Suggestions for Improvement

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clay Mario said:
But there should definitely be a limit, e.g. legal or medical information
Click to expand...

I would agree. We don't want people acting as a doctor, giving false advice and knowingly lead whomever wants help to their deaths.

Or someone acting as a lawyer when in truth that person is out to brutally murder you when(the two) get a chance to meet.

Then again... I feel it'd be common sense to not ask that stuff in the first place.
 
I don't know what it is about Mario that attracts dumbfucks, but quite a few of them come and go. It's not inconceivable that this could happen.
 
If it's banned here then people will just go to google and get an equal voice there. If something is very clearly leading towards a bad decision on someone's end, then that particular topic can be reported and handled individually. Advice is advice, no one here is writing prescriptions.

Clay Mario said:
I don't know what it is about Mario that attracts dumbfucks, but quite a few of them come and go. It's not inconceivable that this could happen.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say "dumbfucks" so much as attracting a much younger audience.
 
Though the help board is where you go to get help, we're not a counseling clinic or a legal aid center. A line should be drawn.
 
And again, that line is drawn when an individual thread poses a threat and that individual thread is reported. There should be no sweeping generalizations.
 
My point is that rules should be rigorous and so it's a bad idea to say "anything goes" and then when something comes up that's clearly bad, just delete/lock it on an ad libitum basis, without citing a rule.
 
Honestly, I'm siding with Anton and Porple on this one. If there's a topic that's obviously a bad idea, it's simpler to lock that one than it is to establish specific rigorous guidelines that in all honesty will probably never be relevant.
 
(Blocky beat me to posting but,)
And my point is that I don't think the definition of the HelpDesk should change until there is an example of an awful thread that is let through without intervention by the rules that are already in place. Right now I see no need for certain types of topics to be shut out.
 
The word of god is to keep the Help Desk as it is, so that's obviously not going to change, I was simply disputing the notion that the Help Desk could be used for anything.

Edit: Also, I think it's weird that something so specific like a forum for the MarioWiki would end up encompassing something so broad like a yahoo answers type venture. But Okay.
 
Clay Mario said:
Edit: Also, I think it's weird that something so specific like a forum for the MarioWiki would end up encompassing something so broad like a yahoo answers type venture. But Okay.
Click to expand...

Following that form of logic, you'd certainly love this topic. It's a forum for the mariowiki community, not just the wiki.
 
That's not the point. Sure a plethora of topics are discussed here, but for the Help discussion to be for "help in general" seems a *little* silly to me. Still, far be it me to judge as it appears I'm in the minority.
 
Clay Mario said:
That's not the point. Sure a plethora of topics are discussed here, but for the Help discussion to be for "help in general" seems a *little* silly to me. Still, far be it me to judge as it appears I'm in the minority.
Click to expand...
So we have some options if we limit it. (1) Only permit HelpDesk questions to be about the forum and allow other questions in the other forums. (2) Only permit HelpDesk questions to be about the forum and do not allow other questions in the other forums.

(2) Is too strict. We are a community, and people are allowed to ask for help with their PlayStation or web browser. I stand by this.

The reason everything is in the HelpDesk and we don't go with option (1) is because otherwise the HelpDesk would be barely used at all, and there would be questions floating around other forums taking up topic list space from discussions (I already posted this... but saying it again). Forums that move quickly would see question posts quickly fall down the bottom or to the next page, meaning that someone who can help never sees the topic. By putting it all in the HelpDesk, all questions are concentrated there, they are less likely to get lost in the shuffle, and the short question topics (question, answer, answer) are not taking up topic list space in the discussion forums. Restricting it means we make the HelpDesk forum dead(er) and force people to use the discussion forums for questions, which comes with the issues of taking up topic list space and questions getting lost. So it's a lose-lose then... no benefit in doing that. So why not then just concentrate all topics in the HelpDesk?

