.jpg)
I can summarise what I think you're trying to say a lot more quickly: "positive contributions count for something, and you're only a real problem when the negatives outweigh the positives". – iridescent 18:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Do Sarah Palin's positives outweigh her negatives?
- Good nutshell. You are the two I asked because I thought you might be on differing sides of the spectrum (Xeno's work with a "fuck you" editor) is, presumably, different than how Iridescent would've reacted in the same instance. I make no judgments as to which is correct, but I definitely lean more towards the Iridescent side myself. Thanks both. Keeper ǀ 76 18:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Good read. I like the analogy. (as well as the nutshell and appropriate image supplied by Iridescent...) J.delanoy gabs adds 14:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Expanding a bit: while this goes against the Holy Commandments of Saint Jimbo and the Church of Wales, said commandments were written for a low-profile website, populated mostly by Californian geeks, with a few thousand articles, and are no longer relevant. The MMORPG analogy is relevant; by doing good things, you earn points, and it's only when you've "spent" said points that you become a liability. This is not policy, but it's the way things work. AGF was a policy that was fine for a de facto group of buddies, but the position now ought to be one of pure neutrality towards newcomers until one sees which way they're going. – iridescent 16:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I can summarise what I think you're trying to say a lot more quickly: "positive contributions count for something, and you're only a real problem when the negatives outweigh the positives". – iridescent 18:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Do Sarah Palin's positives outweigh her negatives?
- Good nutshell. You are the two I asked because I thought you might be on differing sides of the spectrum (Xeno's work with a "fuck you" editor) is, presumably, different than how Iridescent would've reacted in the same instance. I make no judgments as to which is correct, but I definitely lean more towards the Iridescent side myself. Thanks both. Keeper ǀ 76 18:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Good read. I like the analogy. (as well as the nutshell and appropriate image supplied by Iridescent...) J.delanoy gabs adds 14:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Expanding a bit: while this goes against the Holy Commandments of Saint Jimbo and the Church of Wales, said commandments were written for a low-profile website, populated mostly by Californian geeks, with a few thousand articles, and are no longer relevant. The MMORPG analogy is relevant; by doing good things, you earn points, and it's only when you've "spent" said points that you become a liability. This is not policy, but it's the way things work. AGF was a policy that was fine for a de facto group of buddies, but the position now ought to be one of pure neutrality towards newcomers until one sees which way they're going. – iridescent 16:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)