing out where I would like clarity. ''"I feel that civility should be kept as well"''. Got that, clear and concise. ''"Warnings result in predetermined feelings"''. I have no idea what that means. What are "pre-determined feelings", in this sense?''"Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters."'' This much I understand, too. Warnings are the sorts of things that are unacceptable, but not worthy of a block. ''" Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings."'' Right, not sure what this means. Do you mean "Admins can correct small things, like indentation, and not warn the contributor"? That is what I think you mean by your next sentence ''"For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable."'' ''"Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards."'' is another confusing sentence, for me. Do you mean to suggest that you should be able to issue three warnings for three successive inappropriate posts, and thereby block someone, without giving them time to adjust their behaviors? I think, and others agree, that this mentality turns a warning policy into a punishment policy. I don't think that is a good rule. The rest of your post I think I understand. I'm fine with removing the petition to unblock if warnings go away 6 months after they were issued. That seems like a solid plan, to me. <br />
<br />
::::::::::Back to that one confusing sentence: if that is how you intend for your comment to be interpreted, then it is improperly punctuated; but, that's a minor detail. However, if that is your sentence, then it is a tautology that adds nothing to the policy. "If there are feelings, then there are feelings" doesn't help to describe what these feelings are, or what ramifications these feelings have. Could you better describe what you mean by "predetermined feelings"? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:05, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::By "predetermined" I mean that when someone says something they intend a result for someone else. By "''Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings''" I mean that "You may edit" (just worded for the context).<br />
:::::::::::When I mention that edits should be the base for warnings this is because blocking can be of varying length. Why can they be of varying length? They vary in length because of severity. Making warnings work with edits makes use of severity. Also, it is not fair if someone insults someone multiple times and someone else insults someone a single time and they get the same result.<br />
:::::::::::Oh, everything I added are tautologies. They are there to explain the reasoning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:51, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::The whole point of numbering was to try and keep the different points straight, but I see that's gone down the crapper. I'm going to try to summarize, then hopefully we can stay organized from here on out.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::1 (Warning system logistics) It sounds like we are leaning towards an expiring warning system.<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with this, and I don't think it takes too much work. Really, all you have to do is check the age of the last warnings before you ban someone. If the oldest warning is less than 6 months old, then none of them have expired yet. Displaying "expired" warnings doesn't have any negative consequences, so nobody needs to rigorously patrol the page for expired warnings.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::2/3 (Etiquette and Civility) I think we are going to keep it as is for now.<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with Badger, the language suggested by Green Dragon does not make a lot of sense to me, and I'm not sure it's necessary. For one thing, "discretionable" is not a real word. I think what you are getting at is that admins have discretion to define "civility" and "etiquette". While I don't really like this (as it leaves it open to abuse -- especially with no method of appeal), I don't see a better way around it right now.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::4 (Blocking IPs) It's agreed that there's no need to block IPs.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::5 (How to count blocks) There is no consensus here.<br />
:::::::::::::Badger mentioned the "rule" that you can't be warned more than once in one comment. This should be enumerated within the rules for it to be official. Green Dragon, your scenario is fair in one way but unfair in another. Yes, your way three warnings always equals 1 block. But one user got 2 warnings to cease his behavior before he was blocked, and the other got 0. This is unfair. I'll say it again: if the point of the block policy is to ''change'' behavior, then you must go off of the number of actual ''warnings'' (i.e. how many times the user was told "don't do that or else"). If the purpose of the warning policy is to ''punish'' people, then you must go off of the number of ''offenses'' (this would even count for multiple offenses within a single post). If we are trying to build a community, I can only support a behavior-changing policy. I also, for the same reason, think there should be a statute of limitations. While admins may be busy, we really should be checking over all edits, especially in discussions that are likely to devolve into uncivil behavior. I don't think a week is too short a time frame; most weeks you can view a week's worth of edits on the recent changes log. If we ''don't'' have a statute of limitations, there's nothing stopping an unscrupulous admin from "storing" warnings and unleashing them all when he wants to get rid of a user for a while.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::6 (Exception for spammers/vandals) I think there is agreement on this point.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::7 (Petitioning) Badger and Jazzman are for, and GD is against.<br />
:::::::::::::I really see no reason against allowing an appeal. Admins are humans, and humans make mistakes. You even say yourself, "If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked." So what if the reasoning wasn't solid, but you blocked anyway? Again, if we are going for a behavior-changing policy, we need the ability to have some leeway here. <br />
<br />
::::::::::::8 (Bureaucratic Immunity) It's agreed that Bureaucrats are immune to the warning policy, but not admins. It has been suggested that a third party must intervene if an admin is involved in the uncivil behavior, but not agreed upon the details.<br />
:::::::::::::The whole point of rule of law (or rule of rule, in this case) sort of breaks down if you just take the Bureaucrats at their word... but that being said we don't really have any way around it, so I begrudgingly agree that they should just get blanket immunity. There's nothing we can do about it anyway. As for the case where only one admin is around, I think that it's rare enough that we shouldn't have to worry about it. If there is someone who is genuinely disruptive and no other admin responds in, say, 24 hours, the primary admin should be able to block. This is another reason to allow petitioning: if an admin is in an argument with a user, they could find a serious of excuses to block that user for 6 months. Without an appeal process, that user is screwed.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think this is everything. If I have misrepresented anyone or any idea please let me know. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 11:29, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I agree that the tautologies should be added elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages.<br />
:::::::::::::In accordance with number five mentioned above I would like to say that warnings are based off edits. This means that if the edit is older then six months then it (because of the time frame) would not be useable. This, then, removes the abuse of the system you mention above. Severity is also important because one does not ''learn'' through such a process. If you want to learn read [[Meta Pages]]. Editing is not learning necessarily and merging the two together is a mistake.<br />
:::::::::::::I don't disagree with appeals. I just don't feel that the medium is appropriate. If there is a problem they may wait out there time frame (if it is the last edit which is a problem) or if it is an intermediate edit, post on [[Talk:Warning Policy]] and discuss the problem. This is in accordance with wiki. We ''do not'' want D&D Wiki to function outside of wiki. This would undermine the very idea of wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:31, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:GD, I'm not sure you know what tautologies are. They are "using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity". There is absolutely ''no'' reason to intentionally include a tautology in our policies. If I understand you correctly, the statute of limitations on warnings should be 6 months, starting the day the comment was posted, rather than the day it was found. I'm not sure I like that. I'd support a month for the SoL, but have warnings expire 6 months after they are issued, not after the original comment is left. I think the goal of this policy should be learning, not punishment. We can't honestly expect every contributor to read the entirety of the Meta Pages before posting. I don't think I got around to reading them all until after I became admin (and I'm not even sure I've read them all, they are hard to find sometimes). I think "learning by doing" is the best approach to this situation, and that means we should combine editing with teaching. Finally, your last point is dead wrong. I pulled the notion of appeals directly from Wikipedia policy (making small alterations, to better suit it to our wiki). That section of their policy can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_and_discussions here]. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:53, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::As tautologies explain the same thing (just give some backing to the reasoning for clarification) they should be moved elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages, as I mentioned above.<br />
::The goal of the policy should not be learning. If we do not have varying severity people will use D&D Wiki contributors as vents. There is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have varying severity punishments. Saying that removing this is better then having this present is something which is wrong. If you kill someone and someone else crosses the street illegally a slap on the wrist for both instances is not acceptable. Most people (since they must interact with respect for various reasons) already know how to interact so the learning curve is pretty much non-existent anyway.<br />
::What is wrong with the reasoning for clarification of "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''"? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::For one thing, it isn't clear - negating its ability to clarify. Its obtuse almost. We need clear and concise language. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:21, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Feeling not feelings is a minor grammatical mistake above. If you want to improve the language, of course, go for it.<br />
::::Also, I agree that non-wiki arbitration is good to have. I created http://groups.google.com/group/dd-wiki-non-wiki-arbitration for non-wiki arbitration. Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok, where is this "severity of punishments" thing coming from? We have exactly one punishment -- banning -- and its severity is determined by the quantity, not quality, of your offenses. I simply can not, and will not, ever be in favor of a punitive system of warnings. It's not conducive to a collective-editing environment, it's harsh on new users and therefore insulating to a community that's already way to small to begin with, and it's just plain unnecessary when you consider the types of offenses we are actually dealing with here. Nobody is going to be deterred from ''offending'' by a threatening system, they will be deterred from ''editing''. If you don't agree with this then we will have to agree to disagree because you won't convince me otherwise. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:10, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Edit to add: that whole lasting feelings statement doesn't make any sense to me at all. Are you trying to say "let bygones be bygones"? If so, why do we need that in a warning policy anyway? What's the point of that arbitration thing? Is that to be used with the appeals process you think is unnecessary? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::A few points: <br />
:::::::Tautologies don't really explain things. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps you instead mean "definition" or "explanation". <br />
:::::::While the goal of most policy should not be learning, most of us feel that the goal of the warning policy should be for learning. We want to use the warning policy as a system to teach right from wrong, not just punish those who are doing wrong. If someone is persistently upsetting the community and not contributing in any way, I'm likely to just block them for a week, despite the warning policy. It is my opinion that the warning policy should be for making sure conversations stay civil, and censoring the occasional bad post from a generally good contributor. <br />
:::::::No one is suggesting that we remove institutionalized punishments that fit the crime. To continue your metaphor, there is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have an appeals system. If someone is given 20 years in prison for jaywalking, they should be able to appeal to have their sentence commuted. The idea of appeals isn't to let the guilty walk free, but rather to help the unjustly punished.<br />
:::::::I've joined that group you've created. I'm not sure if it's the best method, but I suppose it'll do for now. You should check that users are who they say they are (based on the email they use to join). In joining, I just got to choose a random username, and I could have picked "Badger" just as easily as I could have picked "Blue Dragon" or "JazzMan831".<br />
:::::::I really want to figure out what you mean by "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''". Do you mean to say ''"If you are still upset about a mean thing someone has said, know that they said it 6 months ago and they may no longer feel that way."''? If that's not what you mean, can you try to rephrase it another way, because I am totally confused. <br />
::::::Given that you've created this off-wiki method for arbitration, I suppose it's safe to assume that an appeals system is something you now like?--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:22, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I wonder if a off-site group is the right way to go for one major reason: anonymity. Yes, I am not that fond of it myself - and I may be willing to use my real name everywhere, but not everyone is. Should we force a user who doesn't wish to connect his online profile with others or his real name into signing up to a group - especially one like google where it is so easy for personal information to leak through ''(trust me, I'm a debt collector. Google and facebook are awesome for us when it comes to tracking)''? Again, personally, I'm anti-anonymity, but I understand that others seek it out. I mean, I doubt Badger wants us to know that he may be "James T. Badger from Badgerville" ''(just an example)'' or such. Maybe this is making sense, but I feel like I'm just blabering on. Basically: TL<nowiki>;</nowiki>DR = love and feel the need for a appeals process, but is off-site the right channel? Do we have the ability to program a few pages to allow even blocked users to edit, like their own talk page or a central Admin Noticeboard? <br />
:::::::Also, what do we do in cases like [[User_talk:Hooper#Spammer_Block_Oddity|this]]? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:47, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::If we were to remove severity and consider an aspect of learning as the base does this include everyone? If someone insults me multiple times will that annoy me more? If someone gets the same punishment as another user for a lesser offense will they even learn (I think this has been proven to be a learning barrier by the way)? If someone insults anyone multiple times will that annoy the admin more (more dealing with this learning base of work)? Why should everything relate to the abuser and not the abused? Why should those who "do their homework" (for lack of a better term) not be better off? Is that not part of learning? I just don't understand how removing severity and considering an aspect of learning as the base can be fair. If its not fair then we ''will'' have a problem with users considering the administration as biased and not compatible.<br />
::::::::Yes, "''bygones be bygones''". Don't worry about all that&ndash; it will be used in the help pages.<br />
::::::::I attempted to infer that yes, I do agree with an arbitration method. For the arbitration to have an effect (in its current state), yes, one must verify the user (email for a message or something). If we do not want to deal with this level of anonymity then does anyone know of a fitting extension for the above suggestions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:02, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, so one thing to point out, we're all in favor of keeping the scaling block lengths. If someone repetitively insults users, they will ''not'' have a good case for arbitration. Arbitration, and commuted block lengths, will only occur when something has legitimately gone wrong. Apparently a patch to the MediaWiki software continues to prevent a blocked user from editing a wiki, but allows users to still edit their talk page. I'm not sure if we have that capability, but if we do, that'd be the best way to go about this. Users could post on their talk page, and admins could leave their opinions. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:17, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The problem with a correlation there is that in some cases multiple things have legitimately gone wrong with only one result. Which extension [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki.org] were you referring to above? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:08, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand where your problem is. Can you give a hypothetical situation where your problem would arise? That would be immensely helpful. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgBlockAllowsUTEdit This] extension (not actually an extension, but existing code) allows blocked users to edit their talk page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:34, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::For example if I edit a page and do not treat another use with civility I have completed an edit. This edit would (in your method) go into a pool until the user gets warned. The pool could have thousands of edits which are not done with civility. The admin would only see the pool and remove the pool as a single occurrence with a single warning relating to the commuted block length. I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The commuted block length should be based of occurrences so this pool problem does not exist.<br />
::::::::::::That extension is an option. I am not a fan of it. When a user is ''blocked'' they are ''blocked''. They did something wrong, so why should they be given lieniency? I would rather do something which does not relate to wiki D&D Wiki (or a mailing list from the email user preferences). Is there an extension for such a thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Well, here's the thing. The "pool" would only exist if admins aren't vigilant in their duties. The idea is that admins should stay on top of these things. Secondly, think about this: Suppose you are a user who is leaving comments. You don't think there is anything wrong with your comments. Suddenly an admin comes online and warns you three times in two minutes. Suddenly you're blocked, and you had no idea you were doing anything wrong. Does that seem fair? <br />
:::::::::::::I'm not sure moving things off-wiki is necessarily the best decision. We've always been adamant that we should keep everything on-site, and I don't get why this would be any different. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Actually, I forgot about that extension. I think it's a good idea -- but only if it's also possible to additionally block a user from using their talk page. Everyone has the right to appeal, but not to spam the recent changes out of spite.<br />
<br />
:As for "abuser" vs. "abused", since we have agreed on a system where only an admin can hand out warnings, and pointing out offenses of others can itself be warn-able, then obviously this is biased towards the "abuser" method. And really we have good reason. If, for example, user A is in an argument with user B, he shouldn't be given the option to pick three different times in the past where he felt "abused" by user B in order to get him blocked for a week. Additionally, admins should not have to be put in a position where they have to say "well actually I don't feel that you are actually being abused, even though that's how you feel". [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:46, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How does the fairness of block lengths make its way into this system?<br />
::The fairness of block lengths is present if the duty relies solely on the ''timing'' of admins. Why should everything be about the timing? Do the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles|improving, reviewing, and removing article]] templates make it so the timing can be used to the fullest? Why should we change the warning system to be worse then such a method?<br />
::The above example does seem fair to me. If I could not control my words I need to learn and a system which explains to me which words were appropriate, treats me the same as other people, and treats the person I was rude to the same as everyone else who was mistreated works best.<br />
::I am against something here being onsite since IP's are only posting spam on their talk pages and being blocked means one is blocked.<br />
