m (Reverted edits by 72.241.150.12 (talk | block) to last version by Gears of duty) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{Forumheader|Wiki discussion}} |
||
| − | {{For|about=the game produced by [[Bethesda Softworks]]|the canceled ''Fallout 3'' by [[Black Isle Studios]]|Van Buren|an overview of our ''Fallout 3''-related articles|Portal:Fallout 3|t2=Fallout 3}} |
||
| − | {{Infobox game |
||
| − | |image =Fallout 3 cover art.png |
||
| − | |developer =[[Bethesda Game Studios]] |
||
| − | |publisher =[[Bethesda Softworks]]<br />[[Ubisoft]] (GER) |
||
| − | |release date =October 28, 2008 (US)<br />October 31, 2008 (EU, AU)<br />December 4, 2008 (JP) |
||
| − | |genre =Role-playing game |
||
| − | |engine =[[Gamebryo]] |
||
| − | |modes =Single player |
||
| − | |rating =BBFC: 18<br />[[wikipedia:Computer Entertainment Rating Organization|CERO]]: Z<br />[[wikipedia:Entertainment Software Ratings Board|ESRB]]: M<br />OFLC: MA15+<br />PEGI: 18+<br />OFLC (NZ): 18+<br /> |
||
| − | |platforms =[[Fallout 3 (PC)|Microsoft Windows XP, Windows 7, or Vista]]<br />[[Fallout 3 (Xbox 360)|Xbox 360]]<br />[[Fallout 3 (PlayStation 3)|PlayStation 3]] |
||
| − | |media =Blu-ray disc, DVD, digital download |
||
| − | |requirements ='''Minimum''': Windows XP/Vista<br /> |
||
| − | 1GB System RAM (XP)/ 2GB System RAM (Vista)<br /> |
||
| − | 2.4 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor<br /> |
||
| − | Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 256MB RAM (NVIDIA 6800 or better/ATI X850 or better)<br />[[Fallout 3 (PC)#System requirements|More...]] |
||
| − | }}{{Games|FO3}} |
||
| + | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> |
||
| − | '''''Fallout 3''''' is a post-apocalyptic computer and console semi-open ended, action role-playing game developed and published by [[Bethesda Softworks]] as the third installment in the [[Fallout series|''Fallout'' series]] and a sequel to [[Interplay]]'s ''[[Fallout]]'' and ''[[Fallout 2]]''. It was released on October 28, 2008 in North America, on October 31, 2008 in Europe and on December 4, 2008 in Japan. It is available on the [[Fallout 3 (PC)|PC]], [[Fallout 3 (Xbox 360)|Xbox 360]] and [[Fallout 3 (PlayStation 3)|PlayStation 3]]. |
||
| + | Hi folks, |
||
| + | In response to a few recent events, I'd like to discuss the chat rules... Yes I know, another forum to change things. Hopefully this will be a bit different as for the most part I think I'm proposing changing nothing, but allowing those who feel that there is need for change to come out and let us know. I had hoped to wait until Crazy Sam's confirmation was closed before posting this, but another event I think has made one of these issues (the last) in need of discussion urgently. [[User:Agent c|Agent c]] ([[User talk:Agent c|talk]]) 12:52, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | The game takes place in the year [[Timeline#2277|2277]], 200 years after the [[Great War]], on the East Coast of what used to be the [[United States of America]], mostly in [[Washington, DC]], Southwest [[Maryland]], Eastern [[Pennsylvania]] and Northeast [[Virginia]]. The game play features high speed hedgehog action from both 2D and 3D views |
||
| + | But before we begin, lets review the chat rules: |
||
| − | ==Setting and story== |
||
| − | ===Setting=== |
||
| − | [[Image:Capitol m.jpg|thumb|280px|Capitol Hill]] |
||
| − | {{Main|Fallout world}} |
||
| − | The game is set in a post-apocalyptic, [[divergence|retro-futuristic]] [[Washington, DC]] following the [[Great War]] between the [[United States|US]], [[China]] and other countries. The Great War was a conventional and nuclear war that occurred on October 23, [[Timeline#2077|2077]] and lasted less than two hours despite causing immense damage and destruction. Before the [[Great War]] were the [[Resource Wars]], during which the [[United Nations]] disbanded, a plague rendered the [[United States]] paranoid, and [[Canada]] was annexed. |
||
| − | === |
+ | ===Grounds for blocking=== |
| + | Users who are clearly disruptive to the chat or who fail to behave appropriately towards other contributors may be blocked. The possible reasons for blocking include (but are not limited to): |
||
| − | {{Main|Fallout 3 plot}} |
||
| + | # Personal attacks, bigotry and/or racist or sexist name calling. |
||
| − | The player character, known as the [[Lone Wanderer]] in-game, is a young inhabitant of [[Vault 101]], a fallout shelter in the Washington D.C. area. The vault has reportedly been sealed for 200 years, until the player's father, [[James (Fallout 3)|James]], opens the only door to the outside world and disappears without any explanation. The [[Alphonse Almodovar|Vault Overseer]] believes that the Lone Wanderer was involved in James' escape, and sends the vault's security force to arrest the player character. This leaves the player little choice but to follow James by escaping the vault, with the hope of locating James and finding out why he left. |
