Forum:RuneScape:Respect all opinions

Forums: Yew Grove > RuneScape:Respect all opinions

After the way myself and the others who disagreed with the majority opinion at Forum:No full protection for userpages were treated I felt compelled to make this topic. During the discussion when I was trying to debate with someone and make my point, they said this:

As I've said before, I'm not getting through to you. You are clearly in the minority here, so I'm done arguing.

Later on someone said this:

..You people in favor of going along with the policy should stop arguing and debating with those opposed. They offered their reasons which have little to no merit. Thier is no reason to respond to them. Logic, reason, and facts are clear. Your debating in circles and it is only giving legitimacy to what has none to begin with. That arguing and responding is what will defeat this proposal.

Although we attempted to make it clear that it isn't right to shoot down opinions like this, we were ignored every time, so I am now making a separate topic for this and proposing another policy.

It is not only unfair, it is offensive to encourage other people to ignore someone because you don't like what they're saying and *think* that it doesn't have any merit. In this case the minority made many points and provided many reasons to back them up, yet they were all shot down as illogical and having no merit. Now, can someone explain to me how that is fair? Is this not a *wiki* where everone is *equal*? On the Yew Grove, where everyone is apart of the *community*, do we not all have the right to give our opinion without worrying about people telling everyone else to *ignore* our opinion because they don't like the reasons?

Just because someone is the minority and a discussion is going to pass eventually no matter what doesn't mean that someone can't give their opinion. As long as the discussion isn't archived, the discussion is of course going to continue. "I don't care, you're the minority" or "Ignore them, their reasons have no merit" in order to get a proposal to pass as soon as possible doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the wiki to me. Honestly, right now I am disgusted. I have lost a lot of respect for people after the way I was treated on that thread and I really don't feel so compelled to spend so much time on the wiki anymore after that.

So, with that, I have written up a policy called RuneScape:Respect all opinions. I am asking the you, the community, to make this an official policy.

Discussion

Support - As nominator. Andrew ^talk 21:07, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

support - Seems like the last stand of someone trying to prevent this from rolling into an abyss of "I'm better than you all, so you all have to do what I say now!". Doucher4000^******r4000 21:13, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Oppose Are you saying that each person should have equal say? Isn't that kind of...democratic? ʞooɔ 21:18, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I am not talking about voting or making a final decision. I am talking about everyone being entitled to their opinion, which would fall under equality more than anything else. Andrew ^talk 21:20, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have read the policy >.<. Anyway, I can Support that. I'm sorry I said what I said on the other subject, it came out wrong. I was not trying to encourage people to disregard your opinion. In the course of our arguing over the subject, it became clear that there was no way for us to bridge our opinions, we were very much divided. It was more of a "I'm going to stop arguing because this is going nowhere and I don't want the negativity to spread elsewhere" than a "Your point is invalid therefore everyone should not look at it". So sorry about that. ʞooɔ 21:25, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. Thank you for understanding. Andrew ^talk 21:27, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Not Really - I would rather rename RS:AEAE to have this title, and do little changing of the policies wording (just to change the way the title is referenced). AEAE already serves this general purpose, but the current name is off by tons. We could also amend AEAE with something similar to this if there is consensus to do so. I don't see the need to create a second policy with such a similar aim when the two could be merged. User:Stelercus/Signature 21:32, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - All opinions should be recognized, regardless of whether or not they are the minority voice. Star Find^Talk 21:37, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

All opinions are not equal =You have the right to your opinion, and the right to state it. That does not make each opinion equal. They certainly are not. This is not the cuddly soft warm feel good happy world of butterflies and ice cream for everyone. For example , "Training at black demons in bronze armour is great" is certainly a stupid opinion. If some one stated such you would explain how that has no merit and why. If they decided to pursue, it is clearly evident you are wasting your time on that discussion. Not every single thought needs to be responded to, and certainly not not more than twice. When things have been clearly explained and people still want to bring up the same points of little merit, which others have explained why they are not relevant, it is smart to just stop talking to them. They do not care about facts, just what they want. Well, we rarely get what we want. That is how the world works. You deal in reality and what works best for most in how to get things done. Not about making sure every persons feeling are warm and fuzzy.--Degenret01 22:00, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Common sense kicks in when someone says that training at black demons in bronze armor is great. In this case, our opinions did have merit; you simply didn't like the reasons. This isn't about warm and fuzzy feelings, it's about fairness. You are missing the point, Degen. Our opinions had plenty of merit and plenty of reasons to back them up. It was your opinion that they didn't have merit, but telling everyone to ignore us is not the way to go. Andrew ^talk 22:02, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