::I don't agree with admins being the only one's able to ''deal'' with warnings. See also [[Warning Policy#Warnings Issued]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:50, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't think it's fair to punish someone because, as an admin, I'm slacking on my job. If you make three potentially offensive edits in the span of twenty minutes, you should be given a fair chance to change your behavior. Suppose someone swears in a comment. They don't swear at anyone, they just say something like "Fighters should have the best damn BAB possible". They may not know that comments like that are a violation of policy (Hell, I'm not even sure if they are against policy). Do you think it's fair to ban someone because they leave three comments like that? On my [[Talk:Hooker_(3.5e_Class)|Hooker talk page]], I, an active user, ask what our policy on swearing is. You can't expect a new user to know if users (and admins) as active as Jazzman and I are don't know. Expecting every contributor to spend thirty minutes reading policy before posting is idealistic and naive. Any policy that could block someone for comments like that is completely asinine, and I can't support it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:12, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Should we just do as Wikipedia does? We are basically only talking about a "level of harassment" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility]) which is a block (the word ''may'' not ''can''). What I am mentioning above is more kind then what Wikipedia uses and making it kinder again is a mistake. Wikipedia knows how to handle users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:15, 15 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::GD: which of my 8 points above do you agree with (be explicit, as in, using the actual numbers). Since we are all almost in agreement about those things, can we add them to the real policy page? It'd be nice to have some defined rules around here. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:59, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea of integrity. It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system. Warnings should be applicable until a warning is given then the expiration of the warning can begin to happen. If this does not happen then we lose integrity. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:20, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::First of all, why did you move this? The running vote, and, most importantly, the thing we are discussing in the first place are not on this page. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean. Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? You do disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? Since the current vote is unanimous on several portions of the proposed policy, can we make any of it official? I will respond to your point after I get the answer to these questions, so as not to get distracted. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:37, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::The votes were placed where they should be. The same is for this discussion (what it is discussing should be its main page). Voting is not done. See also [[Meta Pages#Policies]] ''"As [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Supermajority Supermajority] (and many others) failed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] is only used under the rules of D&D, under editing, and in other special instances."'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:52, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::When is voting done, then? And I'm glad you brought up that line; I hadn't noticed it before in Meta Pages. I also am not sure what it's supposed to mean (there's a critical comma or something missing in there). Also, I ask again, as these important questions have yet to be answered: Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? Do you disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? And since voting is apparently not finished (though no one's added a vote in months now) I'll add another: when is voting finished, and what is the procedure for changing this policy? (Do we even *have* a procedure?) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:27, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::As per the above ''"It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system.''" I think I have mentioned what I agree and disagree with above multiple times to refine this... The quote here is my problem with it. And, consensus is done&ndash; voting is not done (special means things like aesthetics, etc). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:41, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Hey guys, sorry I've been missing these past few weeks, I've been swamped with stuff. What have I missed? It seems like we're talking about implementing my new version of the warning policy. Sweet! Let's see, where are we... Right, well, it appears that we're going to use consensus (my favorite thing) to talk about implementation. Judging by what I've read the only thing standing between us and consensus is the notion of a statute of limitations on warnings. Is that right? Awesome! From what I can tell, there are two sides here. Some of us feel that warning people multiple times before given the chance to change their ways is wrong. Others feel if we don't warn people for every offense, we lose integrity in the system. Let me be the first to state that I am in the former camp. Official pardons, states of limitations, and other "secondary laws" have been in effect in America since our inception. I don't think that it can be fairly argued that the American legal system lacks "integrity" because of this. Would someone like to give an example where the integrity of D&D-Wiki would be put in danger because of the proposed policy changes? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:50, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
{reverting indent]<br />
:If you replied to it without giving a warning, it should ''not'' be given a warning later. If it's acceptable to you then, you shouldn't get to change your mind. I can understand if you just now entered the discussion--and even then, the warning should be one along with a statement to straighten up. That discussion went for many, many pages before Green Dragon decided Wrecan wasn't kosher. What made him change his mind? That Wrecan's tone had gotten snippy? Then that should be a warning for when Wrecan's tone and behavior became unacceptable and that post only, not for what was said two weeks ago and replied to a dozen times. Furthermore, multiple warnings in one swoop aren't good. They aren't good ''at all''. I can't imagine the acrobatics required to decide it's acceptable exercise of power, to discuss something ''for weeks'' and then block the other side of the discussion for posts weeks old. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.215|173.245.56.215]] 13:33, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I can't agree with the IP more. What happened to Wrecan should never have happened -- either he should have been blocked days before, or he should not have been blocked at all. To respond to something ''multiple times'' is to give consent to it. You can not then go back and block. It makes the blocker look bad, and it makes the site look bad, end of story. It also doesn't help when YOU POINT OUT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO WARN SOMEONE LATER and then not do it! It just makes you look like a tyrant (and GD, I'm not calling you a tyrant; I'm pointing out that someone new to this site who saw something like that would likely consider the behavior tyrannical). <br />
<br />
::Note, also, that GD has decided it's ok to tell users they have done something warn-worthy ''without actually warning them''. [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warning_Policy&diff=prev&oldid=542429].<br />
<br />
::Lastly: when will voting be done? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:37, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::The American Legal System is not in the same situation. When a judge makes a decision he makes the decision. There are no court cases that people don't listen to and then ''later'' the judge listens to them.<br />
:::Some comments are not necessarily acceptable to anyone anytime. Policy relating to acceptable behavior comes from the Wikipedia pages. No one is changing their mind&ndash; they are just later having the time to deal with the situation.<br />
:::I warned [[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] before the time when he received multiple blocks. The time I have to issue warnings (it does take time&ndash; reading everything so critically while constantly referencing Wikipedia and then the formatting that is related, etc) is when I will issue them. Mentioning comments as being warning-worthy is because I have not had the time the process (mentioned above) requires yet. Is this what is being mentioned above? Seems like it is the same thing. Is it antagonizing? I think it may be a fine line.<br />
:::Voting is not done. See above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:30, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Ok, GD, let me just say "No". Your reason for delaying a warning isn't acceptable. At all. If you have the time to reply to comments, you have the time to warn someone. End of Discussion. You gave 8 warnings in a single edit. If anything, it should have been a single warning. What you have done is wholly unacceptable. None other administrator would have done what you did. That should have been a clue that something wasn't quite right. <br />
::::Jazzman, as a point of order, what do you mean by "When will voting be done"?<br />
::::*Under what circumstances should we vote on something?<br />
::::*When will discussion come to a close on this issue?<br />
::::I feel like that might change the discussion. Are you using the word "voting" to mean "discussion and debate" instead of actual "voting"? <br />
::::Finally, I think you've misunderstood my metaphor about the American legal system. Rather than try to explain it to you, I'm just going to ask that you ignore it.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 9 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Let me verify this please&ndash; you're telling me how to spend my time? You understand how my time is organized then?<br />
:::::Since this is consensus the point I will make follows. Read the policy. If you don't know what you're doing read the policy. If you don't know how to interact with other humans, read the policy (it may help you). We are not going to organize time in any manner&ndash; that's not right. We'll assume people who care will care and if you do not care then you will suffer the consequences. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:18, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::The point of this discussion is none of us like the policy, and we'd like to change it. I would suggest that if maybe you don't know how to interact with other humans, you should let others write policy. It may help the the website, in the long run. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:13, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Luckily that's a theoretical comment above and then later not direct. I agree that if you don't know how to interact with humans you should let others write policy.<br />
:::::::I am talking about a successful model used throughout the world. Again, if you don't know how to interact (making a new model for example that is an experiment (perform the experiment elsewhere okay)) how about you let others write the policy.<br />
:::::::The clarification of my above comment is that I am talking about people who receive warnings. If you get a warning you have a problem interacting with humans (do you just go up to someone and belittle them?). I am saying that if they do not read the policy and or understand it then they should learn through the process anyway. Does this simple comment finally make sense? I can't understand how this is not understandable to others. You go to school. You learn. If you don't do your homework you get a bad grade. It's the same thing. The level of used throughout the world is large, so why oh why are the comments I am getting back just not getting this?<br />
:::::::Have you ever ruined a class by making the curriculum based off your understanding? The structure of classes is not like this. You sign up for a class. You learn the material that is presented on the syllabus the first day. It doesn't matter if you get it or not&ndash; your grade reflects that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:27, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::We all agree that if you are belittled you should be warned. That isn't the issue being debated here. What we're saying is that 8 warnings at once is an issue. Teachers don't give you a test, and then later count it as eight tests. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:10, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Obviously. They do, however, mark you down for eight questions when you missed eight questions. Giving a Pass/Fail on understanding the test is ''not'' what they do. Any questions this time around? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:35, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::GD, do you agree that the Warning policy should be designed to get users to change their ways by showing them what is not ok, and giving them a chance to change? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:36, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Partly. Learning fairly by repercussions and through reading. I don't agree with unfair learning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:24, 11 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::And tell me, did you give Wrecan time to change his ways between the 2nd and 3rd edits? Or the 3rd and 4th? If the point was to get him to change is ways, shouldn't you have given him a chance to change before banning him for 6 weeks? After reading the conversation, I know I wouldn't have warned him for what he said. Those warnings would have come as a shock to me, and I'm an admin. Don't you think that a single warning would have been more acceptable? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:18, 11 December 2011 (MST)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Warning_Policy&diff=542764Help talk:Warning Policy2011-12-11T21:36:26Z<p>Badger: /* Policy Changes */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Missing Warnings? ==<br />
<br />
Where are the first warnings for TK-Squared, Jota, and S1Q3T3? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 17:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:In this time I did not reference the areas so I forgot some. They have them however where are they?<br />
:I know [[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] had three warnings however he/she was first banned for only one warning (the policy was still young) and then he acquired at least up to three warnings and was not banned to compensate (see his talk - history if needed). I at least remember it was with someone (maybe [[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] however I don't rememberer exactly. Do you know?<br />
:I put (2:1) on [[User:Jota|Jota's]] last warning and I do not think I was wrong. Do you know where the other is? Is there another?<br />
:[[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] was banned for a (3:1) however were are they all? I also don't remember.<br />
:If you know any of the areas I am talking about supplying a link would be appreciated.<br />
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where warnings have been given and are not referenced here supplying a link would be appreciated.<br />
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where people deserve warnings and were not given them supplying a link would be appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Although it is a moot point, I can see the advantage of making sure we try to accurately back-log and keep track for all future purposes. I [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Yo5&defl=en&q=define:hope&ei=-Yt5S8XIO47cnAfKr5GyCQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE doubt] the user who did it will ever be back, but [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Bagby&diff=prev&oldid=395263 this edit] seems to me to be a warning-level offense. Maybe I'm wrong, but here it is for an admin to decide.<br />
::Additionally, I was wondering if we are going to have an enforced warning system that is in effect for Edit Wars? I know that even I have been a part of many, and it is something we should avoid. Just curious. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::As seen in [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:White_Wolf&curid=72522&diff=457366&oldid=457360 this diff], [[User:Jota]] tried to sneak bits of another user's ''(myself)'' previous comments, trying to disguise the removal as part of a different edit. Even more poignant, the main section removed was where I quoted Jota from a previous location where he admitted enjoying arguing on this wiki (arguably an act of trolling). Though the edits leading up to it can be deemed a Edit War of which I am equally to blame ''(though correct in my reasoning)'', Jota's edit went against all forms of wiki civility and protocol.<br />
:::This is not the first time Jota has done such. He has even removed or discounted other user's or IP's ratings of his own content when it wasn't to his liking. Being so brunt with other user's talk page postings should be forbidden. At most, altering extremely foul language or helping fix link/formatting should be the only allowable reason to do such a thing ''(barring of course obvious spam/vandalism)''. For this reason, I believe a warning is necessary. I leave it to the admin to decide. I understand if I also receive one for the edit war that took place, though in that case Jota should receive two. <br />
:::Jota did respond on that page that he removed the content to save me from ''"..direct rudeness, name calling, and belittle comments.."'' however the main portion of content removed was a quote from Jota, not myself. So that is invalid. The small other portion was not name calling nor do I perceive it as rude - those in managerial positions see things differently than those who are not, irl. Hence the classic phrase ''"can't see the forest because of all the trees"'' and all of it's variants. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::So arguing is trolling now? Lolwut? My actions were in keeping with your (Hooper) past actions, as noted on the Biomancer's talk page. If what I did was an offense against Wiki civility, so was what Hooper did. I just see him not getting warned for his actions, so I assume their okay under this wiki's policy, even though I find them questionable in nature. Furthermore, yes I remove ratings from content, not just IP ratings and not just my own material. If the rating is "lulz, overpowered" that does nothing for no one and is better off removed. "Obvious" spam is subjective, and should be left to an admin or bureaucrat, of which Hooper is neither. Personally, I would subscribe to FIFA's approach to warnings. Asking for someone else to be warned is a warn-worthy offense. Admins know the rules. Telling an admin someone needs to be warned is only an attempt to unjustly sway their opinion, and as such should merit a warning. Given [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law ex post facto law], Hooper's previous offense could be ignored, but its just a suggestion. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Irrelevant. As anyone can see on the policy pages in the help portal, most notable the Behavior Page, and from GD's actions and own statements, we no longer tolerate solicitation or links to competing sites. As noted in the diffs on biomancer, Eiji was soliciting and I removed it '''per policy'''. Stop straw manning. <br />
:::::Green Dragon is attempting to be notified because he is the only majorly active admin currently and has way too much to go through, hence it is easy for him to not see all that goes on, sadly. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Obvious is subjective, and therefore not your call to make. You want the power, nominate yourself for adminship. You're just creating more clutter by bringing subjective arguments to the table. Besides, it's not like this wiki is so active one cannot see an entire day's worth of activity on the recent changes page. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::Everything I need to do here on the wiki doesn't require adminship, nor do I want it. I thought I needed it long ago to help speed up editing but still don't need it today. Some of us have power in real life and realize that adminship is just responsibility, not power.<br />
:::::::Besides, I'd be too bad of an admin. I'd just permaban all the transientwiki people who think that continuing to cause circular talks and bog down progress on the site is fun. I'd also permaban anyone making content with the word Naruto in it. So, subjective or not, it's obvious I don't need adminship. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Official Policy ==<br />
<br />
So I have a few quick questions concerning actual policy. <br />
*If an Admin gets 3 warnings (and thusly banned for a week), should they be RfA'd to (potentially) remove adminship? It seems reasonable to have some sort of policy in place to that effect. Naturally, we'd all like to think admins are calm, level-headed contributors all the time, but everyone gets upset and says (or does) something stupid every so often. <br />
*Are all warnings the same? Can a single action provoke 2 <s>attacks of opportunity</s> warnings? <br />
*Is there a statute of limitations on warnings? We have a message up there asking for any missed warnings. Should we really be going back 4 and 5 months to find warn-able offenses? Some of those offenses took place before the warning policy existed. <br />
*Are we warning for every violation of civility according to that list? Forgetting to sign your post, and not answering questions both are on that list. Neither seem worth a warning.<br />
*My last question is a very specific one. Green Dragon, as we all ''now'' know, cannot be removed from adminship. Can he still be warned? If he is warned 3 times can he be banned?<br />
Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:First off I just recently saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption] and civility is actually present. As such, do we need this now maybe extraneous policy? I don't know. If so I would prefer we rollback or censor the problem text/post. Thoughts?<br />
:Should an admin be RfA'ed. Good question. I think so as it means one has not been upholding the values of an admin.<br />
:Warnings have been given based off each post, not an "action". Within the post, although their may be multiple violations, I have been counting it as one post to one warning.<br />
:There should not be a statue of limitations on warnings. The problem text is still present and as such something needs to be done regarding it.<br />
:Maybe you are referring to how the "etiquette" portion may not be relevant. That could be case. Should this be changed to just civility? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Hmm. I don't know. Should this page be a subpage of [[Help:Behavioral_Policy]]? &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I think Wikipedia's policy (as you linked above) is a good one. However, I think that policy almost requires us to keep the warning policy. If, for example, you decide to ban me for "Persistent Gross Incivility", I'd demand a few examples of that. The warning policy, as we have it, keeps a running log of all infractions to present if the banned individual should they ask for evidence. Whether or not we decide to stick with the "3 warns equals 1 week ban" policy is a different question. I think the policy is a solid one (once we more clearly define infractions and consequences). I personally am opposed to "perma-bans" (with the exception of users solely dedicated to causing problems, as defined by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption disruptions only]); I don't know how you feel on the subject, however. To address Hooper's question, I think the final decisions should for sure be a sub-page of Behavioral policy, I don't know that this discussion has made any concrete decisions yet though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Vagueishness ==<br />
<br />
The criteria for warning seem somewhat vague, and, since they link to an offsite page over which we have no control, are subject to unwarned change. If I read this literally, I could be giving out warnings for people who don't sign their posts, which doesn't really seem necessary, or for abusing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule WP:3RR], which isn't clearly a policy on this site. It's probably time that we broke from WikiP and just created our own pages on civility and etiquette. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This could make sense. Want to give it a go and we can see where we are from there? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:29, 4 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I could do it (though I don't have a lot of time right now), but since you do all of the warning, I would think you have a better idea of what's warnable and what's not. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:12, 9 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Hooper ==<br />
<br />