||
| + | # Harassment and/or sexual harassment. |
||
| + | # Extreme use of profanity/cursing or directing it towards another user is not permitted. |
||
| + | # Violation of personal privacy. This includes revealing personal information about users (e.g. real name, location, age, gender, etc) and violating confidentiality on particular issues (such as issues asked to be kept confidential by other users or administrators). |
||
| + | # Linking to external sources, such as websites, which violate the aforementioned rules. Notably, publicly linking to websites such as Facebook or MySpace that violate personal privacy, is not permitted without prior consent from the user whose privacy might be violated. |
||
| + | # [[Wikipedia:Troll (Internet)|Trolling]] or general irritation or disruption of other users. This often includes, but is not limited to; excessive usage of capital letters, punctuation marks, deliberate distortions of the English language (such as "133t" or "Dolan" speak), and excessive usage of non-English languages. |
||
| + | # [[m:Don't be a dick|Being a dick]]. As a guideline, don't go out of your way to irritate others. (And especially do NOT try to test the admin's and/or chat moderator's patience and/or limits.) Vicious abuse is grounds for sanctions. |
||
| + | # Whining. Users who ask for something from another chat user and are refused it should not stoop to complaining. It is acceptable to be persistent, but in a mature manner. |
||
| + | # Discussing real-world politics and/or religion without unanimous consent. If someone doesn't want to talk about them, drop the subject. |
||
| + | # Spamming. The meaning should be obvious. Don't say the same thing six times because no one is responding to you. Don't keep yammering on about a subject nobody cares about. Meaningless and/or random posts can also be considered spam, alongside disruptive internet memes. |
||
| + | ==The Review== |
||
| − | Abandoned to rust, decay, and creeping vegetation, monuments from before the [[Great War]] still stand amidst the ruins of [[Washington, DC|Downtown DC]]: the [[The Capitol Building|Capitol Building]], the [[Jefferson Memorial]] and the battered remains of the [[The Washington Monument|Washington Monument]]; this desolate area is known as the [[Capital Wasteland]]. A central hub of civilization in the ruins of the former capital is [[Rivet City]], based in and around the remains of an aircraft carrier carried far inland and beached by a catastrophic tidal wave whose waters have long since receded. Other large settlements include the towns of [[Megaton]], [[Canterbury Commons]], [[Big Town]], [[Arefu]], [[Tenpenny Tower]] and [[Paradise Falls]]. Movement between towns is done on foot through the wastes. In the Metro area rubble blocks the streets, but one can use the DC [[Metro]] tunnels. |
||
| + | ===Rules 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10 === |
||
| − | The [[Brotherhood of Steel (Capital Wasteland)|Brotherhood of Steel]] community is stationed in the [[Citadel]] built in the ruins of the pre-War Pentagon. The mysterious [[Mr. Burke]] and his employer, [[Allistair Tenpenny]], send the player on a mission of sabotage and destruction in the town of [[Megaton]]. But it is [[Vault 87 super mutant|super mutant]]s, who since emerging from their refuges have waged an unceasing war against [[human]]s to invade their territory,<ref>[http://spong.com/detail/editorial.jsp?eid=10109624&cid=&tid=&pid=&plid=&page=4&cb=52 Interview with Pete Hines] at SPOnG.com</ref> and the [[Enclave]] - the self-styled inheritors of the power of the United States government - under the leadership of their new President [[John Henry Eden]] and his ruthless second-in-command Colonel [[Augustus Autumn]], who are the player's biggest foes in the game. |
||
| + | Basically I think we're all right here and these rules have absolutely no controversy about them. This section on the off chance someone feels the need to discuss them in detail or suggest a change. |
||
| + | (nb - Rule 7 was in this section, but has now been spun out.) |
||
| − | === |
+ | ===Rule 1=== |
| − | * [[Ron Perlman]] - [[Narrator]] |
||
| − | * [[Liam Neeson]] - [[James (Fallout 3)|James]], the player character's father. |
||
| − | * [[Malcolm McDowell]] - [[Enclave]] President [[John Henry Eden]] |
||