" it is my user page and if I want to fully protect it, I can." That isn't even a reason at all. And you know it. Yet it is the one you gave many times.--Degenret01 22:18, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Degen, did you read everything I said in that discussion? I gave other reasons and countered some of the reasons the majority opinion gave. :s Andrew ^talk 00:22, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

That's the only reason I saw. Chicken7 ^>talk 01:35, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

So are you opposing the respect all opinions bit, which doesn't say anything about opinions being equal. Sentra246 07:41, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support Renaming/Amending AEAE to state this - Per Stelercus. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL ^{Talk - Contribs} 22:08, June 27, 2010 (UTC) 

Comment - I agree with Stelercus, as they should be merged, and I also agree with Degen. Though I wouldn't use the tone that Degen chose to use, I understand where he's coming from, at least that not all opinions are equal, but that all opinions have the right to be voiced. Andrew, while I, too, disagree with your reasoning, nobody should have told others not to pay attention to your opinion. "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Leftiness 22:50, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Andrew ^talk 00:22, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Leftiness. We all have different viewpoints, so someone's opinion should always be considered, and then we can choose for ourselves whether it is correct or absolute bull****. Chicken7 ^>talk 01:50, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Per Degen, it should be more of a "every user has an equal right to sharing their opinion". I support having RS:AEAE renamed, especially since all editors are not equal and it is being debated every 5 minutes :P

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 01:38, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Lol at a comment per somebody. Lololololol. I've never seen anyone do that. Halo^Talk 04:10, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* - I meant per what Degen said, but you know that already ^.^

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 04:47, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support/Comment - I think this should be added to AEAE if anything, but I kinda of agree with Ajr, because all editors really aren't equal in my opinion. I think we should name it "show some damn respect and there won't be any problems"-RS:SSDRATWBAP. Halo^Talk 04:10, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I like it..it has a nice ring to it Andrew ^talk 04:16, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

And by that do you mean "show some respect to admins and there won't be any problems"? Because I'm having a hard time reading that any other way than "Keep quiet peasant, know your place and we won't have any problems." (wszx) 04:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No..I believe that was a bit of comic relief for everyone that you have taken too seriously. Andrew ^talk 04:24, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I was kidding...we can't name a policy that, it would drive too many people off and cause more people to bitch. If I'm going to have to deal with stuff like this is my "relaxation" time, I'm going to make jokes. I suppose I don't really have to comment...but it's really a lot of what I do here. I don't want to feel like runescape is my second job. So sorry if I make a few jokes. Halo^Talk 04:26, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Given your usual tenor, I thought you were serious. My apologies I suppose. (wszx) 04:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OpposeSee below - Not all opinions are equal as some have more meret then others, i thing a better idea would be Runescape:Respect all opinions or something like that. Sentra246 06:09, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that already a sentence somewhere in another policy, no idea where. 222 ^talk 06:17, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Don't know, but i will change to Support if amended If it is renamed Respect all opinions or something similar, because it could be taken the wrong way, even with same text in the policy. The policy looks good just the name needs changing in my opinion. Sentra246 06:33, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

That was pretty much my original point. ʞooɔ 08:14, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I now Support since the change. Sentra246 01:11, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