He got two warnings at the same time. It's not really a "warning" if he doesn't have a chance to learn from it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:16, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Interestingly, one of those messages was followed by three or four other comments before it was warned. To an outside observer, it might appear as though someone was just looking for a reason to block him for a week and warned him for something that didn't really warrant a warning. I know we've decided that warnable offenses don't have a statute of limitations, but that's a tad silly, IMO. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:21, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree that the first one was weak at best; stating that one can't follow another's statements is certainly not a personal attack if it's true, and doesn't really justify a warning. Even if Hooper had said something invoking the hygiene of another's mother, however, he still should have a chance to learn from his mistake before being warned a second time. Otherwise it's not a warning policy, it's a punishment policy. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:36, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::The learning curve is non-existent. If you don't know how to edit, look into D&D Wiki's policies. If that confuses you don't chime into discussions which are so variable. Also, it's that we are intended to warn backwards in time to be fair. Did it happen? Yes. Done. Is there any other way? Not unless you want to disregard wikis (when you edit you edit) entirely for certain users for who knows what reason. There may be more warning problems. I am so tired of pointless discussions I have stopped reading them. If I see more warning problems sometime when I may read them for whatever reason, yes, I will give more warnings. It's the fair way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:50, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::So answer me this, if someone says three different insults in the same single post, do you count it as one warning or three? If you aren't going to stay on top of the ball, but still want to keep away any statute of limitations, the only "fair" way to do it is to count every one you find at the same time as the same warning. It's all arbitrary, anyway, as I stated above (no work has been done on trying to clarify what is actually warnable), but if we are going to block a good user, it'd be nice to know we have good reason. Also, it's be nice to not be paranoid that I can all-the-sudden be banned for extended periods of time because of something I wrote that I didn't know was offensive, that all got caught all at once. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:29, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Each time one edits. You can say whatever in one editing time, however multiple times are multiple times. I agree about it being nice, however it would also be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]] (for example). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ok, see, that's not a very good argument, GD. Sure, it'd be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]], but it'd be really hard and time consuming to do that. It'd be very easy to do what Jazzman described. For example, I'm sure there are several things on this wiki that I've written that could potentially be considered warnable, but I've never been warned. Would it be fair to quickly find 3 things, and then ban me for a week, without giving me time to change my ways? No. A single warning would say "this sort of thing is unacceptable, cut it out", and I probably would. That'd be nice, reasonable, fair, and everyone would enjoy it more. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:18, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::After a unjustified ban, I can attest that the policy should be defined. Additionally, if we're following in Wikipedia's footsteps properly, then we should establish proper ban-reversal procedure. For example, if two admins oppose a third admin's block, the block should be reversed (wikipedia has a similar policy, and if it was already in effect here - then this recent unwarranted block wouldn't of happened). Plus, blocks are meant to prevent or pause problematic editors, not editors who are actively contributing, fighting spam, and working collaboratively.<br />
:::::::There should also be a time limit put into effect where admins can not back-warning. This was made obvious recently, as it can lead to abuse. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:27, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I do know Green Dragon gave Surgo and TK-Squared multiple warnings in February of 2010, for language/rudeness violations committed in March/May of 2009. And considering Surgo stopped posting in September of 2009...well, I can't see what good Green Dragon thought he was doing. Seeing as how he was warning for someone for offenses almost a year old, and ''five months'' after the user in question ceased activies on the wiki. <br />
<br />
== Admin Violations ==<br />
<br />
The current warning policy does not state that admins are "above the policy" and actually showcases many former admins who have received warnings. However, it also states that only admins may give out warnings. Though I may be just "asking for it," I am intending to request a second administrator's look at recent comments by Green Dragon to see if they are deemed necessary of a warning or warnings. <br />
On the discussing recently held on the Main Page's discussion page, GD said ''"If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out."'', ''"If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this."'', and my personal favorite ''"...Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a [[Warning Policy]]). They must fix the problem or get banned."'' All three of these comments come across as either directly rude or belittling to the people they're referring to, and the last one actually directly interferes with our existing [[Warning Policy]] and implies that I was banned for allegedly-uncivil actions off-site.<br />
Now, however, the most directly uncivil reply was recently posted to the GNU's talk page. Here, GD amazingly flat out states that he will not follow consensus or collaborative discussion (even though he recently added Consensus to the Meta pages) when he declares that ''"...I could care less who thinks what about what. I will do as it is done. I'll listen to reasonableness. I don't care if it comes from God or a bacteria."''. Could other admins please discuss this, and could Green Dragon please reply and let me know if I have misread his intent or tone, especially with the last quote. I also wish to reiterate that I'm not trying to directly attack, its just that at the time these statements were made I was unable to reply - and after reviewing the numerous moves and reformatting of the licensing discussion, am trying to host a civil discussion on a serious issue on the most appropriate page. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ah, and you've spotted a flaw in the system. As I pointed out [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|just above here]], GD is seemingly "above the law". In fact, historically, blocking GD has been grounds for a block in it's own right. In addressing my questions about the finer points of warning policy, GD seemed to gloss over the objection I raised on that front. <br />
:Personally, as an admin, I refuse to "warn" anyone (IP, registered user, administrator, or owner) until a complete and fair guide has been written and is visible to all contributors. As Jazzman mentioned, if we don't have clearly defined rules the "warning policy" becomes more of a "punishment policy". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:03, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes, I can attest to having no warning at all when I was hit with multiple at once, and still have no clear clue what I said that was wrong. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:12, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've started working on a new, more clear, warning policy. It can be seen [[User:Badger/sandbox13|here]]. Feel free to join the discussion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:55, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yes, there are answers to things for the above (looking into it more, reading the block reason, etc). Yes, the world also turns. Is "''the world also turns''" condescending? Nah. Are you going to make accusations as such? When I get the time I will issue warnings appropriately for the above comment (e.g. accusations) if appropriate. Was that condescending too? Nah. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:55, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Umm, okay? Going past the you-blocked-me thing ''(whatever, we can both agree we want the best for the future of the site. right?)'', I'm more interested in your discussion on Badger's rough draft of a warning policy overhaul. Especially on how it may affect admins and bureaucrats. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:59, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Warnings Issued on 4e Campaign Settings Caliphate Supplement ==<br />
<br />
:''Discussion moved from [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caliphate_%28Patronage_Supplement%29&oldid=542259 Talk:Caliphate (Patronage Supplement)#Titles].'' <small>--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
Ok point of order here, I'm not going to bother reading this whole discussion because it's long and half of it is hidden in warning text (and ultimately I know what the outcome will be anyway), but some of those "warning texts" are not appropriate. You can't just warn people for saying something you don't like. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:58, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Right. They are related to specific Wikipedia pages. Where are you coming from exactly? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I don't know where you are coming from with that one. To be more specific, the following statements are all statements you removed from Wrecan's posts, and warned him about. All of them are, in my opinion, not warnable offenses:<br />
::# Why are you imposing this policy on my campaign setting? What gives you the right to do this, and to prevent me from restoring what I had originally written?<br />
::# It's not tied to any language in the Wiki policy you cited and<br />
::# What admins should not do is invent an unwritten policy and impose them on others without going through the process of adoption. <br />
::# Your interpretation of the policy is not supported by the language of the policy. If you want this website to consider personal attacks to include any use of epithets considered offensive by "organizations and people... on a large scale" then go through the process of amending this wiki's policies.<br />
::# There is no violation for giving a fictional character a title of "Caliph", just as there would be no violation for giving a fictional character the title of "Pope" or "Chief Rabbi" of "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire"... even if millions of people would be offended by the act. The only behavior banned (of relevance here) is applying a religious term to describe a contributor. That's the Wikipedia (and this site's) policy. If you want this site to have a different policy, you need to go through the process of amended this site's policy.<br />
::# Did you really think I wouldn't fact-check you, GD?<br />
::# When you edited the Patronage pages, you weren't acting as administrator; you were acting as a contributor. Administrators don't make substantive contributions to wiki pages in their capacity as administrators<br />
<br />
::In addition, you edited some of his text for reasons other than warnings, which is explicitly against our editing policy. In addition, as mentioned before (in a discussion I think you moved to this page), it's simply not fair (and makes your behavior look to outsiders who don't know the situation &mdash;at best&mdash; lazy or &mdash;at worst&mdash; malevolent, ''especially'' when the content you are warning/removing refers to your improper warning/removing of text!) to respond to something multiple times before you hand out a warning for it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:31, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::None of that is improper. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 relate to lying. 3 and 6 are rude to [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:04, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::The correct grammar is "None of those are improper, and I feel silly for having censored them." --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.104|173.245.48.104]] 20:32, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not necessarily. I meant that none of the reasons for giving them are improper. You'll see what I mean if you check the reasons. The context is about the warning, ergo the warning is being discussed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:23, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::There's no point in arguing, seeing as how you won't ever change your mind. But it's on record that I disagree and that I think it makes you look very improper. In the future, I would be happy to mediate any dispute between you and another user. There's a Wikipedia policy for that somewhere (and actually I think I've done that once before on WP). Also, I'm reinstating the historical link to the page from which you moved this text, because my comments apply to a historical revision of that page, not the page as it stands now, or whenever in the future some user happens to view it. If that talk page gets archived, the link will no longer work and my comments here will lack context (which is why I commented there, and not here, in the first place). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:21, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::If you are pointing something out then please add the link to your comments. If its a diff archiving will not do anything... Um... You can read the policy to understand the warnings. If someone is saying something is done a wrong way then they are lying. It's pretty straightforward. Also, you earned yourself some warnings above! "Won't ever change your mind" is belittling. I'll warn you sometime. The dispute resolution is not needed here. Everything is straightforward. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:35, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::If it's a warning please warn me right now. Otherwise I'm not going to count it. (And you know what else is belittling? Telling someone they earned some warnings and then threatening to warn them later). Saying something is done a wrong way is only lying if Wrecan knows it was, in fact, done correctly: it's only lying if he's ''intending'' to ''mislead'' you. If Wrecan actually believes that you are not following policy even though you are, that is not lying. It's pretty straightforward. Point number 2, by the way, can not, by definition be lying: you can not lie by asking someone a question! "How was your day?" "LIAR!!!"<br />
<br />
:::::::As for the link: I don't need to refer back to what I am talking about on the other page, because when I said what I said, ''I said it on the other page''. Can you please explain to me what your problem is with adding a more accurate link? If it's a diff archiving will not do anything... which is why I added the diff! We don't want anything to affect where this link points to. If you keep the link how you have it, and then later that talk page is archived, this link will be broken. My link will be correct no matter what you do to the other page (so long as you don't delete it)<br />
<br />
::::::::1 is a little interesting. I guess I could remove it. I would like some input on the thinking behind it before any action though. I considered that these circular discussions are pointless and waste people's time. The problem with them is that they need to get resolved (as far as I can tell). One cannot have administrative-related discussions left open since that will imply that users are ''okay'' to not engage in consensus and that they can just "slam the door on other users" while disregarding them.<br />
::::::::It would be fully true that warnings need to be in the time frame of the post if our comments here served the only purpose of taking actions. They, however, do not. Many times I post things without taking any action afterwards (such as after this post) and others do not take actions from my post.<br />
::::::::Additionally if I had more time I could do all the things I want to do. If I had more time I would improve areas of D&D Wiki. I don't have the time right now. So, my lack of time is not a problem. I find that a lack of time leading to problems is not constructive. Therefore, warnings are based off the ''text''. Therefore, it is not belittling. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Policy Changes ==<br />
<br />
:''See also [[User:Badger/sandbox13]]''<br />
:''Discussion moved from [[User talk:Badger/sandbox13#Warning Policy]].'' <small>--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:44, 5 December 2011 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
Obviously, I wrote all this so I rather like it. However, is there anything that should be added? Anything that should be clarified? Anything that should be removed? Thoughts? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:51, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:The following bullet points are [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]'s comments/issues:<br />
:1. Just a suggestion for the warning of block lengths. It should go something like "The ban length starts with one week at three warnings and then increases exponentially for every 3 warnings received (2 weeks after the 6th warning, 4 weeks after the 9th, 8 weeks after the 12th, etc.)". Also, I wonder if previously banned people should get less leeway? Maybe 3 bans = 1 week, 5 = 2 weeks, then every new warning increases the ban length. Then again, maybe not, because then it would be too tempting to find any one thing to be able to ban someone. But then again, then again, if someone's already got 5 bans, they probably aren't that great of a member anyway. I'm undecided on this one.<br />
:2. Civility and harassment are wishy-washy terms, and their wishy-washiness has lead to some questionable bans in the past. I'm not sure it's possible to define them in a way that's usable for our purposes, but perhaps we should have a few examples of what are ''not'' uncivil or harassing behavior. Asking for clarification of someone else's post is (usually) not uncivil. Going off-topic or responding to a topic which has been "settled" should also not be a ban-able offense.<br />
:3. Ettiquette breaches should, in most cases, ''not'' be a ban- or warn-able offense. Going by the letter of the law, you could get a warning for mis-indenting a page or for adding a new comment to the top. This should also probably be defined somewhere. I would love it if we didn't have to link to Wikipedia at all, since we have no control over the content there, and aren't notified if their policies change.<br />
:4. I like the separation of IPs from everyone else, because it basically makes no sense to warn IPs.<br />
:5. I think that there should be some sort of statute of limitations in effect, or otherwise some way to keep from being banned as Hooper recently was. I'd say any time an administrator issues a warning, all violations at the same time count as the same warning. This means if someone, say, posts rude comments on 5 different talk pages (though see below), they would count as 1 warning, since there's only 1 chance for the user to correct their behavior, not 5. Speaking of warnings, if the whole point of a warning system is corrective and not punitive, I think any user given a warning should, you know, actually be warned, say, on their talk page. The administrator giving out the warning should leave a message on that user's talk page stating exactly why they received a warning; this way the user has an immediate chance to clean up their act or clear up any miscommunications.<br />
:6. There should be some sort of exception to the rule for certain types of offenders. As written, we can't perma-block those stupid Russian drug company spammers.<br />
:7. The petition section is a little wordy, and is unclear if only the admin who did the banning is allowed to unblock.<br />
:8. Admin blocks: GD (and I think BD) are automatically exempt from being de-sysopped, so I wonder if they should be exempt from banning (though not warning) as well? I mean, they can take away the blocking power from anyone who can block them, so if they ever ''deserved'' to be blocked, what good would it do?<br />
:I mostly support it, but there are a couple of things I think we could change (See section below). I'll change my vote when these items are discussed more. Of my original 8 points below, I am now satisfied with 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. I'm not sure I can support a policy that allows unappealable (7) insta-blocks (5), but as those discussions are not settled I haven't changed my vote yet.<br />
:This is probably a little nit-picky, but with something as tumultuous and fickle and emotional as banning, I think it's better we have an absolute iron-clad policy now, then have to find all the exceptions later and risk appearing to play favorites. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:31, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've numbered them, and will reply to them by number here:<br />
::1. I think that sets of 3 warnings to a block is a good system. Suppose Hooper gets another warning in 6 months, and then another 8 months after that. Two warnings in the span of 14 months hardly seems worth a 2 week block. Plus, then every subsequent warning is a longer and longer block. (Sorry to use you as an example, Hooper, but you make such a good one). <br />
::2. I think we need some level of "wiggle room" in our terminology. The last thing I want is some trouble-making user leave bad comments and then say "yeah, but technically it's not listed under warnable offenses." I figure since only admins are giving out warnings, we can say "use some logic and reasonableness".<br />
::3. Honestly, I don't really like etiquette, but it was included like 4 times in the original system, so I left it in. I can't make a rational argument for or against it. It seems to me that again an admin could say "dude just miscounted colons, I'm not going to warn him for an etiquette violation." but it would catch people intentionally not signing comments that are offensive. (If anyone would be dumb enough to try that, still signed in). <br />
::5. I have no idea how to word it, but I want to suggest something like "you can't be warned on comments between warnings", which I know makes no sense. Let me clarify: When you're warned for a comment "c1", and then again for comment "c5". Any comments left between c1 and c5 (c2-4) can be censored to remove offending content, but don't count towards your warning level. I think a system about leaving comments on warned user's talk pages is also a good idea. <br />
::6. The way I see it, the warning policy applies almost exclusively to comments left on talk/user pages. Considering we don't warn link spammers, we just delete their pages and perma-ban them I see no need for this policy to concern them. We should probably make it more clear that this policy applies mainly to comments, and not spam/vandalism. <br />
::7. I'm not sure how to better word the petition section. I think that only the blocking admin should be allowed to revert the block, though. <br />
::8. If they are "above" banning (as it seems they are) they might as well be "above" warnings too. The only punishment for a warning is a block. Unless you mean you'd like to be able to censor offending posts. I guess that makes enough sense.<br />
::Right, so, these are my thoughts on the matter. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:16, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Support, if time restraint put on warnings (see comments)<br />
:::I like what you've got here. It is clear and concise. Even I can tell what I'm guilty of ''(my tendency to highlight others rudeness and ignore my own)''. My only thought is that we should consider some time of time limit. Obviously, admins can't see everything right away - especially if one user cusses another out at say midnight on a sunday. Still, there should be some clear line-in-the-sand that says unless you specifically did x (say, actually cussed out a user) you can not be officially warned if the item was not caught within the time limit. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:49, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::1. Fair enough. I actually had a thought that might solve a few of our problems at once. What if the warnings "timed out" after a certain period (probably no less than three but no more than 12 months). After the set time period you remove the last warning. Truly disruptive users will ramp up their warnings quickly, but someone who, say, occasionally posts something harsher than they intended won't be so severely penalized. You could even combine the two: it takes 3 warnings to get a block, then every warning after 3 also gets a block, but you remove a warning every 3 months. Or something along these lines.<br />
::::2. I agree with wiggle room, I just also worry that "admin discresion" could be used to liberally as well. I don't know, maybe let's keep it how it is currently then update it if there are problems.<br />
::::3. If (at least) two of us don't like the etiquette part, maybe we should think about removing it altogether from the list of warn-able offenses. I'm not even sure if anyone ever got a warning based off of etiquette before. Or again, we could leave it for now and fix it if we run into problems later. <br />