| − | * [[Peter Gil]] - [[Enclave]] military commander Colonel [[Augustus Autumn]] |
||
| − | * [[Heather Marie Marsden]] - [[Sarah Lyons]] |
||
| − | * [[Erik Dellums]] - [[Three Dog]] |
||
| − | * [[Wes Johnson]] - [[Mister Burke]] |
||
| − | * [[Odette Yustman]] - [[Amata Almodovar|Amata]] |
||
| + | Dose ''just play nice'' cover this one ? |
||
| − | ==Gameplay== |
||
| − | [[Image:VATS.jpg|thumb|[[Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System|V.A.T.S.]]]] |
||
| − | {{Main|Fallout 3 gameplay}} |
||
| + | Seriously I think it is clear to most Racism, Sexism, Ageism and honest slurs against an others religion, political view, fashion sense or choice in video games when spoken with honest hatred or other wise undefined ill intent, then they are all wrong. |
||
| − | ===Character system=== |
||
| − | {{Main|Fallout 3 SPECIAL|Fallout 3 perks|Fallout 3 skills}} |
||
| + | * The question is: What should be actionable ? |
||
| − | Main character creation occurs as the player experiences the character's childhood. The player decides the character's general appearance using a Gene Projection, conducted by the father before the mother dies. Afterwards, the father removes his surgeon's mask to reveal a face similar to the one chosen by the player for the character; your father's race will also be the same as your own no matter what. As a child in the Vault, the character receives a book titled "[[SPECIAL System|You're SPECIAL]]," whereupon the player can set the character's seven primary aptitudes. The character receives training weapons and a [[Pip-Boy 3000]] later on during childhood, and the player's performance in various tests determines the rest of the attributes. Additionally, several quests inside the Vault are able to influence the player character's relationship with his or her father. Skills and Perks are similar to those in previous games: the player chooses three Tag Skills out of 13 to be the character's specialties. Five skills have been cut out from the game (''Fallout'' and ''Fallout 2'' had 18 skills). [[First Aid]] and [[Doctor]] have been integrated into [[Medicine]], [[Throwing]] and [[Traps]] have been merged into [[Explosives]], [[Steal]] integrated into [[Sneak]], and both [[Outdoorsman]] and Gamble have been removed completely. The maximum level the player can achieve is level 20 (which is to be raised to 30 after purchase of the third DLC installment, along with the ability to continue your game after the main story missions are complete). The Traits from the previous ''Fallout'' installments were combined with Perks in ''Fallout 3'', and the player can choose a new Perk each time after gaining a level. |
||
| + | I think, intent, exact context should be taken into account. |
||
| − | ===Combat=== |
||
| − | {{main|Fallout 3 combat}} |
||
| − | The Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System, or [[Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System|V.A.T.S.]], is an active pause combat system implemented in the game. While using V.A.T.S., the otherwise real-time combat is paused. V.A.T.S. also allows the gory deaths in the game to be shown in slow motion and in great detail. Attacks in V.A.T.S. cost action points, and the player can target specific body areas for attacks to inflict specific injuries. It should be noted that whilst the player receives greatly reduced damage while using V.A.T.S., it also greatly reduces a weapons condition, forcing the player to strike a balance between using more ammunition or losing guns more quickly. This trade-off allows for two very different play styles throughout the game. |
||
| + | TOSH.O, the Chappelle show, the Daily show & all the Comedy Central roasts are irreverent and beyond disrespectful when taken out of context. Yet they intend no harm and so they are considered by many, many of the folks from all ages, races, sexes and social code to be uplifting fun. |
||
| − | ===Items=== |
||
| − | {{Main|Fallout 3 items}} |
||
| + | My point is : All rule interpretation should be considered with an honest eye toward intent and exact context before jumping to any conclusions. |
||
