User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford

From Guild Wars Wiki

Tennessee Ernie Ford is the nom de web of cRPG guides. No relationship to the fantabulous gospel singer of the same name is intended or implied.

---

Contents 1 PMs Jan, Feb, Mar 2009 2 "Votings" 3 Thank you 4 Does the sun still rise in the east?

[edit] PMs Jan, Feb, Mar 2009

...

[edit] "Votings"

Hey Tennessee, please do not creating voting-like discussions as you did on the community portal. The wiki doesn't work like that, instead we simply do things based on consensus. But having separated sections for support and oppose tends to remove any discussion and will just get the people to repeat things without responding to others. So a simple discussion, or text, with your intention and your opinion would be fine and will make it possible to talk about the idea. Thanks :) poke | talk 06:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't do it in the future, out of respect to the policies and customs of the wiki. (Not to mention: you asked so very nicely. :-)

By the way: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "decision by consensus" that doesn't include expressing approval/disapproval. I guess I don't see that putting one's opinion under yes or no means that people can't respond to each other's points. I do see it as helping users see the pros/cons, otherwise they tend to get lost in longer and more heated conversations. In other words, could you help me to see the error of my ways by pointing out what's different in what I did from voicing opinions on sysophood?

For what it's worth: if you wade through the WoT on Nick's talk page, you'll see that instead of meandering towards agreement, the discussion was diverging further apart (and unpleasantly IMO). It also appeared headed towards a bladder decision (where whoever can avoid going to the bathroom the longest wins); on wikis, it tends to be whoever has the most patience (or time) to post the longest. I was hoping that presenting clear options would help galvinize the silent majority who didn't want to dive deep and yet still had strong feelings on the topic.

As it turns out, I probably should not have posted in the CP. Getting lost in the details of how to handle Nick is a more general question: does the wiki want to treat some of the new features differently from standard articles because (unlike 99% of GW), they have aspects that change daily or weekly? Mostly people are saying, "the wiki doesn't do that" rather than considering whether maybe the two Nicks and the Z-quests are unique and require special handling. (Maybe they don't; still, seems worth asking the question.)

In any case, thanks for the tip/suggestion/request (and thanks for being gracious about my faux pas). Tennessee Ernie Ford 07:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

PS please call me, TEF — Tennessee is the stately adjective modifying Ernie, but for some reason, no one ever calls me [not my real name] Ernie.

Consensus is reached by discussion, not a simple agree/disagree count since there are generally more than the originally proposed options for any situation. We discuss the pros/cons of a proposal, as well, as any additional options and come to a mutual agreement of what would be best for the wiki. Also, proposals for changes should be made on the talk pages of the appropriate pages, not the community portal, unless it's a broader, generalized change that would affect more than just a single page. If you wish to gain a larger audience for a discussion, you simply add a link to it on the Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for comment page.

PS, please sign your comments, even on your own talk page :D lol I missed it :P -- Wyn 10:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: reaching consensus by discussion — we agree completely. I'm not suggesting we count; I'm suggesting it's easier to see the pros/cons if they are organized that way. I will follow the practice here going forward. (Even though I still don't understand how this discussion is different from a sysops decision, which I used as a model for the proposals.)

Re: change proposals belonging on the talk page itself. — You'll see on Nick's talk page that I didn't realize that was the custom of this wiki. I'm happy for the discussion to be moved. Again, my apologies.

Re: off-this-topic — if you have time, maybe you can point me to the discussion/decision that would help me understand why this wiki is not the place for [discussion of player reactions to new features].

In any case, thanks again for taking a moment to tutor me on wiki practices/policy. Tennessee Ernie Ford 18:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is that by having separated agree/disagree-sections discussion won't happen as people tend to not discuss about single statements. Of course you can see better who agrees and who does not, but consensus should happen by giving good arguments all people can follow. Also the general voting scheme tends to make people just drop a line (even if they are uninterested or do not add new things to the discussion) so they are listed there. Similar things happen on the RfA-pages where many people tend to comment with "per user XY". The basic difference however is that bureaucrats will look at what people write there and decide based on those opinions. But having such a system in the normal discussion is difficult as bcrats or sysops are not to evaluate the comments and then decide what will happen (instead the consensus is something the users should aim at and decide together about). poke | talk 19:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Makes sense. Maybe what I meant to do was encourage people to post pro/con arguments rather than what they had been doing (rehashing same argument over and over, getting more frustrated). And, I have to agree, whether one agrees with my plan or not, my execution looks/feels more like voting than my intent. (As a reminder, I wanted to encourage decision-by-group rather than decision-by-biggest-bladder.) Thanks again for your help. Tennessee Ernie Ford 20:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

for understanding why I made the RFA. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 21:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are quite welcome.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Does the sun still rise in the east?

I notice that the recent signature drama finds Shard and Wyn on the same side of an issue. The End Days are upon us now!   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Btw, you're smart. :-) Just been wanting to say that for... a month. -- riyen ♥ 12:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Heya! Thank you for your kind words.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)