::::5. What about a simpler solution: an admin can only hand out one warning at a time to a person, no matter how many offenses the admin finds at the same time. I think this says what we want to say without getting too technical.<br />
::::6. Fair enough. Maybe we just need a line that says something to the effect of "vandals and spammers will be dealt with immediately, regardless of their current warning status"?<br />
::::7. How about this: "A user may appeal a block by petitioning the blocking admin via email. The decision to reverse a block is entirely at the discretion of the admin. If the admin does not respond after 48 hours, a blocked user may contact another admin. If this second admin can not contact the original blocking admin, they may decide to reverse the block at their discretion.<br />
::::Any user who is blocked for a period of greater than 1 month can ask for a formal appeal. The user must email all active admins their appeal, after which the admin may request additional information, or may decide as written. A user must get a 2/3's vote from all currently active admins to appeal their block. If the vote fails, they may appeal again after 6 months."<br />
::::8. It's probably a moot point, but yeah, censoring was part of it. Really, though, we don't want admins to be at each other's throats, so maybe we shouldn't delve into this too far. I wonder if we should put in a clause that uncivil language directed at an admin can not be warned by that admin. In other words, a warn must always be from a third-party. Pointing out such offenses would obviously be exempt from the "pointing out offenses is an offense" rule, because administrators don't always read conversations if they know another admin is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:06, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::1. I'm not sure how I feel about warnings going away after a period of time. I mean, it sounds reasonable enough, but the notion of having to go and check on warning expiration dates seems like one more thing to do, with no concrete advantage. I'm all for more work, if it's worth it. I'd also argue "if you are blocked for 3 warnings that span more than a year, you have a strong case for a petition to commute the block". <br />
:::::2/3. How about we keep the "admin discretion" point from comment 2, and remove etiquette from 3? I think that solution would probably do the most good, and the least expense. <br />
:::::5. We currently have a rule that says [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|a single post can't create more than one warning]]. Want to somehow explain how that would extend to all existing comments? <br />
:::::6. We can (and probably should) add that line in somewhere.<br />
:::::7. I like your suggestion for improving the petition portion. I think we should include a bit about "pestering an admin", unless you object to that notion. <br />
:::::8. So maybe we say "while Bureaucrats cannot be warned, their comments can be censored just like any other post"? I like the third party idea. The only problem with that is suppose someone insults you three times, but no other admins are online for a week (which I don't think has '''ever''' happened). You should have the authority and the ability to remove these bad comments and warn the user. <br />
:::::Lastly, to Hooper's point: I'm not sure how I feel about "Admins didn't catch the edit within X weeks, they can't be warned". While it sounds reasonable, admins have a ton of stuff to do (here, and in the real world). I know I don't read every single update (though I skim most of them). If someone is being uncivil, they should be warned no matter how long it's been. Notice we are granting amnesty to all comments before this system is set into place, though. I think that's reasonable enough. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:18, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I feel that civility should be kept as well. I feel that something along the lines of "''Warnings result in predetermined feelings. Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters. Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings. For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable.''"<br />
::::::I agree that IPs should not be included. A feature like [[Special:CheckUser]] does not exist for them.<br />
::::::Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards.<br />
::::::Warnings should go away after 6 months if the user is in good standing. The reasoning could include something along the lines of "''If a registered user remains in good standing for six months after receiving a warning the warning will be removed. If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed. Call some friends over and play some D&D&ndash; try to keep your mind off the predetermined feeling(s) which w/as(ere) received.''"<br />
::::::I am fine with bureaucrats being above the warning policy. Although this leaves a large hole open for problems, I can say with certainty [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] and I will not abuse the system.<br />
::::::I disagree with petitions to unblock. If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked. If the reasoning is solid then they should be blocked. I do not think that there should be the possibility for circumvention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:54, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Look good? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:36, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I've reverted the changes for two reasons. First, all the above comments are based on what was there (and is there again), so changing that much will change how all those comments apply. Secondly, your use of some very key phrases are confusing to me (and presumably other users). For example "If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed." is not a complete sentence, and I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. The suggestions you've brought up are, on the whole, good ones, and should be included. However, those monumental changes are not the best way to go about implementing said changes. if you could better explain your meaning, we could work out what changes need to take place. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:38, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::This is a sandbox which is a subsection of your userpage. If you want to revert the changes whatever. Keep in mind that one can always look at a older version of the page (based off the dates of the comments) for such a scenario.<br />
:::::::::I think that "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''" is a complete sentence. "''If there are [bears who fish salmon] know that [they do fish salmon].''" The adjective is lasting feelings and the verb is passed. However, I am no grammatical expert.<br />
:::::::::I mean what my comment above mentions. If you would like a better explanation please go through my comment above and let me know where your confusion arises from. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:46, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm aware that this is a subpage, and history/comment dates would make it possible to see what exactly everyone means, but it would be easier to just make a large edit once we've resolved all our concerns, and then strike through/comment out the existing discussion.<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm just going to go through your previous comment one line at a time, pointing out where I would like clarity. ''"I feel that civility should be kept as well"''. Got that, clear and concise. ''"Warnings result in predetermined feelings"''. I have no idea what that means. What are "pre-determined feelings", in this sense?''"Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters."'' This much I understand, too. Warnings are the sorts of things that are unacceptable, but not worthy of a block. ''" Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings."'' Right, not sure what this means. Do you mean "Admins can correct small things, like indentation, and not warn the contributor"? That is what I think you mean by your next sentence ''"For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable."'' ''"Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards."'' is another confusing sentence, for me. Do you mean to suggest that you should be able to issue three warnings for three successive inappropriate posts, and thereby block someone, without giving them time to adjust their behaviors? I think, and others agree, that this mentality turns a warning policy into a punishment policy. I don't think that is a good rule. The rest of your post I think I understand. I'm fine with removing the petition to unblock if warnings go away 6 months after they were issued. That seems like a solid plan, to me. <br />
<br />
::::::::::Back to that one confusing sentence: if that is how you intend for your comment to be interpreted, then it is improperly punctuated; but, that's a minor detail. However, if that is your sentence, then it is a tautology that adds nothing to the policy. "If there are feelings, then there are feelings" doesn't help to describe what these feelings are, or what ramifications these feelings have. Could you better describe what you mean by "predetermined feelings"? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:05, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::By "predetermined" I mean that when someone says something they intend a result for someone else. By "''Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings''" I mean that "You may edit" (just worded for the context).<br />
:::::::::::When I mention that edits should be the base for warnings this is because blocking can be of varying length. Why can they be of varying length? They vary in length because of severity. Making warnings work with edits makes use of severity. Also, it is not fair if someone insults someone multiple times and someone else insults someone a single time and they get the same result.<br />
:::::::::::Oh, everything I added are tautologies. They are there to explain the reasoning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:51, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::The whole point of numbering was to try and keep the different points straight, but I see that's gone down the crapper. I'm going to try to summarize, then hopefully we can stay organized from here on out.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::1 (Warning system logistics) It sounds like we are leaning towards an expiring warning system.<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with this, and I don't think it takes too much work. Really, all you have to do is check the age of the last warnings before you ban someone. If the oldest warning is less than 6 months old, then none of them have expired yet. Displaying "expired" warnings doesn't have any negative consequences, so nobody needs to rigorously patrol the page for expired warnings.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::2/3 (Etiquette and Civility) I think we are going to keep it as is for now.<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with Badger, the language suggested by Green Dragon does not make a lot of sense to me, and I'm not sure it's necessary. For one thing, "discretionable" is not a real word. I think what you are getting at is that admins have discretion to define "civility" and "etiquette". While I don't really like this (as it leaves it open to abuse -- especially with no method of appeal), I don't see a better way around it right now.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::4 (Blocking IPs) It's agreed that there's no need to block IPs.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::5 (How to count blocks) There is no consensus here.<br />
:::::::::::::Badger mentioned the "rule" that you can't be warned more than once in one comment. This should be enumerated within the rules for it to be official. Green Dragon, your scenario is fair in one way but unfair in another. Yes, your way three warnings always equals 1 block. But one user got 2 warnings to cease his behavior before he was blocked, and the other got 0. This is unfair. I'll say it again: if the point of the block policy is to ''change'' behavior, then you must go off of the number of actual ''warnings'' (i.e. how many times the user was told "don't do that or else"). If the purpose of the warning policy is to ''punish'' people, then you must go off of the number of ''offenses'' (this would even count for multiple offenses within a single post). If we are trying to build a community, I can only support a behavior-changing policy. I also, for the same reason, think there should be a statute of limitations. While admins may be busy, we really should be checking over all edits, especially in discussions that are likely to devolve into uncivil behavior. I don't think a week is too short a time frame; most weeks you can view a week's worth of edits on the recent changes log. If we ''don't'' have a statute of limitations, there's nothing stopping an unscrupulous admin from "storing" warnings and unleashing them all when he wants to get rid of a user for a while.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::6 (Exception for spammers/vandals) I think there is agreement on this point.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::7 (Petitioning) Badger and Jazzman are for, and GD is against.<br />
:::::::::::::I really see no reason against allowing an appeal. Admins are humans, and humans make mistakes. You even say yourself, "If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked." So what if the reasoning wasn't solid, but you blocked anyway? Again, if we are going for a behavior-changing policy, we need the ability to have some leeway here. <br />
<br />
::::::::::::8 (Bureaucratic Immunity) It's agreed that Bureaucrats are immune to the warning policy, but not admins. It has been suggested that a third party must intervene if an admin is involved in the uncivil behavior, but not agreed upon the details.<br />
:::::::::::::The whole point of rule of law (or rule of rule, in this case) sort of breaks down if you just take the Bureaucrats at their word... but that being said we don't really have any way around it, so I begrudgingly agree that they should just get blanket immunity. There's nothing we can do about it anyway. As for the case where only one admin is around, I think that it's rare enough that we shouldn't have to worry about it. If there is someone who is genuinely disruptive and no other admin responds in, say, 24 hours, the primary admin should be able to block. This is another reason to allow petitioning: if an admin is in an argument with a user, they could find a serious of excuses to block that user for 6 months. Without an appeal process, that user is screwed.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think this is everything. If I have misrepresented anyone or any idea please let me know. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 11:29, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I agree that the tautologies should be added elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages.<br />
:::::::::::::In accordance with number five mentioned above I would like to say that warnings are based off edits. This means that if the edit is older then six months then it (because of the time frame) would not be useable. This, then, removes the abuse of the system you mention above. Severity is also important because one does not ''learn'' through such a process. If you want to learn read [[Meta Pages]]. Editing is not learning necessarily and merging the two together is a mistake.<br />
:::::::::::::I don't disagree with appeals. I just don't feel that the medium is appropriate. If there is a problem they may wait out there time frame (if it is the last edit which is a problem) or if it is an intermediate edit, post on [[Talk:Warning Policy]] and discuss the problem. This is in accordance with wiki. We ''do not'' want D&D Wiki to function outside of wiki. This would undermine the very idea of wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:31, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:GD, I'm not sure you know what tautologies are. They are "using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity". There is absolutely ''no'' reason to intentionally include a tautology in our policies. If I understand you correctly, the statute of limitations on warnings should be 6 months, starting the day the comment was posted, rather than the day it was found. I'm not sure I like that. I'd support a month for the SoL, but have warnings expire 6 months after they are issued, not after the original comment is left. I think the goal of this policy should be learning, not punishment. We can't honestly expect every contributor to read the entirety of the Meta Pages before posting. I don't think I got around to reading them all until after I became admin (and I'm not even sure I've read them all, they are hard to find sometimes). I think "learning by doing" is the best approach to this situation, and that means we should combine editing with teaching. Finally, your last point is dead wrong. I pulled the notion of appeals directly from Wikipedia policy (making small alterations, to better suit it to our wiki). That section of their policy can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_and_discussions here]. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:53, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::As tautologies explain the same thing (just give some backing to the reasoning for clarification) they should be moved elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages, as I mentioned above.<br />
::The goal of the policy should not be learning. If we do not have varying severity people will use D&D Wiki contributors as vents. There is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have varying severity punishments. Saying that removing this is better then having this present is something which is wrong. If you kill someone and someone else crosses the street illegally a slap on the wrist for both instances is not acceptable. Most people (since they must interact with respect for various reasons) already know how to interact so the learning curve is pretty much non-existent anyway.<br />
::What is wrong with the reasoning for clarification of "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''"? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::For one thing, it isn't clear - negating its ability to clarify. Its obtuse almost. We need clear and concise language. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:21, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Feeling not feelings is a minor grammatical mistake above. If you want to improve the language, of course, go for it.<br />
::::Also, I agree that non-wiki arbitration is good to have. I created http://groups.google.com/group/dd-wiki-non-wiki-arbitration for non-wiki arbitration. Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok, where is this "severity of punishments" thing coming from? We have exactly one punishment -- banning -- and its severity is determined by the quantity, not quality, of your offenses. I simply can not, and will not, ever be in favor of a punitive system of warnings. It's not conducive to a collective-editing environment, it's harsh on new users and therefore insulating to a community that's already way to small to begin with, and it's just plain unnecessary when you consider the types of offenses we are actually dealing with here. Nobody is going to be deterred from ''offending'' by a threatening system, they will be deterred from ''editing''. If you don't agree with this then we will have to agree to disagree because you won't convince me otherwise. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:10, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Edit to add: that whole lasting feelings statement doesn't make any sense to me at all. Are you trying to say "let bygones be bygones"? If so, why do we need that in a warning policy anyway? What's the point of that arbitration thing? Is that to be used with the appeals process you think is unnecessary? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::A few points: <br />
:::::::Tautologies don't really explain things. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps you instead mean "definition" or "explanation". <br />
:::::::While the goal of most policy should not be learning, most of us feel that the goal of the warning policy should be for learning. We want to use the warning policy as a system to teach right from wrong, not just punish those who are doing wrong. If someone is persistently upsetting the community and not contributing in any way, I'm likely to just block them for a week, despite the warning policy. It is my opinion that the warning policy should be for making sure conversations stay civil, and censoring the occasional bad post from a generally good contributor. <br />
:::::::No one is suggesting that we remove institutionalized punishments that fit the crime. To continue your metaphor, there is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have an appeals system. If someone is given 20 years in prison for jaywalking, they should be able to appeal to have their sentence commuted. The idea of appeals isn't to let the guilty walk free, but rather to help the unjustly punished.<br />
:::::::I've joined that group you've created. I'm not sure if it's the best method, but I suppose it'll do for now. You should check that users are who they say they are (based on the email they use to join). In joining, I just got to choose a random username, and I could have picked "Badger" just as easily as I could have picked "Blue Dragon" or "JazzMan831".<br />
:::::::I really want to figure out what you mean by "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''". Do you mean to say ''"If you are still upset about a mean thing someone has said, know that they said it 6 months ago and they may no longer feel that way."''? If that's not what you mean, can you try to rephrase it another way, because I am totally confused. <br />
::::::Given that you've created this off-wiki method for arbitration, I suppose it's safe to assume that an appeals system is something you now like?--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:22, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I wonder if a off-site group is the right way to go for one major reason: anonymity. Yes, I am not that fond of it myself - and I may be willing to use my real name everywhere, but not everyone is. Should we force a user who doesn't wish to connect his online profile with others or his real name into signing up to a group - especially one like google where it is so easy for personal information to leak through ''(trust me, I'm a debt collector. Google and facebook are awesome for us when it comes to tracking)''? Again, personally, I'm anti-anonymity, but I understand that others seek it out. I mean, I doubt Badger wants us to know that he may be "James T. Badger from Badgerville" ''(just an example)'' or such. Maybe this is making sense, but I feel like I'm just blabering on. Basically: TL<nowiki>;</nowiki>DR = love and feel the need for a appeals process, but is off-site the right channel? Do we have the ability to program a few pages to allow even blocked users to edit, like their own talk page or a central Admin Noticeboard? <br />
:::::::Also, what do we do in cases like [[User_talk:Hooper#Spammer_Block_Oddity|this]]? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:47, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::If we were to remove severity and consider an aspect of learning as the base does this include everyone? If someone insults me multiple times will that annoy me more? If someone gets the same punishment as another user for a lesser offense will they even learn (I think this has been proven to be a learning barrier by the way)? If someone insults anyone multiple times will that annoy the admin more (more dealing with this learning base of work)? Why should everything relate to the abuser and not the abused? Why should those who "do their homework" (for lack of a better term) not be better off? Is that not part of learning? I just don't understand how removing severity and considering an aspect of learning as the base can be fair. If its not fair then we ''will'' have a problem with users considering the administration as biased and not compatible.<br />
::::::::Yes, "''bygones be bygones''". Don't worry about all that&ndash; it will be used in the help pages.<br />