| − | A dynamic facet of gameplay is that firearms wear out over time of use. As a weapon degenerates, its damage is reduced and it loses accuracy. However, worn out firearms of the same type can be combined to make more reliable and powerful weapons. Weapon schematics can also be found and used to create various devices such as the [[Rock-It Launcher]] that can fire various items such as lunchboxes and stuffed animals, or the [[bottlecap mine]], made out of a [[Vault-Tec lunchbox]], [[Cherry Bomb|cherry bombs]], [[sensor module]] and [[Bottle cap (Fallout 3)|bottle cap]]s. Along with equipping various weapons, the player can also utilize different armors and clothing that may have effects that can alter various skills. For example, a pair of mechanic's coveralls may boost the player's repair skill while it is worn. Armor and clothing come in two main parts for the head and body, allowing a player to wear different combinations of hats and armor as well as masks and facial clothing which can be worn with hats. Also, a player's inventory has a specified weight limit, preventing a player from carrying too many items. Story-related or essential items like [[Ammunition]] have no weight, due to the developer not wishing to bog down inventory management. Your weight limit will increase if you increase your Strength stat in [[SPECIAL]]. |
||
| + | [[File:User SP Bad Medicine.jpg]] [[User:SaintPain|SaintPain]]→ '''Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n.''' 02:51, August 31, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ===Party=== |
||
| − | {{Main|Fallout 3 companions}} |
||
| − | The player can have a maximum party of three, consisting of himself/herself, [[Dogmeat (Fallout 3)|Dogmeat]], and a single [[non-player character]]. In addition to having Dogmeat in your party you are able to send him out on his own to search for items such as arms and ammunition, radiation medicine, and [[stimpak (Fallout 3)|stimpak]]s. Dogmeat can be killed during the game if the player misuses him or places him in a severely dangerous situations such as leading him into the [[Deathclaw Sanctuary]] and he cannot be replaced, unless you buy the ''[[Broken Steel]]'' add on, in which you can choose a perk allowing you to recruit Dogmeat's puppy ([[Puppies!]]), but if the player kills Dogmeat he can acquire two followers. Dogmeat and Dogmeat's puppies can be given stimpaks to heal them if needed. In the PC version of the game, Dogmeat can then be resurrected via console commands and will continue with the player unaffected. The player's party can further be extended, with several temporary quest non-player characters that will stay with them until the quest related to the non-player character is completed, if their quest is never completed however, many will stay permanently with the player until killed. |
||
| + | :any communication has two critical and inseparable Parts; how the message is sent, and how the message is recieved. When a message is "sent" as a joke and "recieved" as something else, then the "sender" is obliged to stop as soon as informed of this (and a warning may be appropriate), if after this they do not then it is most certainly actionable, joke or not. Certain behaviours, like using certain sensitive words in the wrong way (or in some cases at all) are always actionable. [[User:Agent c|Agent c]] ([[User talk:Agent c|talk]]) 08:40, August 31, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ===Karma=== |
||
| − | {{Main|Karma}} |
||
| − | The [[Karma]] system is an important feature in Fallout's gameplay. A player's actions, including conversation and combat choices, affects the player's status in the game world; a player who makes good decisions is received more positively by non-player characters, and a player that makes bad decisions has the opposite reaction. Crimes can also be committed by a player, and whichever faction or group that is harmed by a crime are fully aware of the player's action in most cases. Other factions that were not affected by the crime will not be aware of it, and since a town is usually its own faction, news of a crime committed in one town will not spread to another. Beware however, good or evil deeds will cause a bounty by the opposite alignment group. Talon Company (If you are good) or the Regulators (if you've been bad) will ambush you randomly, and are not bound to any particular area, they can appear anywhere in the wastes. Factions can range in size and boundaries, however, and may not be restricted to a single area. The game world itself was planned to be significantly smaller than that of ''Oblivion's'' but is now similar in size.<ref name="Bobblehead Interview">[http://www.gametrailers.com/player/36162.html E3 2008: Bobble-Head Apocalypse Interview HD]</ref> |
||
| + | ===Rule 3 - Profanity and language=== |
||
| − | ===Changes from previous Fallout games=== |
||
| + | There has been a suggestion that we need to tighten up the langauge rules, and make profanity and "adult content" against the rules. The suggestion has been that this may make our chatroom more welcoming to newcomers. Others feel the opposite, that the current regeme allows them to feel relaxed as they talk the same way as they do in their everyday lives. How do you all feel about the current rules, are they too tight, too loose, or just right? |