Just like how we have Off-subject Discussion... HelpDesk is Off-Subject Discussion for asking for help. It's in the Forum Community section. If it were about the forum only it would be up by General Discussion. It would also be such a dead forum that at that point we may as well just get rid of it and tell people to ask questions in General Discussion, just like how all the other question topics would have to go in the discussion forums. HelpDesk is a question magnet, taking in all the questions that would otherwise be spread about the discussion forums and separating them them out from the discussion threads, giving them room to be noticed and at the same time allowing that the discussion forums can focus on the discussion without question threads getting in the way.

Also, the thing about us not giving out medical advice is a great idea. Well, how to get rid of the hiccups might be ok. But the pills thing I can get behind. I don't know who is asking about mixing medication, but please report the topic and I'll be happy to take a look at it.
 
I REALLY think we should disallow topics that have questions that are found in the ---ing manual (aka FAQ or rules), though, but I totally agree with Porplemontage.

I also did a search using the words "medicine", "pills", "medication", "prescription". No results.
 
The mixing drugs thing was a (bad) hypothetical I was using to illustrate my point that even if you make the scope of the Help Desk broadish the questions that are allowed to be asked should still fall within some basic parameters, parameters not yet strictly defined.


By very nature the QandA format opens up some problems, like liability issues—especially when any topic is fair game. I guess it's also worth noting that AFAIK this hasn't been a problem yet and perhaps I'm being OCD about this. Anyway, Wikipedia has a legal, medical, content and risk disclaimer just in case it becomes an issue.
 
I don't think anyone is dumb enough to ask questions about prescription medication and drugs but you know, some people can impress with their ability of asking dumb questions. There are people asking questions when the answer is already in the FAQ and that is a pet peeve of mine. But I'm saying if anyone does ask these questions, reasonable people will probably answer, "Consult your doctor" or something. Well, I would but I'm sure most people here are very smart.

btw, for your information, it's not really OCD, it's more like paranoia or anxiety (though OCD is a type of anxiety, it's not the same you're having). But yes, nothing terribly awful occurred yet there, and I'm hoping it stays this way.
 
Baby Luigi said:
btw, for your information, it's not really OCD, it's more like paranoia or anxiety (though OCD is a type of anxiety, it's not the same you're having).
Click to expand...
Stop offering me unprofessional medical advice, you ironic scoundrel.
 
I can even link you to it...http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd/index.shtml

but more likely that i'm deceiving you heh...but the anxiety about a terrible topic appearing is not the same as performing rituals such as washing your hands until they are raw or tapping the computer 5 times before you type in it. Basically if it interferes in your normal living, it's a real disorder. Also you shouldn't self-diagnose either.
 
Don't worry 'bout it too much. Nothing awful will happen if there is such stupid topics.
 
Well I was going to end my campaign anyway because like I said I'm in the minority and something this trivial isn't worth annoying everyone about. I will say though that a scenario where a user asks for advice on topics that are inappropriate to address here is completely plausible and the forum crew has a choice whether they wish to deal with it ad liberatum, or not (probably with a "no medical advice" disclaimer policy thing). I have a preference for the latter, but that doesn't matter.
 
Baby Luigi said:
btw, for your information, it's not really OCD, it's more like paranoia or anxiety (though OCD is a type of anxiety, it's not the same you're having). But yes, nothing terribly awful occurred yet there, and I'm hoping it stays this way.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, when some people use the term "OCD" or "obsessive-compulsive", it doesn't always mean they necessarily have OCD. It's a term that's sometimes used to describe someone being especially meticulous and nitpicky. From Wikipedia, from the OCD article itself:

The phrase obsessive–compulsive has become part of the English lexicon, and is often used in an informal or caricatured manner to describe someone who is excessively meticulous, perfectionistic, absorbed, or otherwise fixated.
Click to expand...
 
I think we should add insulting other users because of the hobbies and dislikes under rule 8.
 
The lines are blurred between insulting and debating. Sometimes ad hominem is used as a rhetorical tool. Insults add to the quality of the forum and to the discussion and are in many cases quite funny IMO.
 
Clay Mario said:
The lines are blurred between insulting and debating. Sometimes ad hominem is used as a rhetorical tool. Insults add to the quality of the forum and to the discussion and are in many cases quite funny IMO.
Click to expand...

Clay Mario smells.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back