::::::::I attempted to infer that yes, I do agree with an arbitration method. For the arbitration to have an effect (in its current state), yes, one must verify the user (email for a message or something). If we do not want to deal with this level of anonymity then does anyone know of a fitting extension for the above suggestions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:02, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, so one thing to point out, we're all in favor of keeping the scaling block lengths. If someone repetitively insults users, they will ''not'' have a good case for arbitration. Arbitration, and commuted block lengths, will only occur when something has legitimately gone wrong. Apparently a patch to the MediaWiki software continues to prevent a blocked user from editing a wiki, but allows users to still edit their talk page. I'm not sure if we have that capability, but if we do, that'd be the best way to go about this. Users could post on their talk page, and admins could leave their opinions. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:17, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The problem with a correlation there is that in some cases multiple things have legitimately gone wrong with only one result. Which extension [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki.org] were you referring to above? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:08, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand where your problem is. Can you give a hypothetical situation where your problem would arise? That would be immensely helpful. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgBlockAllowsUTEdit This] extension (not actually an extension, but existing code) allows blocked users to edit their talk page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:34, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::For example if I edit a page and do not treat another use with civility I have completed an edit. This edit would (in your method) go into a pool until the user gets warned. The pool could have thousands of edits which are not done with civility. The admin would only see the pool and remove the pool as a single occurrence with a single warning relating to the commuted block length. I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The commuted block length should be based of occurrences so this pool problem does not exist.<br />
::::::::::::That extension is an option. I am not a fan of it. When a user is ''blocked'' they are ''blocked''. They did something wrong, so why should they be given lieniency? I would rather do something which does not relate to wiki D&D Wiki (or a mailing list from the email user preferences). Is there an extension for such a thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Well, here's the thing. The "pool" would only exist if admins aren't vigilant in their duties. The idea is that admins should stay on top of these things. Secondly, think about this: Suppose you are a user who is leaving comments. You don't think there is anything wrong with your comments. Suddenly an admin comes online and warns you three times in two minutes. Suddenly you're blocked, and you had no idea you were doing anything wrong. Does that seem fair? <br />
:::::::::::::I'm not sure moving things off-wiki is necessarily the best decision. We've always been adamant that we should keep everything on-site, and I don't get why this would be any different. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Actually, I forgot about that extension. I think it's a good idea -- but only if it's also possible to additionally block a user from using their talk page. Everyone has the right to appeal, but not to spam the recent changes out of spite.<br />
<br />
:As for "abuser" vs. "abused", since we have agreed on a system where only an admin can hand out warnings, and pointing out offenses of others can itself be warn-able, then obviously this is biased towards the "abuser" method. And really we have good reason. If, for example, user A is in an argument with user B, he shouldn't be given the option to pick three different times in the past where he felt "abused" by user B in order to get him blocked for a week. Additionally, admins should not have to be put in a position where they have to say "well actually I don't feel that you are actually being abused, even though that's how you feel". [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:46, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How does the fairness of block lengths make its way into this system?<br />
::The fairness of block lengths is present if the duty relies solely on the ''timing'' of admins. Why should everything be about the timing? Do the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles|improving, reviewing, and removing article]] templates make it so the timing can be used to the fullest? Why should we change the warning system to be worse then such a method?<br />
::The above example does seem fair to me. If I could not control my words I need to learn and a system which explains to me which words were appropriate, treats me the same as other people, and treats the person I was rude to the same as everyone else who was mistreated works best.<br />
::I am against something here being onsite since IP's are only posting spam on their talk pages and being blocked means one is blocked.<br />
::I don't agree with admins being the only one's able to ''deal'' with warnings. See also [[Warning Policy#Warnings Issued]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:50, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't think it's fair to punish someone because, as an admin, I'm slacking on my job. If you make three potentially offensive edits in the span of twenty minutes, you should be given a fair chance to change your behavior. Suppose someone swears in a comment. They don't swear at anyone, they just say something like "Fighters should have the best damn BAB possible". They may not know that comments like that are a violation of policy (Hell, I'm not even sure if they are against policy). Do you think it's fair to ban someone because they leave three comments like that? On my [[Talk:Hooker_(3.5e_Class)|Hooker talk page]], I, an active user, ask what our policy on swearing is. You can't expect a new user to know if users (and admins) as active as Jazzman and I are don't know. Expecting every contributor to spend thirty minutes reading policy before posting is idealistic and naive. Any policy that could block someone for comments like that is completely asinine, and I can't support it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:12, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Should we just do as Wikipedia does? We are basically only talking about a "level of harassment" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility]) which is a block (the word ''may'' not ''can''). What I am mentioning above is more kind then what Wikipedia uses and making it kinder again is a mistake. Wikipedia knows how to handle users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:15, 15 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::GD: which of my 8 points above do you agree with (be explicit, as in, using the actual numbers). Since we are all almost in agreement about those things, can we add them to the real policy page? It'd be nice to have some defined rules around here. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:59, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea of integrity. It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system. Warnings should be applicable until a warning is given then the expiration of the warning can begin to happen. If this does not happen then we lose integrity. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:20, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::First of all, why did you move this? The running vote, and, most importantly, the thing we are discussing in the first place are not on this page. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean. Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? You do disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? Since the current vote is unanimous on several portions of the proposed policy, can we make any of it official? I will respond to your point after I get the answer to these questions, so as not to get distracted. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:37, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::The votes were placed where they should be. The same is for this discussion (what it is discussing should be its main page). Voting is not done. See also [[Meta Pages#Policies]] ''"As [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Supermajority Supermajority] (and many others) failed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] is only used under the rules of D&D, under editing, and in other special instances."'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:52, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::When is voting done, then? And I'm glad you brought up that line; I hadn't noticed it before in Meta Pages. I also am not sure what it's supposed to mean (there's a critical comma or something missing in there). Also, I ask again, as these important questions have yet to be answered: Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? Do you disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? And since voting is apparently not finished (though no one's added a vote in months now) I'll add another: when is voting finished, and what is the procedure for changing this policy? (Do we even *have* a procedure?) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:27, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::As per the above ''"It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system.''" I think I have mentioned what I agree and disagree with above multiple times to refine this... The quote here is my problem with it. And, consensus is done&ndash; voting is not done (special means things like aesthetics, etc). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:41, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Hey guys, sorry I've been missing these past few weeks, I've been swamped with stuff. What have I missed? It seems like we're talking about implementing my new version of the warning policy. Sweet! Let's see, where are we... Right, well, it appears that we're going to use consensus (my favorite thing) to talk about implementation. Judging by what I've read the only thing standing between us and consensus is the notion of a statute of limitations on warnings. Is that right? Awesome! From what I can tell, there are two sides here. Some of us feel that warning people multiple times before given the chance to change their ways is wrong. Others feel if we don't warn people for every offense, we lose integrity in the system. Let me be the first to state that I am in the former camp. Official pardons, states of limitations, and other "secondary laws" have been in effect in America since our inception. I don't think that it can be fairly argued that the American legal system lacks "integrity" because of this. Would someone like to give an example where the integrity of D&D-Wiki would be put in danger because of the proposed policy changes? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:50, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
{reverting indent]<br />
:If you replied to it without giving a warning, it should ''not'' be given a warning later. If it's acceptable to you then, you shouldn't get to change your mind. I can understand if you just now entered the discussion--and even then, the warning should be one along with a statement to straighten up. That discussion went for many, many pages before Green Dragon decided Wrecan wasn't kosher. What made him change his mind? That Wrecan's tone had gotten snippy? Then that should be a warning for when Wrecan's tone and behavior became unacceptable and that post only, not for what was said two weeks ago and replied to a dozen times. Furthermore, multiple warnings in one swoop aren't good. They aren't good ''at all''. I can't imagine the acrobatics required to decide it's acceptable exercise of power, to discuss something ''for weeks'' and then block the other side of the discussion for posts weeks old. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.215|173.245.56.215]] 13:33, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I can't agree with the IP more. What happened to Wrecan should never have happened -- either he should have been blocked days before, or he should not have been blocked at all. To respond to something ''multiple times'' is to give consent to it. You can not then go back and block. It makes the blocker look bad, and it makes the site look bad, end of story. It also doesn't help when YOU POINT OUT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO WARN SOMEONE LATER and then not do it! It just makes you look like a tyrant (and GD, I'm not calling you a tyrant; I'm pointing out that someone new to this site who saw something like that would likely consider the behavior tyrannical). <br />
<br />
::Note, also, that GD has decided it's ok to tell users they have done something warn-worthy ''without actually warning them''. [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warning_Policy&diff=prev&oldid=542429].<br />
<br />
::Lastly: when will voting be done? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:37, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::The American Legal System is not in the same situation. When a judge makes a decision he makes the decision. There are no court cases that people don't listen to and then ''later'' the judge listens to them.<br />
:::Some comments are not necessarily acceptable to anyone anytime. Policy relating to acceptable behavior comes from the Wikipedia pages. No one is changing their mind&ndash; they are just later having the time to deal with the situation.<br />
:::I warned [[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] before the time when he received multiple blocks. The time I have to issue warnings (it does take time&ndash; reading everything so critically while constantly referencing Wikipedia and then the formatting that is related, etc) is when I will issue them. Mentioning comments as being warning-worthy is because I have not had the time the process (mentioned above) requires yet. Is this what is being mentioned above? Seems like it is the same thing. Is it antagonizing? I think it may be a fine line.<br />
:::Voting is not done. See above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:30, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Ok, GD, let me just say "No". Your reason for delaying a warning isn't acceptable. At all. If you have the time to reply to comments, you have the time to warn someone. End of Discussion. You gave 8 warnings in a single edit. If anything, it should have been a single warning. What you have done is wholly unacceptable. None other administrator would have done what you did. That should have been a clue that something wasn't quite right. <br />
::::Jazzman, as a point of order, what do you mean by "When will voting be done"?<br />
::::*Under what circumstances should we vote on something?<br />
::::*When will discussion come to a close on this issue?<br />
::::I feel like that might change the discussion. Are you using the word "voting" to mean "discussion and debate" instead of actual "voting"? <br />
::::Finally, I think you've misunderstood my metaphor about the American legal system. Rather than try to explain it to you, I'm just going to ask that you ignore it.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 9 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Let me verify this please&ndash; you're telling me how to spend my time? You understand how my time is organized then?<br />
:::::Since this is consensus the point I will make follows. Read the policy. If you don't know what you're doing read the policy. If you don't know how to interact with other humans, read the policy (it may help you). We are not going to organize time in any manner&ndash; that's not right. We'll assume people who care will care and if you do not care then you will suffer the consequences. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:18, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::The point of this discussion is none of us like the policy, and we'd like to change it. I would suggest that if maybe you don't know how to interact with other humans, you should let others write policy. It may help the the website, in the long run. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:13, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Luckily that's a theoretical comment above and then later not direct. I agree that if you don't know how to interact with humans you should let others write policy.<br />
:::::::I am talking about a successful model used throughout the world. Again, if you don't know how to interact (making a new model for example that is an experiment (perform the experiment elsewhere okay)) how about you let others write the policy.<br />
:::::::The clarification of my above comment is that I am talking about people who receive warnings. If you get a warning you have a problem interacting with humans (do you just go up to someone and belittle them?). I am saying that if they do not read the policy and or understand it then they should learn through the process anyway. Does this simple comment finally make sense? I can't understand how this is not understandable to others. You go to school. You learn. If you don't do your homework you get a bad grade. It's the same thing. The level of used throughout the world is large, so why oh why are the comments I am getting back just not getting this?<br />
:::::::Have you ever ruined a class by making the curriculum based off your understanding? The structure of classes is not like this. You sign up for a class. You learn the material that is presented on the syllabus the first day. It doesn't matter if you get it or not&ndash; your grade reflects that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:27, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::We all agree that if you are belittled you should be warned. That isn't the issue being debated here. What we're saying is that 8 warnings at once is an issue. Teachers don't give you a test, and then later count it as eight tests. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:10, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Obviously. They do, however, mark you down for eight questions when you missed eight questions. Giving a Pass/Fail on understanding the test is ''not'' what they do. Any questions this time around? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:35, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::GD, do you agree that the Warning policy should be designed to get users to change their ways by showing them what is not ok, and giving them a chance to change? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:36, 11 December 2011 (MST)</div>Badgerhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Warning_Policy&diff=542707Help talk:Warning Policy2011-12-11T01:10:27Z<p>Badger: /* Policy Changes */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Missing Warnings? ==<br />
<br />
Where are the first warnings for TK-Squared, Jota, and S1Q3T3? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 17:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:In this time I did not reference the areas so I forgot some. They have them however where are they?<br />
:I know [[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] had three warnings however he/she was first banned for only one warning (the policy was still young) and then he acquired at least up to three warnings and was not banned to compensate (see his talk - history if needed). I at least remember it was with someone (maybe [[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] however I don't rememberer exactly. Do you know?<br />
:I put (2:1) on [[User:Jota|Jota's]] last warning and I do not think I was wrong. Do you know where the other is? Is there another?<br />
:[[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] was banned for a (3:1) however were are they all? I also don't remember.<br />
:If you know any of the areas I am talking about supplying a link would be appreciated.<br />
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where warnings have been given and are not referenced here supplying a link would be appreciated.<br />
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where people deserve warnings and were not given them supplying a link would be appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Although it is a moot point, I can see the advantage of making sure we try to accurately back-log and keep track for all future purposes. I [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Yo5&defl=en&q=define:hope&ei=-Yt5S8XIO47cnAfKr5GyCQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE doubt] the user who did it will ever be back, but [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Bagby&diff=prev&oldid=395263 this edit] seems to me to be a warning-level offense. Maybe I'm wrong, but here it is for an admin to decide.<br />
::Additionally, I was wondering if we are going to have an enforced warning system that is in effect for Edit Wars? I know that even I have been a part of many, and it is something we should avoid. Just curious. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::As seen in [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:White_Wolf&curid=72522&diff=457366&oldid=457360 this diff], [[User:Jota]] tried to sneak bits of another user's ''(myself)'' previous comments, trying to disguise the removal as part of a different edit. Even more poignant, the main section removed was where I quoted Jota from a previous location where he admitted enjoying arguing on this wiki (arguably an act of trolling). Though the edits leading up to it can be deemed a Edit War of which I am equally to blame ''(though correct in my reasoning)'', Jota's edit went against all forms of wiki civility and protocol.<br />
:::This is not the first time Jota has done such. He has even removed or discounted other user's or IP's ratings of his own content when it wasn't to his liking. Being so brunt with other user's talk page postings should be forbidden. At most, altering extremely foul language or helping fix link/formatting should be the only allowable reason to do such a thing ''(barring of course obvious spam/vandalism)''. For this reason, I believe a warning is necessary. I leave it to the admin to decide. I understand if I also receive one for the edit war that took place, though in that case Jota should receive two. <br />
:::Jota did respond on that page that he removed the content to save me from ''"..direct rudeness, name calling, and belittle comments.."'' however the main portion of content removed was a quote from Jota, not myself. So that is invalid. The small other portion was not name calling nor do I perceive it as rude - those in managerial positions see things differently than those who are not, irl. Hence the classic phrase ''"can't see the forest because of all the trees"'' and all of it's variants. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::So arguing is trolling now? Lolwut? My actions were in keeping with your (Hooper) past actions, as noted on the Biomancer's talk page. If what I did was an offense against Wiki civility, so was what Hooper did. I just see him not getting warned for his actions, so I assume their okay under this wiki's policy, even though I find them questionable in nature. Furthermore, yes I remove ratings from content, not just IP ratings and not just my own material. If the rating is "lulz, overpowered" that does nothing for no one and is better off removed. "Obvious" spam is subjective, and should be left to an admin or bureaucrat, of which Hooper is neither. Personally, I would subscribe to FIFA's approach to warnings. Asking for someone else to be warned is a warn-worthy offense. Admins know the rules. Telling an admin someone needs to be warned is only an attempt to unjustly sway their opinion, and as such should merit a warning. Given [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law ex post facto law], Hooper's previous offense could be ignored, but its just a suggestion. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Irrelevant. As anyone can see on the policy pages in the help portal, most notable the Behavior Page, and from GD's actions and own statements, we no longer tolerate solicitation or links to competing sites. As noted in the diffs on biomancer, Eiji was soliciting and I removed it '''per policy'''. Stop straw manning. <br />