||
| − | [[File:Lone Wanderer-SMG.jpg|right|thumb|Fallout 3 in game.]] |
||
| − | * While ''[[Fallout]]'' and ''[[Fallout 2]]'' feature turn-based combat and top-down isometric view in a 2-D engine, ''Fallout 3'' features real-time combat and first or third person view in a 3-D engine. ''[[Fallout Tactics]]'' and the canceled ''[[Van Buren]]'' featured both turn-based and real-time combat and a top-down view. |
||
| − | * Perks and Traits have been merged. In ''[[Fallout]]'' and ''[[Fallout 2]]'', Traits were chosen at character creation, and were commonly a combination of a powerful advantage and a potent disadvantage, where Perks were purely advantageous. |
||
| − | * In the [[SPECIAL]] character system, the number of [[skill]]s has been reduced from 18 to 13, [[trait]]s have been removed and [[perk]]s are selected every level instead of every 3 to 4 levels. |
||
| + | :Personally I think they're fine the way they are. I've tried to represent all of the major points of view here, but I am definately in the limited policing of this allows people to feel relaxed and natural. Fallout is an adult orientated series, and this wiki is Nukapedia: The Fallout wiki; it isn't the My Little Pony wiki where kids and those unable to deal with such language and concepts are more likely to visit (that is of course not to say that (older) MLP fans aren't welcome here). [[User:Agent c|Agent c]] ([[User talk:Agent c|talk]]) |
||
| − | ===S.P.E.C.I.A.L=== |
||
| − | S.P.E.C.I.A.L stands for '''S'''trength, '''P'''erception, '''E'''ndurance, '''C'''harisma, '''I'''ntelligence, '''A'''gility and '''L'''uck. These stats determine which kind of person your character will be. |
||
| + | :Profanity and "adult content" is surely of no concern here, we are, or should be, mature enough to handle a few stray foul words and lewd conversations. Profanity is part of everyday life, a means of expression, to outright ban the use would be to section off a great way to sum up our feelings. Furthermore, issues would arise when certain words may be seen as "profanity" but are simply not as such, example of this would be "Bastard Sword" a medieval weapon which does contain profanity, this causes no end of disputes as to whether or not it is still deemed as acceptable or not. |
||
| − | ==Development history== |
||
| + | :To help sum up my feelings on the ridiculous notion of swearing as "uncouth", here is the ever wonderful Stephen Fry on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM |
||
| − | ===Interplay=== |
||
| + | :[[file:Neko-signature.png|x28px|User Talk:Gothic Neko|link=User_Talk:Gothic_Neko]] [[User:Gothic_Neko|Gothic Neko]]<sup>[[User Talk:Gothic_Neko|Neko's Haunt]]</sup> 13:10, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | {{main|Van Buren}} |
||
| + | This requires no change. People may and will take offence to certain things said, but that will never change with any tightening-up of the rules. Profanity in itself is not malignant as long as it is not directed to another user. {{User:SigmaDelta54/Sig}} 17:46, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ''Fallout 3'' was initially under development by [[Black Isle Studios]], a studio owned by [[Interplay Entertainment]], under the working title ''[[Van Buren]]''. Interplay Entertainment closed down Black Isle Studios before the game could be completed, and the license to develop ''Fallout 3'' was sold for a $1,175,000 minimum guaranteed advance against royalties to [[Bethesda Softworks]], a studio primarily known as the developer of the ''The Elder Scrolls'' series.<ref>{{cite paper| author =Herve Caen| title =Interplay| version =Q2 2004| publisher =[[wikipedia:United States Securities and Exchange Commission|SEC]] [[wikipedia:EDGAR|EDGAR]]| date =2004-10-13| url =http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?FilingID=3222135&Type=HTML| format =[[wikipedia:Form 10-Q|Form 10-Q]]| accessdate =2006-10-30}}</ref> Bethesda's Fallout 3 however, was developed from scratch, using neither Van Buren code, nor any other materials created by Black Isle Studios. In May 2007, a playable technology demo of the canceled project was released to the public.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35970|title=Van Buren tech demo|author="Brother None"|journal=|accessdate=2007-09-19}}</ref> |
||
| + | :This wiki is based around an M-rated game with profane language, violence, and sexual references. If we can't handle someone saying the word "fuck", then we shouldn't even be here. [[User:Tocinoman|<font color= "580000" size= "+1"> ~ '''Toci''' ~ </font>]][[User talk:Tocinoman|<font color= "333300"> <sup>''Go ahead, make my day.''</sup> </font>]] 22:59, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ===Bethesda=== |