How about - Everyone has the right to and to state an opinion. Just thinking aloud 222 ^talk 06:17, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Degen. bad_fetus^talk 10:58, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Have you read everything, because Degen's reasons didn't even pertain to why I created this discussion.. Andrew ^talk 14:16, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have, and they exactly were the point if you ask me. bad_fetus^talk 17:31, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Support per Sentra - For those suggesting that it should be called "Everyone has the right to voice an opinion"... well, of course people can voice their opinions, but that doesn't mean they'll be acknowledged. "Respect all opinions" would probably be a better name.  Tien  13:45, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I like Tien's idea. RS:RAO. It's probably better to be it's own show in my opinion, because AEAE is already overused...no need to make it used more. Halo^Talk 13:58, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per a bunch of peeps. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 13:51, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - the proposed policy has been renamed RuneScape:Respect all opinions. Andrew ^talk 14:19, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I drew up a rough version in my sandbox. Feel free to use any part of it you want, or just throw it out, whatever you want. Halo^Talk 14:58, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help; I've taken what you wrote and edited it a bit. Andrew ^talk 15:17, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per mostly all that supported. All opinions should be heard and taken in as a valid argument. ~Muz^Talk 15:07, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Wouldn't this come under RS:NPOV?

1. REDIRECT User:Swizzl3d/Sig 15:22, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is for main space articles, not discussions.. Andrew ^talk 15:25, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Can we not merge the two together?

1. REDIRECT User:Swizzl3d/Sig 17:41, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Why would you want to merge a policy that has absolutely nothing to do with respecting opinions with a policy about respecting opinions? Andrew ^talk 19:38, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment -Again, while I respect each persons right to their opinion, if it is a really stupid opinion I will not respect it, and no one else should either, policy or no.--Degenret01 15:25, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

That proves exactly what I have been trying to say. If you use your opinion to decide whether or not to respect an opinion then there is a problem. You are now saying that everything myself and the rest of the opposition at the user page protection discussion said is stupid, which I find extremely offensive and rude. Andrew ^talk 15:28, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I am not referring to that discussion, I am referring to every day real life facts. When people ignore facts in favor of their opinion, that is too ignorant to bother dealing with. As for that other discussion, there were a couple minor points but very minor. The "I will because I can" was very stupid.--Degenret01 15:42, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

That alone is insulting, but anyways, I countered every point that was made in that discussion. It is your choice whether or not to agree, but calling someone's opinion stupid is not in the spirit of the wiki. "I respect your opinion but I disagree" works just fine. Andrew ^talk 15:56, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, you didn't counter any point at all at that discussion. All I saw was I do whatever I want with my page. bad_fetus^talk 19:53, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

While I'd like to stay mostly out of this, I have to agree with the above. But really, let's keep all discussion of that subject on the appropriate page. ʞooɔ 19:59, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

This is the last time I will say this. If all you saw was "I do whatever I want on my page" then you didn't read the entire discussion. Andrew ^talk 20:05, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I read the entire discussion, and that's all I saw. If you would be so kind as to restate your other points, I'd appreciate it. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL ^{Talk - Contribs} 20:35, June 28, 2010 (UTC) 

No more here, please. Chicken7 ^>talk 02:22, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - RS:RAO sounds good. Chicken7 ^>talk 02:22, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Degen brought up good points. I believe you're entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't mean everybody needs to agree with you.  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 07:27, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

If you read the page it doesn't say you need to agree with them, you just need to respect it and not flame/make others ignore it. Sentra246 07:41, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I already knew the motif for creating this, so I thought this was more of a "hah, look what i can do" kind of thing.  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 07:56, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I'd only support if it was added on to AEAE. The "page in a nutshell" isn't very clear either.  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 07:47, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I reckon it sums it up pretty well to be honest. Sentra246 07:52, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

"This doesn't mean you have to agree with you agree with them" doesn't make grammatical sense to me? O_o  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 07:55, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Lol didn't notice that. Sentra246 08:29, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I made a few gramatical changes, is it better now? Sentra246 08:33, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - As shown by Degen's comment above, which I agree with, the word "respect" is too easy to misinterpret. Degen said he will not respect a stupid opinion. That's to say that he will not think highly of a stupid opinion. It's up to him to determine if he thinks an opinion is stupid, and nobody can tell him if he should think it isn't stupid. He said that he respects the right to voice one's opinion, and I think that's the spirit of this policy. I said the following in Forum:Changes to AEAE, and I think it applies here.

"As I've been active in many AEAE discussions, I think I've got a decent idea of what people expect AEAE to mean: everybody has the right to voice their opinion, and nobody's opinion means more than anyone else's for any reason except for facts."