:::::Green Dragon is attempting to be notified because he is the only majorly active admin currently and has way too much to go through, hence it is easy for him to not see all that goes on, sadly. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Obvious is subjective, and therefore not your call to make. You want the power, nominate yourself for adminship. You're just creating more clutter by bringing subjective arguments to the table. Besides, it's not like this wiki is so active one cannot see an entire day's worth of activity on the recent changes page. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::Everything I need to do here on the wiki doesn't require adminship, nor do I want it. I thought I needed it long ago to help speed up editing but still don't need it today. Some of us have power in real life and realize that adminship is just responsibility, not power.<br />
:::::::Besides, I'd be too bad of an admin. I'd just permaban all the transientwiki people who think that continuing to cause circular talks and bog down progress on the site is fun. I'd also permaban anyone making content with the word Naruto in it. So, subjective or not, it's obvious I don't need adminship. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Official Policy ==<br />
<br />
So I have a few quick questions concerning actual policy. <br />
*If an Admin gets 3 warnings (and thusly banned for a week), should they be RfA'd to (potentially) remove adminship? It seems reasonable to have some sort of policy in place to that effect. Naturally, we'd all like to think admins are calm, level-headed contributors all the time, but everyone gets upset and says (or does) something stupid every so often. <br />
*Are all warnings the same? Can a single action provoke 2 <s>attacks of opportunity</s> warnings? <br />
*Is there a statute of limitations on warnings? We have a message up there asking for any missed warnings. Should we really be going back 4 and 5 months to find warn-able offenses? Some of those offenses took place before the warning policy existed. <br />
*Are we warning for every violation of civility according to that list? Forgetting to sign your post, and not answering questions both are on that list. Neither seem worth a warning.<br />
*My last question is a very specific one. Green Dragon, as we all ''now'' know, cannot be removed from adminship. Can he still be warned? If he is warned 3 times can he be banned?<br />
Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:First off I just recently saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption] and civility is actually present. As such, do we need this now maybe extraneous policy? I don't know. If so I would prefer we rollback or censor the problem text/post. Thoughts?<br />
:Should an admin be RfA'ed. Good question. I think so as it means one has not been upholding the values of an admin.<br />
:Warnings have been given based off each post, not an "action". Within the post, although their may be multiple violations, I have been counting it as one post to one warning.<br />
:There should not be a statue of limitations on warnings. The problem text is still present and as such something needs to be done regarding it.<br />
:Maybe you are referring to how the "etiquette" portion may not be relevant. That could be case. Should this be changed to just civility? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Hmm. I don't know. Should this page be a subpage of [[Help:Behavioral_Policy]]? &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I think Wikipedia's policy (as you linked above) is a good one. However, I think that policy almost requires us to keep the warning policy. If, for example, you decide to ban me for "Persistent Gross Incivility", I'd demand a few examples of that. The warning policy, as we have it, keeps a running log of all infractions to present if the banned individual should they ask for evidence. Whether or not we decide to stick with the "3 warns equals 1 week ban" policy is a different question. I think the policy is a solid one (once we more clearly define infractions and consequences). I personally am opposed to "perma-bans" (with the exception of users solely dedicated to causing problems, as defined by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption disruptions only]); I don't know how you feel on the subject, however. To address Hooper's question, I think the final decisions should for sure be a sub-page of Behavioral policy, I don't know that this discussion has made any concrete decisions yet though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Vagueishness ==<br />
<br />
The criteria for warning seem somewhat vague, and, since they link to an offsite page over which we have no control, are subject to unwarned change. If I read this literally, I could be giving out warnings for people who don't sign their posts, which doesn't really seem necessary, or for abusing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule WP:3RR], which isn't clearly a policy on this site. It's probably time that we broke from WikiP and just created our own pages on civility and etiquette. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This could make sense. Want to give it a go and we can see where we are from there? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:29, 4 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I could do it (though I don't have a lot of time right now), but since you do all of the warning, I would think you have a better idea of what's warnable and what's not. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:12, 9 March 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Hooper ==<br />
<br />
He got two warnings at the same time. It's not really a "warning" if he doesn't have a chance to learn from it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:16, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Interestingly, one of those messages was followed by three or four other comments before it was warned. To an outside observer, it might appear as though someone was just looking for a reason to block him for a week and warned him for something that didn't really warrant a warning. I know we've decided that warnable offenses don't have a statute of limitations, but that's a tad silly, IMO. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:21, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree that the first one was weak at best; stating that one can't follow another's statements is certainly not a personal attack if it's true, and doesn't really justify a warning. Even if Hooper had said something invoking the hygiene of another's mother, however, he still should have a chance to learn from his mistake before being warned a second time. Otherwise it's not a warning policy, it's a punishment policy. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:36, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::The learning curve is non-existent. If you don't know how to edit, look into D&D Wiki's policies. If that confuses you don't chime into discussions which are so variable. Also, it's that we are intended to warn backwards in time to be fair. Did it happen? Yes. Done. Is there any other way? Not unless you want to disregard wikis (when you edit you edit) entirely for certain users for who knows what reason. There may be more warning problems. I am so tired of pointless discussions I have stopped reading them. If I see more warning problems sometime when I may read them for whatever reason, yes, I will give more warnings. It's the fair way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:50, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::So answer me this, if someone says three different insults in the same single post, do you count it as one warning or three? If you aren't going to stay on top of the ball, but still want to keep away any statute of limitations, the only "fair" way to do it is to count every one you find at the same time as the same warning. It's all arbitrary, anyway, as I stated above (no work has been done on trying to clarify what is actually warnable), but if we are going to block a good user, it'd be nice to know we have good reason. Also, it's be nice to not be paranoid that I can all-the-sudden be banned for extended periods of time because of something I wrote that I didn't know was offensive, that all got caught all at once. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:29, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Each time one edits. You can say whatever in one editing time, however multiple times are multiple times. I agree about it being nice, however it would also be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]] (for example). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ok, see, that's not a very good argument, GD. Sure, it'd be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]], but it'd be really hard and time consuming to do that. It'd be very easy to do what Jazzman described. For example, I'm sure there are several things on this wiki that I've written that could potentially be considered warnable, but I've never been warned. Would it be fair to quickly find 3 things, and then ban me for a week, without giving me time to change my ways? No. A single warning would say "this sort of thing is unacceptable, cut it out", and I probably would. That'd be nice, reasonable, fair, and everyone would enjoy it more. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:18, 28 August 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::After a unjustified ban, I can attest that the policy should be defined. Additionally, if we're following in Wikipedia's footsteps properly, then we should establish proper ban-reversal procedure. For example, if two admins oppose a third admin's block, the block should be reversed (wikipedia has a similar policy, and if it was already in effect here - then this recent unwarranted block wouldn't of happened). Plus, blocks are meant to prevent or pause problematic editors, not editors who are actively contributing, fighting spam, and working collaboratively.<br />
:::::::There should also be a time limit put into effect where admins can not back-warning. This was made obvious recently, as it can lead to abuse. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:27, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I do know Green Dragon gave Surgo and TK-Squared multiple warnings in February of 2010, for language/rudeness violations committed in March/May of 2009. And considering Surgo stopped posting in September of 2009...well, I can't see what good Green Dragon thought he was doing. Seeing as how he was warning for someone for offenses almost a year old, and ''five months'' after the user in question ceased activies on the wiki. <br />
<br />
== Admin Violations ==<br />
<br />
The current warning policy does not state that admins are "above the policy" and actually showcases many former admins who have received warnings. However, it also states that only admins may give out warnings. Though I may be just "asking for it," I am intending to request a second administrator's look at recent comments by Green Dragon to see if they are deemed necessary of a warning or warnings. <br />
On the discussing recently held on the Main Page's discussion page, GD said ''"If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out."'', ''"If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this."'', and my personal favorite ''"...Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a [[Warning Policy]]). They must fix the problem or get banned."'' All three of these comments come across as either directly rude or belittling to the people they're referring to, and the last one actually directly interferes with our existing [[Warning Policy]] and implies that I was banned for allegedly-uncivil actions off-site.<br />
Now, however, the most directly uncivil reply was recently posted to the GNU's talk page. Here, GD amazingly flat out states that he will not follow consensus or collaborative discussion (even though he recently added Consensus to the Meta pages) when he declares that ''"...I could care less who thinks what about what. I will do as it is done. I'll listen to reasonableness. I don't care if it comes from God or a bacteria."''. Could other admins please discuss this, and could Green Dragon please reply and let me know if I have misread his intent or tone, especially with the last quote. I also wish to reiterate that I'm not trying to directly attack, its just that at the time these statements were made I was unable to reply - and after reviewing the numerous moves and reformatting of the licensing discussion, am trying to host a civil discussion on a serious issue on the most appropriate page. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ah, and you've spotted a flaw in the system. As I pointed out [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|just above here]], GD is seemingly "above the law". In fact, historically, blocking GD has been grounds for a block in it's own right. In addressing my questions about the finer points of warning policy, GD seemed to gloss over the objection I raised on that front. <br />
:Personally, as an admin, I refuse to "warn" anyone (IP, registered user, administrator, or owner) until a complete and fair guide has been written and is visible to all contributors. As Jazzman mentioned, if we don't have clearly defined rules the "warning policy" becomes more of a "punishment policy". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:03, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes, I can attest to having no warning at all when I was hit with multiple at once, and still have no clear clue what I said that was wrong. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:12, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've started working on a new, more clear, warning policy. It can be seen [[User:Badger/sandbox13|here]]. Feel free to join the discussion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:55, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yes, there are answers to things for the above (looking into it more, reading the block reason, etc). Yes, the world also turns. Is "''the world also turns''" condescending? Nah. Are you going to make accusations as such? When I get the time I will issue warnings appropriately for the above comment (e.g. accusations) if appropriate. Was that condescending too? Nah. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:55, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Umm, okay? Going past the you-blocked-me thing ''(whatever, we can both agree we want the best for the future of the site. right?)'', I'm more interested in your discussion on Badger's rough draft of a warning policy overhaul. Especially on how it may affect admins and bureaucrats. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:59, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Warnings Issued on 4e Campaign Settings Caliphate Supplement ==<br />
<br />
:''Discussion moved from [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caliphate_%28Patronage_Supplement%29&oldid=542259 Talk:Caliphate (Patronage Supplement)#Titles].'' <small>--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
Ok point of order here, I'm not going to bother reading this whole discussion because it's long and half of it is hidden in warning text (and ultimately I know what the outcome will be anyway), but some of those "warning texts" are not appropriate. You can't just warn people for saying something you don't like. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:58, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Right. They are related to specific Wikipedia pages. Where are you coming from exactly? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I don't know where you are coming from with that one. To be more specific, the following statements are all statements you removed from Wrecan's posts, and warned him about. All of them are, in my opinion, not warnable offenses:<br />
::# Why are you imposing this policy on my campaign setting? What gives you the right to do this, and to prevent me from restoring what I had originally written?<br />
::# It's not tied to any language in the Wiki policy you cited and<br />
::# What admins should not do is invent an unwritten policy and impose them on others without going through the process of adoption. <br />
::# Your interpretation of the policy is not supported by the language of the policy. If you want this website to consider personal attacks to include any use of epithets considered offensive by "organizations and people... on a large scale" then go through the process of amending this wiki's policies.<br />
::# There is no violation for giving a fictional character a title of "Caliph", just as there would be no violation for giving a fictional character the title of "Pope" or "Chief Rabbi" of "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire"... even if millions of people would be offended by the act. The only behavior banned (of relevance here) is applying a religious term to describe a contributor. That's the Wikipedia (and this site's) policy. If you want this site to have a different policy, you need to go through the process of amended this site's policy.<br />
::# Did you really think I wouldn't fact-check you, GD?<br />
::# When you edited the Patronage pages, you weren't acting as administrator; you were acting as a contributor. Administrators don't make substantive contributions to wiki pages in their capacity as administrators<br />
<br />
::In addition, you edited some of his text for reasons other than warnings, which is explicitly against our editing policy. In addition, as mentioned before (in a discussion I think you moved to this page), it's simply not fair (and makes your behavior look to outsiders who don't know the situation &mdash;at best&mdash; lazy or &mdash;at worst&mdash; malevolent, ''especially'' when the content you are warning/removing refers to your improper warning/removing of text!) to respond to something multiple times before you hand out a warning for it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:31, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::None of that is improper. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 relate to lying. 3 and 6 are rude to [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:04, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::The correct grammar is "None of those are improper, and I feel silly for having censored them." --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.104|173.245.48.104]] 20:32, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not necessarily. I meant that none of the reasons for giving them are improper. You'll see what I mean if you check the reasons. The context is about the warning, ergo the warning is being discussed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:23, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::There's no point in arguing, seeing as how you won't ever change your mind. But it's on record that I disagree and that I think it makes you look very improper. In the future, I would be happy to mediate any dispute between you and another user. There's a Wikipedia policy for that somewhere (and actually I think I've done that once before on WP). Also, I'm reinstating the historical link to the page from which you moved this text, because my comments apply to a historical revision of that page, not the page as it stands now, or whenever in the future some user happens to view it. If that talk page gets archived, the link will no longer work and my comments here will lack context (which is why I commented there, and not here, in the first place). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:21, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::If you are pointing something out then please add the link to your comments. If its a diff archiving will not do anything... Um... You can read the policy to understand the warnings. If someone is saying something is done a wrong way then they are lying. It's pretty straightforward. Also, you earned yourself some warnings above! "Won't ever change your mind" is belittling. I'll warn you sometime. The dispute resolution is not needed here. Everything is straightforward. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:35, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::If it's a warning please warn me right now. Otherwise I'm not going to count it. (And you know what else is belittling? Telling someone they earned some warnings and then threatening to warn them later). Saying something is done a wrong way is only lying if Wrecan knows it was, in fact, done correctly: it's only lying if he's ''intending'' to ''mislead'' you. If Wrecan actually believes that you are not following policy even though you are, that is not lying. It's pretty straightforward. Point number 2, by the way, can not, by definition be lying: you can not lie by asking someone a question! "How was your day?" "LIAR!!!"<br />
<br />
:::::::As for the link: I don't need to refer back to what I am talking about on the other page, because when I said what I said, ''I said it on the other page''. Can you please explain to me what your problem is with adding a more accurate link? If it's a diff archiving will not do anything... which is why I added the diff! We don't want anything to affect where this link points to. If you keep the link how you have it, and then later that talk page is archived, this link will be broken. My link will be correct no matter what you do to the other page (so long as you don't delete it)<br />
<br />
::::::::1 is a little interesting. I guess I could remove it. I would like some input on the thinking behind it before any action though. I considered that these circular discussions are pointless and waste people's time. The problem with them is that they need to get resolved (as far as I can tell). One cannot have administrative-related discussions left open since that will imply that users are ''okay'' to not engage in consensus and that they can just "slam the door on other users" while disregarding them.<br />
::::::::It would be fully true that warnings need to be in the time frame of the post if our comments here served the only purpose of taking actions. They, however, do not. Many times I post things without taking any action afterwards (such as after this post) and others do not take actions from my post.<br />
::::::::Additionally if I had more time I could do all the things I want to do. If I had more time I would improve areas of D&D Wiki. I don't have the time right now. So, my lack of time is not a problem. I find that a lack of time leading to problems is not constructive. Therefore, warnings are based off the ''text''. Therefore, it is not belittling. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Policy Changes ==<br />
<br />
:''See also [[User:Badger/sandbox13]]''<br />
:''Discussion moved from [[User talk:Badger/sandbox13#Warning Policy]].'' <small>--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:44, 5 December 2011 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
Obviously, I wrote all this so I rather like it. However, is there anything that should be added? Anything that should be clarified? Anything that should be removed? Thoughts? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:51, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:The following bullet points are [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]'s comments/issues:<br />
:1. Just a suggestion for the warning of block lengths. It should go something like "The ban length starts with one week at three warnings and then increases exponentially for every 3 warnings received (2 weeks after the 6th warning, 4 weeks after the 9th, 8 weeks after the 12th, etc.)". Also, I wonder if previously banned people should get less leeway? Maybe 3 bans = 1 week, 5 = 2 weeks, then every new warning increases the ban length. Then again, maybe not, because then it would be too tempting to find any one thing to be able to ban someone. But then again, then again, if someone's already got 5 bans, they probably aren't that great of a member anyway. I'm undecided on this one.<br />
:2. Civility and harassment are wishy-washy terms, and their wishy-washiness has lead to some questionable bans in the past. I'm not sure it's possible to define them in a way that's usable for our purposes, but perhaps we should have a few examples of what are ''not'' uncivil or harassing behavior. Asking for clarification of someone else's post is (usually) not uncivil. Going off-topic or responding to a topic which has been "settled" should also not be a ban-able offense.<br />
:3. Ettiquette breaches should, in most cases, ''not'' be a ban- or warn-able offense. Going by the letter of the law, you could get a warning for mis-indenting a page or for adding a new comment to the top. This should also probably be defined somewhere. I would love it if we didn't have to link to Wikipedia at all, since we have no control over the content there, and aren't notified if their policies change.<br />
:4. I like the separation of IPs from everyone else, because it basically makes no sense to warn IPs.<br />