||
| − | [[Image:FO3 poster.jpg|thumb|240x240px|Poster of ''Fallout 3''. E3 2006 expo]] |
||
| − | Bethesda stated it would be working on ''Fallout 3'' in July 2004,<ref>[http://www.bethsoft.com/news/pressrelease_071204.htm Bethesda Softworks to Develop and Publish Fallout 3]</ref> but principal development did not begin until after ''The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion'' was completed.<ref>[http://uk.gamespot.com/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=25330416 Gamespot News]</ref> Bethesda announced their intention to make ''Fallout 3'' similar to the previous two games, focusing on non-linear game play, a good story, and true "Fallout humor." Bethesda also stated the game is targeted for a rating of M for Mature, and would have the same sort of adult themes and violence that are characteristic of the ''Fallout'' series. ''Fallout 3'' uses a version of the same [[Gamebryo]] engine as ''Oblivion'', and was developed by the same team.<ref name="shacknews20080208">[http://www.shacknews.com/extras/2007/020807_petehines_2.x Interview: Bethesda Softworks' Pete Hines]</ref> |
||
| + | This rule needs to completely deleted. It makes no sense to have a rule like this on a site about a game where it allows sex, gore, violence, drugs, swearing, etc. People who get offended when a person says "sonuvabitch!" not to the user but to a topic, or jokingly state "you lovable bastard" to another, then they do not deserve to be on this wikia, or play the game series, and I myself will direct them to a more suitable wikia that is more user-friendly to them, such as MLP or Victorious. The other bone I got to pick with this rule is the fact it literally clashes with most of the rules we placed. I mean look at the rule for example: |
||
| − | Between May 2 and June 5, 2007 Bethesda showcased 5 pieces of concept art by [[Craig Mullins]] on the ''Fallout 3'' website during the countdown to the teaser. The cinematic [[Fallout 3 teaser|teaser trailer]] for ''Fallout 3'', consisting of the first part of the [[Fallout 3 intro|intro]], was released by Bethesda Softworks on June 5, 2007, after a 30 day countdown on the ''Fallout 3'' website. On August 2, 2007, the game's website was opened. |
||
| + | |||
| + | "Extreme use of profanity/cursing or directing it towards another user is not permitted." |
||
| + | right there it clashes with 1, 2, aaaand 10. There's absolutely no point in this rule to exist as it's absorbed into these other rules. A user yelling out "SHITCOCK" or "FUCK FUCKERY" more then 5 times is considered spamming as it is. A user putting 5-10 "fucks" in their one sentence is also might as well considered spamming to the point I would ask: "that's a beautiful word, do not make it the new 'the', mmmkay?" Telling someone to go fuck themselves and their kind? Well buddy, you just broke 1 and 2 combined! Telling a female she's a 'sexy bitch'? Guess you really love being #2 in the spotlight eh? These are just examples of this thing clashing and basically being 1,2, and 10 combined. There is no point whatsoever in this rule. My "2 Cents" on the matter. |
||
| − | ===Reception=== |
||
| + | |||
| − | [[Leonard Boyarsky]], one of the creators of the original Fallout, when asked about Interplay's sale of the rights to Bethesda, said that he felt as though "our ex-wife had sold our children that she had legal custody of," admitting that he feels very possessive of the series,<ref>http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/77/13</ref> but also admitted that his concerns have nothing to do with Bethesda.<ref>[http://www.duckandcover.cx/content.php?id=63 Interview with Duck & Cover]</ref> Considerable concern was also raised by some members of the series' fan community, largely concerning major changes in game play style compared to the original games and ''Fallout 3''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s similarity to ''Oblivion.'' The reaction from the press, however, was largely positive, with many considering the shift to first person view and real time combat an update, and with most considering the similarities to ''Oblivion'' to be a good thing. |
||
| + | P.S.---TLDR; Offended you are? A FUCK I DON'T GIVE--[[User:Zerginfestor|Zerginfestor]] ([[User talk:Zerginfestor|talk]]) 23:11, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | Never limit the use of profanity. Simple as, after all - kids under the age of 13 won't be able to use the site because of COPPA. So, we can continue cussing all we want. [[File:applejack.png|35px|link=User:Gauzz Rifle]][[User talk:Gauzz Rifle|<font color= "F3C35D"><sup>''"С нами Бог. Remember, no ponies."''</sup></font>]] |