"I do believe that AEAE should be trashed and replaced with what I bolded in the above paragraph. All editors are not equal, and everybody knows it. The meaning that everybody gets out of it is well phrased in the nutshell section, but the name AEAE is a travesty."

That said, would it be too much trouble to replace the name "Respect All Opinions" with the name "Respect the Right to an Opinion" (RS:RRO)? I believe it maintains the spirit of this idea, that nobody should say "Shut up; you don't matter!" It also prevents misinterpretation. I think it's obvious that there wouldn't have been so many AEAE arguments if the name "All editors are equal" weren't so poorly phrased, and I expect that including the word "respect" in the name of this policy will lead to more misinterpretation. I also believe that the spirit of AEAE is the same as the spirit of this idea; they should be merged into one policy and phrased better, in my opinion, but the merging discussion belongs in Forum:Changes to AEAE... Leftiness 23:10, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. There are a quite a lot of people and opinions on this wiki that I have no respect for. And that's ok. The important thing is acting civil. We don't need a policy to keep people's feelings from getting hurt. --Wowbagger421 03:12, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The policy says that you should not disregard the right of others to opinion, not forcing one's self to take account of the opinions. See Leftiness's statement. No interpretion across stopping people getting hurt. Rewlf2 03:47, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

• Just a couple of things. A wiki is a website organizational model; there is no such thing a spirit of a wiki, and all participants being equal is certainly not it. Second, AEAE has nothing to do with this. AEAE is supposed to drive home the point that different access levels on here or in game should not affect how editors are treated here: their opinions and arguments should be weighed based on their strengths. Which brings me to this proposal: not all opinions are equal, regardless of the access level held by those from whom they originate. Goodness knows, many of the people here struggle to come up with something with even a passing resemblance to sense, admins included. We shouldn't have to coddle them and not bring to the fore just how absurd their opinion is because many of the editors here are children who still think the word is all kisses, rainbows and nice words. So, no, this proposal has no merit. If comments toward another in a discussion are unduly uncivil then sanction them for that, but not because of some hippie-dippie notion that all opinions are equal. As a delicious twist, I'm pretty sure

“

Oppose - Per Degen. Chess was here! Talk Sign 10:58, June 28, 2010 (UTC) Have you read everything, because Degen's reasons didn't even pertain to why I created this discussion..

”

is exactly the dismissive attitude this proposal so decries. (wszx) 04:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wanna explain how that is true? I did not put Chess to shame or encourage others to ignore him, I merely asked a question. Andrew ^talk 04:15, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. You told him to ignore Degen, which is pretty clearly one the examples you used in your intro. (wszx) 04:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And where did I say to ignore Degen? Exactly. I didn't. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. Andrew ^talk 04:23, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

If you weren't trying to get Chess, and others by extension, to ignore what Degen had said because you thought it was invalid, what exactly was the purpose of your comment? (wszx) 04:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to twist my words. All I did was ask him if he had read the entire discussion. That does not mean I thought Degen's opinion was invalid, it just means that in my opinion his reasons didn't pertain to this discussion. You are still putting words in my mouth. Stop. Andrew ^talk 04:27, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Do you think Degen's opinion is valid? (wszx) 04:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't your question, or it was worded in a way that lead me to believe that it wasn't. Of course I think his opinion is valid. All I said was that in my opinion, the reasons behind his oppose did not directly pertain to the discussion. When Chess opposed per Degen, I merely asked him if he had read the entire discussion. That has nothing to do with getting people to ignore anyone or calling anyone's opinion invalid or anything like that, so I honestly don't know where you got any of this. Andrew ^talk 04:42, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry my question was too misleading for you to understand. So then you think his opinion is valid, it just doesn't have any support because his reasons are irrelevant, and out of the goodness of your heart you wanted to make sure Chess was making an informed decision? (wszx) 04:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not bring personal attacks or baiting into this. I am done responding to you. Andrew ^talk 04:49, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

How unfortunate. For the record, though, there was no baiting or personal attacks. (wszx) 04:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

