1,129
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 49:
Line 49: + + +
Conservapedia talk:Teamwork (view source)
Revision as of 00:10, April 7, 2007
, 00:10, April 7, 2007no edit summary
Well, we do require in most areas of society that anyone connected to the government, Census takers, animal control officers, or policemen, readily identify themselves. It never struck me to look at it as you just did, Mtur. What I do see are lots of questions about who, exactly, beside Andy has a "say". You advising another user that apparent bias has been inserted into their edit is all and good, however some might just feel like ignoring you. A Bureaucrat or Sysop, saying the same thing, they would not be so free to ignore, because their are indeed actions we can take. That is the way of the real world, not some online fantasy one, where all treat each other as "equals" and abide by majority rule. It matters who can block a person only when that person is doing something that impacts the site negatively. Most of the Websites, chats and boards that I have been on, ALWAYS identify those with authority over others, with an automatic title moniker on their posts. This is the fist major site I have encountered where that isn't being done, and I among others, think it is very unfair to the users. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 20:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, we do require in most areas of society that anyone connected to the government, Census takers, animal control officers, or policemen, readily identify themselves. It never struck me to look at it as you just did, Mtur. What I do see are lots of questions about who, exactly, beside Andy has a "say". You advising another user that apparent bias has been inserted into their edit is all and good, however some might just feel like ignoring you. A Bureaucrat or Sysop, saying the same thing, they would not be so free to ignore, because their are indeed actions we can take. That is the way of the real world, not some online fantasy one, where all treat each other as "equals" and abide by majority rule. It matters who can block a person only when that person is doing something that impacts the site negatively. Most of the Websites, chats and boards that I have been on, ALWAYS identify those with authority over others, with an automatic title moniker on their posts. This is the fist major site I have encountered where that isn't being done, and I among others, think it is very unfair to the users. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 20:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
: Indeed, when a police officer is working, they are wearing a uniform. However, while wearing that uniform they are expected to have a certain code of conduct above and beyond what the average citizen has. If that is the case and that sysops will not get into arguments with users or engage in questionable reverts - then by all means keep the sysop bit in the signature. However, as soon as you get into a debate with a user and start showing your 'badge' around - it has a chilling effect and discourse is restricted because people are afraid of offending you for fear of getting banned.
: I have no problem at all if sysops have that in their signatures. However, I would be most disconcerted if that means that sysops can behave in ways to a user where if the user behaved in the same way to the sysop, they would get banned[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop%2FAdmin_Abuse&diff=86432&oldid=86373]. It is important for those people who show the badge to set the highest possible standards for the rest of us to follow. If the standards that the sysop follow are lower than the rest of the users, there will be issues - quite similar to what those who created conservapeida perceive in wikipedia. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:10, 6 April 2007 (EDT)