||
| − | In a review from 1UP.com, ''Fallout 3'' was praised for its open-ended gameplay and flexible character-leveling system. Its memorable setting prompted a favorable comparison to the 2007 game, ''BioShock.'' While the [[Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System|V.A.T.S.]] system was called "fun," enemy encounters were said to suffer from a lack of precision in real-time combat and little variety in enemy types. The review concluded that despite the game's shortcomings, ''Fallout 3'' is a "hugely ambitious game that doesn't come around very often," and one would "be a fool not to play it and enjoy the hell out of it."<ref name="1UP.com review">{{cite web|url=http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3170949|title=Fallout 3 Review|author=Demian Linn|publisher=[http://1UP.com 1UP.com]|date=2008-10-27|accessdate=2008-10-28}}</ref> |
||
| + | I find this the most important part of rule #3 ""Extreme use of profanity/'''cursing or directing it towards another user is not permitted."''' |
||
| − | Sales for ''Fallout 3'' have thus far been very high, and figures suggest that the game has outsold all previous ''Fallout'' games (including all other spin-offs) in its first week.<ref>[http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/11/04/fallout-3-outsells-all-previous-fallout-games ''Fallout 3'' outsells all previous Fallout games]</ref> |
||
| + | * The use of profanity in general is not so much the issue as I see it. It is profanity directed at others directly that is the offence that should be ''enforced''. |
||
| + | As I have mentioned else wear, I self impose a vow to redouble my own efforts to avoid using profanity online. I once went a whole year with only the rarest of exceptions when exclamation got the better of me. I do not expect others to take any such vow or make any promise. I simply state this as '''a token of my support for rule #3 as it pertains to aiming profanity at others. Such actions only serve to bait heightened disagreements and ill will.''' |
||
| − | ''Fallout 3'' won several awards following its showcasing at E3 2007. IGN gave it the Game of E3 2007 award, and GameSpot gave it the Best Role-Playing Game of E3 2007 award.<ref>[http://ps3.ign.com/articles/881/881180p1.html IGN Pre-E3 2008: Fallout 3 Confirmed for Show]</ref><ref>[http://www.gamespot.com/special_features/editorschoicee307/genre/index.html?page=6 GameSpot E3 2007 Editor's Choice Awards]</ref> Following the game's demonstration at E3 2008, IGN also gave it Best Overall RPG, Best Overall Console Game, and Overall Game of the Show for E3 2008.<ref>[http://games.ign.com/articles/893/893833p1.html IGN's Overall Best of E3 2008 Awards]</ref> Game Critics Awards gave the game Best Role-Playing Game and Best of Show for E3 2008.<ref>[http://www.gamecriticsawards.com/winners.html Game Critics Awards 2008 Winners]</ref> |
||
| − | {{clear}} |
||
| + | [[File:User SP Bad Medicine.jpg]] [[User:SaintPain|SaintPain]]→ '''Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n.''' 00:36, August 30, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ===Controversies and censorship=== |
||
| − | On July 4, 2008, ''Fallout 3'' was refused classification by the [[wikipedia:Office of Film and Literature Classification (Australia)|OFLC]] in Australia, thus making the game illegal for sale in the country. In order for the game to be reclassified, the offending content in the Australian version of the game would have to be removed by Bethesda Softworks and the game resubmitted to the OFLC.<ref>[http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/887/887547p1.html ''Fallout 3'' Officially Refused Classification in Australia]</ref> According the OFLC board report, the game was refused classification due to the "realistic visual representations of drugs and their delivery method (bringing) the 'science-fiction' drugs in line with 'real-world' drugs." Despite this, Australia's Fallout 3 was expected to be released on October 30, on par with the European version, and was delivered on time with the drug-name changes.<ref name="OFLC Report">[http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/07/olfc_report_why_fallout_3_was_banned_in_australia.html OFLC Report: Why Fallout 3 Was Banned In Australia]</ref> |
||