:5. I think that there should be some sort of statute of limitations in effect, or otherwise some way to keep from being banned as Hooper recently was. I'd say any time an administrator issues a warning, all violations at the same time count as the same warning. This means if someone, say, posts rude comments on 5 different talk pages (though see below), they would count as 1 warning, since there's only 1 chance for the user to correct their behavior, not 5. Speaking of warnings, if the whole point of a warning system is corrective and not punitive, I think any user given a warning should, you know, actually be warned, say, on their talk page. The administrator giving out the warning should leave a message on that user's talk page stating exactly why they received a warning; this way the user has an immediate chance to clean up their act or clear up any miscommunications.<br />
:6. There should be some sort of exception to the rule for certain types of offenders. As written, we can't perma-block those stupid Russian drug company spammers.<br />
:7. The petition section is a little wordy, and is unclear if only the admin who did the banning is allowed to unblock.<br />
:8. Admin blocks: GD (and I think BD) are automatically exempt from being de-sysopped, so I wonder if they should be exempt from banning (though not warning) as well? I mean, they can take away the blocking power from anyone who can block them, so if they ever ''deserved'' to be blocked, what good would it do?<br />
:I mostly support it, but there are a couple of things I think we could change (See section below). I'll change my vote when these items are discussed more. Of my original 8 points below, I am now satisfied with 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. I'm not sure I can support a policy that allows unappealable (7) insta-blocks (5), but as those discussions are not settled I haven't changed my vote yet.<br />
:This is probably a little nit-picky, but with something as tumultuous and fickle and emotional as banning, I think it's better we have an absolute iron-clad policy now, then have to find all the exceptions later and risk appearing to play favorites. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:31, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've numbered them, and will reply to them by number here:<br />
::1. I think that sets of 3 warnings to a block is a good system. Suppose Hooper gets another warning in 6 months, and then another 8 months after that. Two warnings in the span of 14 months hardly seems worth a 2 week block. Plus, then every subsequent warning is a longer and longer block. (Sorry to use you as an example, Hooper, but you make such a good one). <br />
::2. I think we need some level of "wiggle room" in our terminology. The last thing I want is some trouble-making user leave bad comments and then say "yeah, but technically it's not listed under warnable offenses." I figure since only admins are giving out warnings, we can say "use some logic and reasonableness".<br />
::3. Honestly, I don't really like etiquette, but it was included like 4 times in the original system, so I left it in. I can't make a rational argument for or against it. It seems to me that again an admin could say "dude just miscounted colons, I'm not going to warn him for an etiquette violation." but it would catch people intentionally not signing comments that are offensive. (If anyone would be dumb enough to try that, still signed in). <br />
::5. I have no idea how to word it, but I want to suggest something like "you can't be warned on comments between warnings", which I know makes no sense. Let me clarify: When you're warned for a comment "c1", and then again for comment "c5". Any comments left between c1 and c5 (c2-4) can be censored to remove offending content, but don't count towards your warning level. I think a system about leaving comments on warned user's talk pages is also a good idea. <br />
::6. The way I see it, the warning policy applies almost exclusively to comments left on talk/user pages. Considering we don't warn link spammers, we just delete their pages and perma-ban them I see no need for this policy to concern them. We should probably make it more clear that this policy applies mainly to comments, and not spam/vandalism. <br />
::7. I'm not sure how to better word the petition section. I think that only the blocking admin should be allowed to revert the block, though. <br />
::8. If they are "above" banning (as it seems they are) they might as well be "above" warnings too. The only punishment for a warning is a block. Unless you mean you'd like to be able to censor offending posts. I guess that makes enough sense.<br />
::Right, so, these are my thoughts on the matter. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:16, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Support, if time restraint put on warnings (see comments)<br />
:::I like what you've got here. It is clear and concise. Even I can tell what I'm guilty of ''(my tendency to highlight others rudeness and ignore my own)''. My only thought is that we should consider some time of time limit. Obviously, admins can't see everything right away - especially if one user cusses another out at say midnight on a sunday. Still, there should be some clear line-in-the-sand that says unless you specifically did x (say, actually cussed out a user) you can not be officially warned if the item was not caught within the time limit. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:49, 4 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::1. Fair enough. I actually had a thought that might solve a few of our problems at once. What if the warnings "timed out" after a certain period (probably no less than three but no more than 12 months). After the set time period you remove the last warning. Truly disruptive users will ramp up their warnings quickly, but someone who, say, occasionally posts something harsher than they intended won't be so severely penalized. You could even combine the two: it takes 3 warnings to get a block, then every warning after 3 also gets a block, but you remove a warning every 3 months. Or something along these lines.<br />
::::2. I agree with wiggle room, I just also worry that "admin discresion" could be used to liberally as well. I don't know, maybe let's keep it how it is currently then update it if there are problems.<br />
::::3. If (at least) two of us don't like the etiquette part, maybe we should think about removing it altogether from the list of warn-able offenses. I'm not even sure if anyone ever got a warning based off of etiquette before. Or again, we could leave it for now and fix it if we run into problems later. <br />
::::5. What about a simpler solution: an admin can only hand out one warning at a time to a person, no matter how many offenses the admin finds at the same time. I think this says what we want to say without getting too technical.<br />
::::6. Fair enough. Maybe we just need a line that says something to the effect of "vandals and spammers will be dealt with immediately, regardless of their current warning status"?<br />
::::7. How about this: "A user may appeal a block by petitioning the blocking admin via email. The decision to reverse a block is entirely at the discretion of the admin. If the admin does not respond after 48 hours, a blocked user may contact another admin. If this second admin can not contact the original blocking admin, they may decide to reverse the block at their discretion.<br />
::::Any user who is blocked for a period of greater than 1 month can ask for a formal appeal. The user must email all active admins their appeal, after which the admin may request additional information, or may decide as written. A user must get a 2/3's vote from all currently active admins to appeal their block. If the vote fails, they may appeal again after 6 months."<br />
::::8. It's probably a moot point, but yeah, censoring was part of it. Really, though, we don't want admins to be at each other's throats, so maybe we shouldn't delve into this too far. I wonder if we should put in a clause that uncivil language directed at an admin can not be warned by that admin. In other words, a warn must always be from a third-party. Pointing out such offenses would obviously be exempt from the "pointing out offenses is an offense" rule, because administrators don't always read conversations if they know another admin is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:06, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::1. I'm not sure how I feel about warnings going away after a period of time. I mean, it sounds reasonable enough, but the notion of having to go and check on warning expiration dates seems like one more thing to do, with no concrete advantage. I'm all for more work, if it's worth it. I'd also argue "if you are blocked for 3 warnings that span more than a year, you have a strong case for a petition to commute the block". <br />
:::::2/3. How about we keep the "admin discretion" point from comment 2, and remove etiquette from 3? I think that solution would probably do the most good, and the least expense. <br />
:::::5. We currently have a rule that says [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|a single post can't create more than one warning]]. Want to somehow explain how that would extend to all existing comments? <br />
:::::6. We can (and probably should) add that line in somewhere.<br />
:::::7. I like your suggestion for improving the petition portion. I think we should include a bit about "pestering an admin", unless you object to that notion. <br />
:::::8. So maybe we say "while Bureaucrats cannot be warned, their comments can be censored just like any other post"? I like the third party idea. The only problem with that is suppose someone insults you three times, but no other admins are online for a week (which I don't think has '''ever''' happened). You should have the authority and the ability to remove these bad comments and warn the user. <br />
:::::Lastly, to Hooper's point: I'm not sure how I feel about "Admins didn't catch the edit within X weeks, they can't be warned". While it sounds reasonable, admins have a ton of stuff to do (here, and in the real world). I know I don't read every single update (though I skim most of them). If someone is being uncivil, they should be warned no matter how long it's been. Notice we are granting amnesty to all comments before this system is set into place, though. I think that's reasonable enough. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:18, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I feel that civility should be kept as well. I feel that something along the lines of "''Warnings result in predetermined feelings. Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters. Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings. For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable.''"<br />
::::::I agree that IPs should not be included. A feature like [[Special:CheckUser]] does not exist for them.<br />
::::::Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards.<br />
::::::Warnings should go away after 6 months if the user is in good standing. The reasoning could include something along the lines of "''If a registered user remains in good standing for six months after receiving a warning the warning will be removed. If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed. Call some friends over and play some D&D&ndash; try to keep your mind off the predetermined feeling(s) which w/as(ere) received.''"<br />
::::::I am fine with bureaucrats being above the warning policy. Although this leaves a large hole open for problems, I can say with certainty [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] and I will not abuse the system.<br />
::::::I disagree with petitions to unblock. If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked. If the reasoning is solid then they should be blocked. I do not think that there should be the possibility for circumvention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:54, 5 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Look good? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:36, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I've reverted the changes for two reasons. First, all the above comments are based on what was there (and is there again), so changing that much will change how all those comments apply. Secondly, your use of some very key phrases are confusing to me (and presumably other users). For example "If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed." is not a complete sentence, and I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. The suggestions you've brought up are, on the whole, good ones, and should be included. However, those monumental changes are not the best way to go about implementing said changes. if you could better explain your meaning, we could work out what changes need to take place. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:38, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::This is a sandbox which is a subsection of your userpage. If you want to revert the changes whatever. Keep in mind that one can always look at a older version of the page (based off the dates of the comments) for such a scenario.<br />
:::::::::I think that "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''" is a complete sentence. "''If there are [bears who fish salmon] know that [they do fish salmon].''" The adjective is lasting feelings and the verb is passed. However, I am no grammatical expert.<br />
:::::::::I mean what my comment above mentions. If you would like a better explanation please go through my comment above and let me know where your confusion arises from. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:46, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm aware that this is a subpage, and history/comment dates would make it possible to see what exactly everyone means, but it would be easier to just make a large edit once we've resolved all our concerns, and then strike through/comment out the existing discussion.<br />
<br />
::::::::::I'm just going to go through your previous comment one line at a time, pointing out where I would like clarity. ''"I feel that civility should be kept as well"''. Got that, clear and concise. ''"Warnings result in predetermined feelings"''. I have no idea what that means. What are "pre-determined feelings", in this sense?''"Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters."'' This much I understand, too. Warnings are the sorts of things that are unacceptable, but not worthy of a block. ''" Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings."'' Right, not sure what this means. Do you mean "Admins can correct small things, like indentation, and not warn the contributor"? That is what I think you mean by your next sentence ''"For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable."'' ''"Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards."'' is another confusing sentence, for me. Do you mean to suggest that you should be able to issue three warnings for three successive inappropriate posts, and thereby block someone, without giving them time to adjust their behaviors? I think, and others agree, that this mentality turns a warning policy into a punishment policy. I don't think that is a good rule. The rest of your post I think I understand. I'm fine with removing the petition to unblock if warnings go away 6 months after they were issued. That seems like a solid plan, to me. <br />
<br />
::::::::::Back to that one confusing sentence: if that is how you intend for your comment to be interpreted, then it is improperly punctuated; but, that's a minor detail. However, if that is your sentence, then it is a tautology that adds nothing to the policy. "If there are feelings, then there are feelings" doesn't help to describe what these feelings are, or what ramifications these feelings have. Could you better describe what you mean by "predetermined feelings"? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:05, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::By "predetermined" I mean that when someone says something they intend a result for someone else. By "''Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings''" I mean that "You may edit" (just worded for the context).<br />
:::::::::::When I mention that edits should be the base for warnings this is because blocking can be of varying length. Why can they be of varying length? They vary in length because of severity. Making warnings work with edits makes use of severity. Also, it is not fair if someone insults someone multiple times and someone else insults someone a single time and they get the same result.<br />
:::::::::::Oh, everything I added are tautologies. They are there to explain the reasoning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:51, 9 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::The whole point of numbering was to try and keep the different points straight, but I see that's gone down the crapper. I'm going to try to summarize, then hopefully we can stay organized from here on out.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::1 (Warning system logistics) It sounds like we are leaning towards an expiring warning system.<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with this, and I don't think it takes too much work. Really, all you have to do is check the age of the last warnings before you ban someone. If the oldest warning is less than 6 months old, then none of them have expired yet. Displaying "expired" warnings doesn't have any negative consequences, so nobody needs to rigorously patrol the page for expired warnings.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::2/3 (Etiquette and Civility) I think we are going to keep it as is for now.<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with Badger, the language suggested by Green Dragon does not make a lot of sense to me, and I'm not sure it's necessary. For one thing, "discretionable" is not a real word. I think what you are getting at is that admins have discretion to define "civility" and "etiquette". While I don't really like this (as it leaves it open to abuse -- especially with no method of appeal), I don't see a better way around it right now.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::4 (Blocking IPs) It's agreed that there's no need to block IPs.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::5 (How to count blocks) There is no consensus here.<br />
:::::::::::::Badger mentioned the "rule" that you can't be warned more than once in one comment. This should be enumerated within the rules for it to be official. Green Dragon, your scenario is fair in one way but unfair in another. Yes, your way three warnings always equals 1 block. But one user got 2 warnings to cease his behavior before he was blocked, and the other got 0. This is unfair. I'll say it again: if the point of the block policy is to ''change'' behavior, then you must go off of the number of actual ''warnings'' (i.e. how many times the user was told "don't do that or else"). If the purpose of the warning policy is to ''punish'' people, then you must go off of the number of ''offenses'' (this would even count for multiple offenses within a single post). If we are trying to build a community, I can only support a behavior-changing policy. I also, for the same reason, think there should be a statute of limitations. While admins may be busy, we really should be checking over all edits, especially in discussions that are likely to devolve into uncivil behavior. I don't think a week is too short a time frame; most weeks you can view a week's worth of edits on the recent changes log. If we ''don't'' have a statute of limitations, there's nothing stopping an unscrupulous admin from "storing" warnings and unleashing them all when he wants to get rid of a user for a while.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::6 (Exception for spammers/vandals) I think there is agreement on this point.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::7 (Petitioning) Badger and Jazzman are for, and GD is against.<br />
:::::::::::::I really see no reason against allowing an appeal. Admins are humans, and humans make mistakes. You even say yourself, "If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked." So what if the reasoning wasn't solid, but you blocked anyway? Again, if we are going for a behavior-changing policy, we need the ability to have some leeway here. <br />
<br />
::::::::::::8 (Bureaucratic Immunity) It's agreed that Bureaucrats are immune to the warning policy, but not admins. It has been suggested that a third party must intervene if an admin is involved in the uncivil behavior, but not agreed upon the details.<br />
:::::::::::::The whole point of rule of law (or rule of rule, in this case) sort of breaks down if you just take the Bureaucrats at their word... but that being said we don't really have any way around it, so I begrudgingly agree that they should just get blanket immunity. There's nothing we can do about it anyway. As for the case where only one admin is around, I think that it's rare enough that we shouldn't have to worry about it. If there is someone who is genuinely disruptive and no other admin responds in, say, 24 hours, the primary admin should be able to block. This is another reason to allow petitioning: if an admin is in an argument with a user, they could find a serious of excuses to block that user for 6 months. Without an appeal process, that user is screwed.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think this is everything. If I have misrepresented anyone or any idea please let me know. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 11:29, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I agree that the tautologies should be added elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages.<br />
:::::::::::::In accordance with number five mentioned above I would like to say that warnings are based off edits. This means that if the edit is older then six months then it (because of the time frame) would not be useable. This, then, removes the abuse of the system you mention above. Severity is also important because one does not ''learn'' through such a process. If you want to learn read [[Meta Pages]]. Editing is not learning necessarily and merging the two together is a mistake.<br />
:::::::::::::I don't disagree with appeals. I just don't feel that the medium is appropriate. If there is a problem they may wait out there time frame (if it is the last edit which is a problem) or if it is an intermediate edit, post on [[Talk:Warning Policy]] and discuss the problem. This is in accordance with wiki. We ''do not'' want D&D Wiki to function outside of wiki. This would undermine the very idea of wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:31, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:GD, I'm not sure you know what tautologies are. They are "using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity". There is absolutely ''no'' reason to intentionally include a tautology in our policies. If I understand you correctly, the statute of limitations on warnings should be 6 months, starting the day the comment was posted, rather than the day it was found. I'm not sure I like that. I'd support a month for the SoL, but have warnings expire 6 months after they are issued, not after the original comment is left. I think the goal of this policy should be learning, not punishment. We can't honestly expect every contributor to read the entirety of the Meta Pages before posting. I don't think I got around to reading them all until after I became admin (and I'm not even sure I've read them all, they are hard to find sometimes). I think "learning by doing" is the best approach to this situation, and that means we should combine editing with teaching. Finally, your last point is dead wrong. I pulled the notion of appeals directly from Wikipedia policy (making small alterations, to better suit it to our wiki). That section of their policy can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_and_discussions here]. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:53, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::As tautologies explain the same thing (just give some backing to the reasoning for clarification) they should be moved elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages, as I mentioned above.<br />
::The goal of the policy should not be learning. If we do not have varying severity people will use D&D Wiki contributors as vents. There is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have varying severity punishments. Saying that removing this is better then having this present is something which is wrong. If you kill someone and someone else crosses the street illegally a slap on the wrist for both instances is not acceptable. Most people (since they must interact with respect for various reasons) already know how to interact so the learning curve is pretty much non-existent anyway.<br />
