+1, and your mother's a whore. --71.229 06:35, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
- Technically, more of a guideline proposal than a policy. - PANIC!
sexiness! 06:36, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
- These kinds of things are almost always between two people, maybe we need something like two people talking back to each other about the same thing on a talk page more than 10 times and it's time to STFU. I'm guessing this is to prevent things like the epic walls of text that appear on Rapta's talk and the stupidity that gets people like Igor banned because they don't know when to STFU. The problem is most people don't know how to express their point in a precise, succinct way, I always have epic walls of text, but at least they are comprehensive god damnit. - Misery Is HawtFile:Grumpy bear.JPG 06:46, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
- Your points are usually succinct. There's just a lot of them sometimes. And yeah, it's almost always between two or three people who end up in a giant wall vs. wall discussion on a build or the AN. Although, people like that 91.143 guy would fall under this, too. WvW isn't necessarily a bad thing (look at the discussion between GoD and I on his "ONOZ!IGOR!" rant) but when the conversation has no structure and begins to cycle downward into veiled insults then it's time to STFU. - PANIC! sexiness! 06:51, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
- Your points are usually succinct. There's just a lot of them sometimes. And yeah, it's almost always between two or three people who end up in a giant wall vs. wall discussion on a build or the AN. Although, people like that 91.143 guy would fall under this, too. WvW isn't necessarily a bad thing (look at the discussion between GoD and I on his "ONOZ!IGOR!" rant) but when the conversation has no structure and begins to cycle downward into veiled insults then it's time to STFU. - PANIC!
- These kinds of things are almost always between two people, maybe we need something like two people talking back to each other about the same thing on a talk page more than 10 times and it's time to STFU. I'm guessing this is to prevent things like the epic walls of text that appear on Rapta's talk and the stupidity that gets people like Igor banned because they don't know when to STFU. The problem is most people don't know how to express their point in a precise, succinct way, I always have epic walls of text, but at least they are comprehensive god damnit. - Misery Is HawtFile:Grumpy bear.JPG 06:46, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Could of course need some elaboration to when it should be used; and why they should stop (i.e. very short note about ban now, may want to make it more serious). Overall I like the idea and think it's a good addition. Godbox 
09:59, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Or u could always permaban them for trolling like Igor (twice). --- 
Ressmonkey (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
- If they would STFU instead then there'd be no need for a ban. When to use this: Always. Also, this is about as serious as it needs to be. It's just a guideline that people should be reminded of when walls of bullshit start appearing in places like the AN. - PANIC!
sexiness! 10:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
<3 — Skakid 11:34, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Should it be moved to another name with a redirect at STFU; such as NPA? Godbox 11:41, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
- PvXwiki:Shut The Fuck Up. gogo. --Tab Moo 11:42, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
- (ec)The name may be a bit harsh, I for one consider it to be quite good but consider that a new member may not like being told to Shut the fuck up. Should maybe be moved to a less... insulting name. Godbox 11:42, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
- It shouldn't be literally used to tell people to shut the fuck up but whatever you want. A rose by any other name tbh. - PANIC! sexiness! 11:50, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
- For Precedence I also cite PvX:DICK and Wikipedia:Please be a huge dick. - PANIC! sexiness! 11:55, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
- I have to say, it's looking pretty hawt and could be quite useful to insert into the next giant wall of text argument: PvX:STFU tbh. - Misery Is HawtFile:Grumpy bear.JPG 12:12, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
- It shouldn't be literally used to tell people to shut the fuck up but whatever you want. A rose by any other name tbh. - PANIC!
Heh, this is rather well written. — Rapta 
(talk|contribs) 13:43, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
- Does that mean you're in favor, then? - PANIC! sexiness! 14:00, 4 July 2008 (EDT) I'll get you, Skakid... next time!
- Not as of yet. However, since this is rather a guideline rather than a policy, it's not really viable for enforcement, which means that this can be passed with little/minimal controversy. It's blunt, so it's my type of policy/guideline. However, that means that I'm pretty biased, so other users should weigh in. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
- I haven't actually seen any opposition yet... Admittedly there haven't been that many users on the page. This wouldn't allow more bans or anything, but would more give general users something to refer to in order to suggest two other users STFU, in the most polite way possible and might actually potentially prevent bans ;o - Misery Is HawtFile:Grumpy bear.JPG 07:54, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
- Been 7, myself aside, that agree so far. Don't know what Ressmonkey's stance was. But tbh, noone will oppose this. As far as enforcement, etc, there's already precedence for warnings and bans if something gets that far and since this is meant to be the step before that, there's no real point in issuing a warning or whatever for violating it. Although I would love for Rapta to ban somebody for the reason: Refused to go outside and eat something. - PANIC! sexiness! 08:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
- ILL DO EET -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 00:18, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
- ILL DO EET -- Armond Warblade
- My stand is that I dont think its needed. If theres a problem, admin discresion, mediation, or other policy should cover it. I understand its supposed to be a non-banning guideline, but Id rather see people banned. Also, I have a feeling that this is gonna be cited in the wrong place because long amounts of text arent always under this policies jurisdiction, and some users wont realize that. --- Ressmonkey (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
- The aim of this is to prevent problems and consequences. As we've seen in the past, bans aren't the end of the situation in a lot of cases; proxies and drama being the most common backlash. I thought "when it should be used" was clear but perhaps I should expand "when not to use this"? - PANIC! sexiness! 09:07, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
- The aim of this is to prevent problems and consequences. As we've seen in the past, bans aren't the end of the situation in a lot of cases; proxies and drama being the most common backlash. I thought "when it should be used" was clear but perhaps I should expand "when not to use this"? - PANIC!
- Been 7, myself aside, that agree so far. Don't know what Ressmonkey's stance was. But tbh, noone will oppose this. As far as enforcement, etc, there's already precedence for warnings and bans if something gets that far and since this is meant to be the step before that, there's no real point in issuing a warning or whatever for violating it. Although I would love for Rapta to ban somebody for the reason: Refused to go outside and eat something. - PANIC!
- I haven't actually seen any opposition yet... Admittedly there haven't been that many users on the page. This wouldn't allow more bans or anything, but would more give general users something to refer to in order to suggest two other users STFU, in the most polite way possible and might actually potentially prevent bans ;o - Misery Is HawtFile:Grumpy bear.JPG 07:54, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
- Not as of yet. However, since this is rather a guideline rather than a policy, it's not really viable for enforcement, which means that this can be passed with little/minimal controversy. It's blunt, so it's my type of policy/guideline. However, that means that I'm pretty biased, so other users should weigh in. — Rapta
Veiled insults
I believe this should be taken out since almost all of my edits now contain veiled (or just regular, old, out-in-the-open) insults and this would make it difficult for me to post without breaking a policy I wouldn't care about breaking in the first place. You cockbags. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 
15:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
- It's a guideline, be like Rapta, feel free to ignore guidelines. - isery (TALK) 15:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