When discussing, please do it in a civil manner and do not attack others. Thanks. Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 04:58, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I did not attack Andrew. (wszx) 04:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You may or may not have, but the debate between you two were getting quite intense, so I just warned you both about remaining cool is all. Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 05:02, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I never actually stated my opinion on this. But I think Wowbagger really has the best idea. We don't need this policy to get people to act civil. That's basically what UTP is for. In my mind. Halo^Talk 05:10, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

UTP doesn't mention anything about encouraging others to ignore someone, does it? Andrew ^talk 05:14, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

They don't necesssarily have to mention it, that's the spirit of those policies. bad_fetus^talk 08:53, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

It is not actually part or UTP but could we just add it in there? Sentra246 12:18, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I believe the consensus, if not to add RAO as a separate policy, would be to add it to AEAE (or whatever it may be renamed to in the future). Andrew ^talk 16:48, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - UTP doesn't cover it specifically, but I can understand where you're coming from. Since the meaning of AEAE seems to be that nobody's opinion means more than your's except for facts, something simple like "Everybody has the right to voice their opinion" should be included in AEAE (disregarding my disdain for the phrase "all editors are equal" for the moment). Honestly, we use consensus; a good and neutral sysop reads the threads for facts and weighs the sides before deciding on something. Of course something like "Shut up; you don't matter!" is going to be ignored when consensus decisions are happening. So long as people know that they have the right to voice their opinion, do we have the right to be telling other people how they should go about voicing their opinions, even if they include things like "Shut up!"? Leftiness 05:23, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - If someone wants to disregard another user's opinion, then as long as things do not escalate there is no reason to take away the right to free speech. We cannot force any particular user to recognize the opinion of any other user (that means that Andrew does not have to admit that I exist, since I am disagreeing with him). There is nothing wrong with that. --Liquid^Talk 02:14, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

So, you are saying that it's OK to encourage others to ignore an opinion? Andrew ^talk 02:21, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Only if it doesn't violate UTP and DBAD/DBAN. If it's just encouraging others to ignore a specific opinion, there is nothing wrong with that. It is called free speech. Others can ignore the person who is encouraging them to ignore an opinion if they so wish. Everything that you stated would have been covered under UTP. Everything that is not covered should be allowed. --Liquid^Talk 02:23, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think no one thinks exactly the same way so their opinions should be respected. Think about it. If you hate people who don't think like you, you end up hating everyone, because no one has exactly the same way to think. Matgag17895 02:33, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

cont

Supportish - Though to be honest I think it could just as easily be slotted into a reformed AEAE and/or the UTP.  @Gaz#7521 16:53, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - That was my main goal Gareth. I want to find a way to make this work with with the reformed version. And I kind of took the second part of AEAE (which is that users are not to be treated differently based on their views) as part of UTP already, so I didn't feel that it needed to be included. But in my opinion, it would be best if this could be fit in to AEAE/UTP. User:Haloolah123/Sig 16:56, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

AEAE is so controversial and constantly being debated over changes so I really think a separate policy would be good right now, at least until AEAE settles down a bit. Andrew ^talk 17:59, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

My amendments should help that as long as I can come up with a different name for it. In my mind, the less policies we have to make the better off we are. "The less laws you have to govern people, the more likely they are to comply." (And please don't bring up how we aren't a government and all that stuff. That's true, but we still have to follow these policies an block people for not following. That's not the point however. Because you can modify this quote to apply easily.) Unless there is an absolute need for this policy, I would prefer to avoid making it. User:Haloolah123/Sig 19:08, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose I'm all for respecting opinions, but I adamantly oppose any policy which prevents people from speaking their minds. In the example provided, Degen was insulting their arguments, not the people themselves. If someone says something stupid or illogical, I'm going to point it out, as I would expect others to point out my illogical arguments. As long as someone doesn't attack them personally, I don't see a problem. Part of a discussion is refuting the opposition, and I don't see the point in a policy which would prevent that. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 18:40, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that our opinions were not just insulted; they were encouraging others to ignore us. That is why I created this. Andrew ^talk 19:12, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