::What is wrong with the reasoning for clarification of "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''"? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::For one thing, it isn't clear - negating its ability to clarify. Its obtuse almost. We need clear and concise language. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:21, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Feeling not feelings is a minor grammatical mistake above. If you want to improve the language, of course, go for it.<br />
::::Also, I agree that non-wiki arbitration is good to have. I created http://groups.google.com/group/dd-wiki-non-wiki-arbitration for non-wiki arbitration. Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok, where is this "severity of punishments" thing coming from? We have exactly one punishment -- banning -- and its severity is determined by the quantity, not quality, of your offenses. I simply can not, and will not, ever be in favor of a punitive system of warnings. It's not conducive to a collective-editing environment, it's harsh on new users and therefore insulating to a community that's already way to small to begin with, and it's just plain unnecessary when you consider the types of offenses we are actually dealing with here. Nobody is going to be deterred from ''offending'' by a threatening system, they will be deterred from ''editing''. If you don't agree with this then we will have to agree to disagree because you won't convince me otherwise. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:10, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Edit to add: that whole lasting feelings statement doesn't make any sense to me at all. Are you trying to say "let bygones be bygones"? If so, why do we need that in a warning policy anyway? What's the point of that arbitration thing? Is that to be used with the appeals process you think is unnecessary? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::A few points: <br />
:::::::Tautologies don't really explain things. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps you instead mean "definition" or "explanation". <br />
:::::::While the goal of most policy should not be learning, most of us feel that the goal of the warning policy should be for learning. We want to use the warning policy as a system to teach right from wrong, not just punish those who are doing wrong. If someone is persistently upsetting the community and not contributing in any way, I'm likely to just block them for a week, despite the warning policy. It is my opinion that the warning policy should be for making sure conversations stay civil, and censoring the occasional bad post from a generally good contributor. <br />
:::::::No one is suggesting that we remove institutionalized punishments that fit the crime. To continue your metaphor, there is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have an appeals system. If someone is given 20 years in prison for jaywalking, they should be able to appeal to have their sentence commuted. The idea of appeals isn't to let the guilty walk free, but rather to help the unjustly punished.<br />
:::::::I've joined that group you've created. I'm not sure if it's the best method, but I suppose it'll do for now. You should check that users are who they say they are (based on the email they use to join). In joining, I just got to choose a random username, and I could have picked "Badger" just as easily as I could have picked "Blue Dragon" or "JazzMan831".<br />
:::::::I really want to figure out what you mean by "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''". Do you mean to say ''"If you are still upset about a mean thing someone has said, know that they said it 6 months ago and they may no longer feel that way."''? If that's not what you mean, can you try to rephrase it another way, because I am totally confused. <br />
::::::Given that you've created this off-wiki method for arbitration, I suppose it's safe to assume that an appeals system is something you now like?--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:22, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I wonder if a off-site group is the right way to go for one major reason: anonymity. Yes, I am not that fond of it myself - and I may be willing to use my real name everywhere, but not everyone is. Should we force a user who doesn't wish to connect his online profile with others or his real name into signing up to a group - especially one like google where it is so easy for personal information to leak through ''(trust me, I'm a debt collector. Google and facebook are awesome for us when it comes to tracking)''? Again, personally, I'm anti-anonymity, but I understand that others seek it out. I mean, I doubt Badger wants us to know that he may be "James T. Badger from Badgerville" ''(just an example)'' or such. Maybe this is making sense, but I feel like I'm just blabering on. Basically: TL<nowiki>;</nowiki>DR = love and feel the need for a appeals process, but is off-site the right channel? Do we have the ability to program a few pages to allow even blocked users to edit, like their own talk page or a central Admin Noticeboard? <br />
:::::::Also, what do we do in cases like [[User_talk:Hooper#Spammer_Block_Oddity|this]]? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:47, 10 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::If we were to remove severity and consider an aspect of learning as the base does this include everyone? If someone insults me multiple times will that annoy me more? If someone gets the same punishment as another user for a lesser offense will they even learn (I think this has been proven to be a learning barrier by the way)? If someone insults anyone multiple times will that annoy the admin more (more dealing with this learning base of work)? Why should everything relate to the abuser and not the abused? Why should those who "do their homework" (for lack of a better term) not be better off? Is that not part of learning? I just don't understand how removing severity and considering an aspect of learning as the base can be fair. If its not fair then we ''will'' have a problem with users considering the administration as biased and not compatible.<br />
::::::::Yes, "''bygones be bygones''". Don't worry about all that&ndash; it will be used in the help pages.<br />
::::::::I attempted to infer that yes, I do agree with an arbitration method. For the arbitration to have an effect (in its current state), yes, one must verify the user (email for a message or something). If we do not want to deal with this level of anonymity then does anyone know of a fitting extension for the above suggestions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:02, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, so one thing to point out, we're all in favor of keeping the scaling block lengths. If someone repetitively insults users, they will ''not'' have a good case for arbitration. Arbitration, and commuted block lengths, will only occur when something has legitimately gone wrong. Apparently a patch to the MediaWiki software continues to prevent a blocked user from editing a wiki, but allows users to still edit their talk page. I'm not sure if we have that capability, but if we do, that'd be the best way to go about this. Users could post on their talk page, and admins could leave their opinions. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:17, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The problem with a correlation there is that in some cases multiple things have legitimately gone wrong with only one result. Which extension [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki.org] were you referring to above? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:08, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand where your problem is. Can you give a hypothetical situation where your problem would arise? That would be immensely helpful. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgBlockAllowsUTEdit This] extension (not actually an extension, but existing code) allows blocked users to edit their talk page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:34, 13 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::For example if I edit a page and do not treat another use with civility I have completed an edit. This edit would (in your method) go into a pool until the user gets warned. The pool could have thousands of edits which are not done with civility. The admin would only see the pool and remove the pool as a single occurrence with a single warning relating to the commuted block length. I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The commuted block length should be based of occurrences so this pool problem does not exist.<br />
::::::::::::That extension is an option. I am not a fan of it. When a user is ''blocked'' they are ''blocked''. They did something wrong, so why should they be given lieniency? I would rather do something which does not relate to wiki D&D Wiki (or a mailing list from the email user preferences). Is there an extension for such a thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Well, here's the thing. The "pool" would only exist if admins aren't vigilant in their duties. The idea is that admins should stay on top of these things. Secondly, think about this: Suppose you are a user who is leaving comments. You don't think there is anything wrong with your comments. Suddenly an admin comes online and warns you three times in two minutes. Suddenly you're blocked, and you had no idea you were doing anything wrong. Does that seem fair? <br />
:::::::::::::I'm not sure moving things off-wiki is necessarily the best decision. We've always been adamant that we should keep everything on-site, and I don't get why this would be any different. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Actually, I forgot about that extension. I think it's a good idea -- but only if it's also possible to additionally block a user from using their talk page. Everyone has the right to appeal, but not to spam the recent changes out of spite.<br />
<br />
:As for "abuser" vs. "abused", since we have agreed on a system where only an admin can hand out warnings, and pointing out offenses of others can itself be warn-able, then obviously this is biased towards the "abuser" method. And really we have good reason. If, for example, user A is in an argument with user B, he shouldn't be given the option to pick three different times in the past where he felt "abused" by user B in order to get him blocked for a week. Additionally, admins should not have to be put in a position where they have to say "well actually I don't feel that you are actually being abused, even though that's how you feel". [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:46, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How does the fairness of block lengths make its way into this system?<br />
::The fairness of block lengths is present if the duty relies solely on the ''timing'' of admins. Why should everything be about the timing? Do the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles|improving, reviewing, and removing article]] templates make it so the timing can be used to the fullest? Why should we change the warning system to be worse then such a method?<br />
::The above example does seem fair to me. If I could not control my words I need to learn and a system which explains to me which words were appropriate, treats me the same as other people, and treats the person I was rude to the same as everyone else who was mistreated works best.<br />
::I am against something here being onsite since IP's are only posting spam on their talk pages and being blocked means one is blocked.<br />
::I don't agree with admins being the only one's able to ''deal'' with warnings. See also [[Warning Policy#Warnings Issued]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:50, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't think it's fair to punish someone because, as an admin, I'm slacking on my job. If you make three potentially offensive edits in the span of twenty minutes, you should be given a fair chance to change your behavior. Suppose someone swears in a comment. They don't swear at anyone, they just say something like "Fighters should have the best damn BAB possible". They may not know that comments like that are a violation of policy (Hell, I'm not even sure if they are against policy). Do you think it's fair to ban someone because they leave three comments like that? On my [[Talk:Hooker_(3.5e_Class)|Hooker talk page]], I, an active user, ask what our policy on swearing is. You can't expect a new user to know if users (and admins) as active as Jazzman and I are don't know. Expecting every contributor to spend thirty minutes reading policy before posting is idealistic and naive. Any policy that could block someone for comments like that is completely asinine, and I can't support it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:12, 14 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Should we just do as Wikipedia does? We are basically only talking about a "level of harassment" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility]) which is a block (the word ''may'' not ''can''). What I am mentioning above is more kind then what Wikipedia uses and making it kinder again is a mistake. Wikipedia knows how to handle users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:15, 15 September 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::GD: which of my 8 points above do you agree with (be explicit, as in, using the actual numbers). Since we are all almost in agreement about those things, can we add them to the real policy page? It'd be nice to have some defined rules around here. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:59, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea of integrity. It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system. Warnings should be applicable until a warning is given then the expiration of the warning can begin to happen. If this does not happen then we lose integrity. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:20, 5 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::First of all, why did you move this? The running vote, and, most importantly, the thing we are discussing in the first place are not on this page. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean. Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? You do disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? Since the current vote is unanimous on several portions of the proposed policy, can we make any of it official? I will respond to your point after I get the answer to these questions, so as not to get distracted. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:37, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::The votes were placed where they should be. The same is for this discussion (what it is discussing should be its main page). Voting is not done. See also [[Meta Pages#Policies]] ''"As [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Supermajority Supermajority] (and many others) failed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] is only used under the rules of D&D, under editing, and in other special instances."'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:52, 6 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::When is voting done, then? And I'm glad you brought up that line; I hadn't noticed it before in Meta Pages. I also am not sure what it's supposed to mean (there's a critical comma or something missing in there). Also, I ask again, as these important questions have yet to be answered: Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? Do you disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? And since voting is apparently not finished (though no one's added a vote in months now) I'll add another: when is voting finished, and what is the procedure for changing this policy? (Do we even *have* a procedure?) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:27, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::As per the above ''"It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system.''" I think I have mentioned what I agree and disagree with above multiple times to refine this... The quote here is my problem with it. And, consensus is done&ndash; voting is not done (special means things like aesthetics, etc). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:41, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Hey guys, sorry I've been missing these past few weeks, I've been swamped with stuff. What have I missed? It seems like we're talking about implementing my new version of the warning policy. Sweet! Let's see, where are we... Right, well, it appears that we're going to use consensus (my favorite thing) to talk about implementation. Judging by what I've read the only thing standing between us and consensus is the notion of a statute of limitations on warnings. Is that right? Awesome! From what I can tell, there are two sides here. Some of us feel that warning people multiple times before given the chance to change their ways is wrong. Others feel if we don't warn people for every offense, we lose integrity in the system. Let me be the first to state that I am in the former camp. Official pardons, states of limitations, and other "secondary laws" have been in effect in America since our inception. I don't think that it can be fairly argued that the American legal system lacks "integrity" because of this. Would someone like to give an example where the integrity of D&D-Wiki would be put in danger because of the proposed policy changes? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:50, 7 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
{reverting indent]<br />
:If you replied to it without giving a warning, it should ''not'' be given a warning later. If it's acceptable to you then, you shouldn't get to change your mind. I can understand if you just now entered the discussion--and even then, the warning should be one along with a statement to straighten up. That discussion went for many, many pages before Green Dragon decided Wrecan wasn't kosher. What made him change his mind? That Wrecan's tone had gotten snippy? Then that should be a warning for when Wrecan's tone and behavior became unacceptable and that post only, not for what was said two weeks ago and replied to a dozen times. Furthermore, multiple warnings in one swoop aren't good. They aren't good ''at all''. I can't imagine the acrobatics required to decide it's acceptable exercise of power, to discuss something ''for weeks'' and then block the other side of the discussion for posts weeks old. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.215|173.245.56.215]] 13:33, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I can't agree with the IP more. What happened to Wrecan should never have happened -- either he should have been blocked days before, or he should not have been blocked at all. To respond to something ''multiple times'' is to give consent to it. You can not then go back and block. It makes the blocker look bad, and it makes the site look bad, end of story. It also doesn't help when YOU POINT OUT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO WARN SOMEONE LATER and then not do it! It just makes you look like a tyrant (and GD, I'm not calling you a tyrant; I'm pointing out that someone new to this site who saw something like that would likely consider the behavior tyrannical). <br />
<br />
::Note, also, that GD has decided it's ok to tell users they have done something warn-worthy ''without actually warning them''. [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warning_Policy&diff=prev&oldid=542429].<br />
<br />
::Lastly: when will voting be done? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:37, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::The American Legal System is not in the same situation. When a judge makes a decision he makes the decision. There are no court cases that people don't listen to and then ''later'' the judge listens to them.<br />
:::Some comments are not necessarily acceptable to anyone anytime. Policy relating to acceptable behavior comes from the Wikipedia pages. No one is changing their mind&ndash; they are just later having the time to deal with the situation.<br />
:::I warned [[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] before the time when he received multiple blocks. The time I have to issue warnings (it does take time&ndash; reading everything so critically while constantly referencing Wikipedia and then the formatting that is related, etc) is when I will issue them. Mentioning comments as being warning-worthy is because I have not had the time the process (mentioned above) requires yet. Is this what is being mentioned above? Seems like it is the same thing. Is it antagonizing? I think it may be a fine line.<br />
:::Voting is not done. See above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:30, 8 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Ok, GD, let me just say "No". Your reason for delaying a warning isn't acceptable. At all. If you have the time to reply to comments, you have the time to warn someone. End of Discussion. You gave 8 warnings in a single edit. If anything, it should have been a single warning. What you have done is wholly unacceptable. None other administrator would have done what you did. That should have been a clue that something wasn't quite right. <br />
::::Jazzman, as a point of order, what do you mean by "When will voting be done"?<br />
::::*Under what circumstances should we vote on something?<br />
::::*When will discussion come to a close on this issue?<br />
::::I feel like that might change the discussion. Are you using the word "voting" to mean "discussion and debate" instead of actual "voting"? <br />
::::Finally, I think you've misunderstood my metaphor about the American legal system. Rather than try to explain it to you, I'm just going to ask that you ignore it.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 9 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Let me verify this please&ndash; you're telling me how to spend my time? You understand how my time is organized then?<br />
:::::Since this is consensus the point I will make follows. Read the policy. If you don't know what you're doing read the policy. If you don't know how to interact with other humans, read the policy (it may help you). We are not going to organize time in any manner&ndash; that's not right. We'll assume people who care will care and if you do not care then you will suffer the consequences. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:18, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::The point of this discussion is none of us like the policy, and we'd like to change it. I would suggest that if maybe you don't know how to interact with other humans, you should let others write policy. It may help the the website, in the long run. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:13, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Luckily that's a theoretical comment above and then later not direct. I agree that if you don't know how to interact with humans you should let others write policy.<br />
:::::::I am talking about a successful model used throughout the world. Again, if you don't know how to interact (making a new model for example that is an experiment (perform the experiment elsewhere okay)) how about you let others write the policy.<br />
:::::::The clarification of my above comment is that I am talking about people who receive warnings. If you get a warning you have a problem interacting with humans (do you just go up to someone and belittle them?). I am saying that if they do not read the policy and or understand it then they should learn through the process anyway. Does this simple comment finally make sense? I can't understand how this is not understandable to others. You go to school. You learn. If you don't do your homework you get a bad grade. It's the same thing. The level of used throughout the world is large, so why oh why are the comments I am getting back just not getting this?<br />
:::::::Have you ever ruined a class by making the curriculum based off your understanding? The structure of classes is not like this. You sign up for a class. You learn the material that is presented on the syllabus the first day. It doesn't matter if you get it or not&ndash; your grade reflects that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:27, 10 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::We all agree that if you are belittled you should be warned. That isn't the issue being debated here. What we're saying is that 8 warnings at once is an issue. Teachers don't give you a test, and then later count it as eight tests. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:10, 10 December 2011 (MST)</div>Badger