That's just how Degen works. He can be too bold sometimes. You don't need a policy for one person. That's just as bad as what he's doing because it's basically a personal vendetta against him. User:Haloolah123/Sig 19:27, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I think this policy would rely to much on semantics. If I call an opinion illogical, I'm saying that it should be disregarded as far as the discussion is concerned. Is that the same as ignoring? Maybe, maybe not. Its too ill-defined to base a policy off of. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 19:34, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at the quotes I provided at the very beginning of this discussion? It very clearly says to ignore us. Andrew ^talk 22:04, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

I understand your issue, but my counter to that is, if I say your argument is irrelevant to the discussion, I am in fact saying to ignore it, without directly telling anyone to do so. If Degen had said "The people who opposed offered their reasons which have little to no merit. Logic, reason, and facts are clear. Your debating in circles and it is only giving legitimacy to what has none to begin with. That arguing and responding is what will defeat this proposal." would that still cause an issue with you? The direct urge to ignore your arguments is no longer there, but it still communicates exactly the same thing. Besides, I think you may have taken the wrong meaning from what he said. He didn't intend it to be taken as "go sit in a corner and let the grownups have a real conversation", nor was it "plug your fingers in your ears and don't listen to these idiots", it was "their arguments are irrelevant to the discussion, stop debating with them over the same arguments". But I don't think arguments against or in defense of what Degen did is what this thread is about, so I shall address in more detail why I oppose your policy specifically.

The way I see it, this policy has the same spirit and intent as the UTP and AEAE, just different wording, so its not necessary to adopt it as a new policy. If you ignore someone's opinion with an extreme degree of insulting or disrespect, which this policy is meant to stop, then it will also be against UTP. In fact, I can't think of a single situation which would violate this policy, but not UTP. If you think your opinion has been ignored to an extreme extent, then you should consider it a violation of UTP and proceed in that manner. This policy is nothing but overlap of UTP and AEAE, with no unique circumstances which it could cover. If you think what Degen did was unacceptable, then consider it so as a violation of UTP or AEAE. If you do not consider it unacceptable, then what is the point of this? http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 23:28, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - There needs to be some changes to the policy however, RuneScape:Respect all opinions, specifically it being limited to people encouraging others to "ignore". I think it's should be more general, which would include the "ignore"d opinion, but should be more generalized in the idea that all opinions should be respected, and regardless if you agree or not, be mature about your approach and speak your own opinion, solely, and not attempt to influence others by negative means (of course, influencing opinions is important on the Yew Grove and in discussion, just do so respectfully). That said, I also think we should include to agree that we should not Support or Oppose an idea or concept followed by "- I support/oppose the noob/idiot/dummy/whatever above me. I know in general, it's a joke between friends or well communicated users, but for a visitor to be reading on our policy proposal's or wiki change ideas, agreeing with a "noob" isn't ideal.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

04:25, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - as a separate policy. However I would support if it were a part of RS:AEAE. 222 ^talk 10:57, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think this would be more suited to being added to RS:AEAE. They both aim at the same goal, being that you shouldn't undermine other people. Sir Punchula 05:57, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Slight oppose - My problem with this proposal is that I know (from my experience of been around the Wiki on and off for a few years) what you call "being dismissive" is sometimes the only way to get things done. From one viewpoint, another's argument won't have merit, plain and simple, and sometimes the point is continuously being made just as an effort to filibuster. At best it's flogging a dead horse. Either way, the best thing for the wiki is to move on. Unanimous consensus may not be reached, but how often is it really in a community this large?

So instead of "Respect all opinions", which I think is naive at best and harmful at worst, I propose something like RS:A2D: Agree to Disagree. It implicitly captures the spirit that everybody is entitled to a conflicting opinion while suggesting that after a while it's best to move on. And I'd suggest it as an essay, not a policy to avoid people "invoking it" to subvert real debate. Endasil (Talk) @  00:09, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - By the way the draft of the policy and its name include/imply this: "but you must respect everyone's opinions". That part is absolute hogwash. Some nihilists have the opinion that killing for personal gain is all good and not morally wrong. I don't respect that opinion. I actively disrespect it, and even disrespect people that have that opinion. The only thing I respect is the right for that person to have that opinion. Endasil (Talk) @  00:15, August 25, 2010 (UTC)