| + | I'm not a fan of bad language myself, but I ain't fond of having mods playing momma and passing curse jars either. Folks who play Fallout and hang on the chat are big enough to deal with a few four-letter words, and if they ain't then I reckon they shouldn't be there in the first place. [[User:CharlesLeCheck|'''CharlesLeCheck''']] [[File:Icon_check.png|x20px|link=User talk:CharlesLeCheck]] 15:23, August 31, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | On September 9, 2008 Bethesda vice president of PR and marketing, Peter Hines, has described the idea of a censored Australian version of ''Fallout 3'' as a misconception. All versions of ''Fallout 3'' no longer include real world drug references,<ref name="Edge Interview">[http://www.edge-online.com/news/censors-force-fallout-3-changes Edge: Censors Force ''Fallout 3'' Changes]</ref> then [[morphine]] was renamed to [[Med-X]]. |
||
| + | I'm sorry but this is the most important step to make the chat a friendlier and safer place. There is no need to use bad language and it only offends people and make them feel bad. There is nothing you can say using bad words that you can't with nice words. Sexual and innapropriate language has to be prohibted at all costs from the chat and the wiki. There is no need to offend other people and it shouldn't be allowed and tolerated. [[User:Corniolio|Corniolio]] ([[User talk:Corniolio|talk]]) 03:32, September 2, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | Game content was edited in the German release to include less violence."<ref name="NMA">[http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=44461 NMA Forum: ''Fallout 3'' to be censored in Germany]</ref> |
||
| + | :If someone can't tolerate M rated laguage coming on a wiki based around M rated games, then perhaps they should find somewhere more acclimated for them. [[File:UserGreatMara.png|25px|User:Great_Mara|link=User:Great_Mara]]<sup>[[User talk:Great_Mara|Message]]</sup> 03:40, September 2, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | ===Rule 6 - Trolling=== |
||
| − | [[Bethesda Softworks]] changed the side quest "[[The Power of the Atom]]" in the Japanese version of ''Fallout 3'' to relieve concerns about depictions of atomic detonation in inhabited areas. In non-Japanese versions, players are given the option of either defusing, ignoring, or detonating the dormant atomic bomb in the town of [[Megaton]]. In the Japanese version, the character [[Burke (Fallout 3)|Mr. Burke]] has been taken out of this side quest, making it impossible to detonate the bomb. |
||
| + | Trolling is bad, however there is a suggestion that this rule needs some clarification. We all know how annoying it is when chat is "raided" by a group of trolls from another wiki, however it seems that some wikis feel that this has been on occasion arranged from here. The question is what should a moderator/admin/etc do if they are aware of an attempt to mass troll another wiki. |
||
| + | There seem to be two schools of thought - We are only concerned with what happens here and that as long as the trolling does not occur in "Nukapedia space" it is none of our affair, the other school being that when this happens from our chatroom it negatively effects the wiki as a whole, and the "conspiracy" if you like to troll does indeed happen in our space - giving our mod an obligation to act: to kick/ban in line with the normal guidelines here and/or alert the ongoing wiki to the upcoming problem. |
||
| − | Also in the Japanese release, the "[[Fat Man (Fallout 3)|Fat Man]]" nuclear catapult weapon was renamed "Nuka Launcher," as the original name was a reference to the bomb used on Nagasaki, Japan. |
||
| + | So, do you feel there is an obligation for chat moderators (etc) to act if/when they become aware of that are designed to disrupt other wikis, and if so what do you feel the result this action should be. |
||
| − | Microsoft India decided not to release the game in that country, citing "cultural sensivities". It has been speculated that this is either because the cattle in the game are called [[brahmin]], which is the name of the highest Hindu caste, or possibly due to the fact that the player can kill and eat the cattle, which, as it is a sacred animal, is against the principles of most Hindu sects.<ref>http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/86959-No-Fallout-3-For-India-UPDATED, 08/11/11</ref> |
||
| + | :I believe that if a conspiracy to troll occurs here, this is within our remit, and that at least a tip to the receiving wiki is warranted. I think we should be at least kicking to prevent this being discussed here. You don't want people to troll our chatroom, don't use ours to support trolling methods. Fair and simple. [[User:Agent c|Agent c]] ([[User talk:Agent c|talk]]) |
||
| − | ===Leak=== |
||
| + | ::My view is that whatever happens outside the wiki is none of our concern. However, if planing or inciting of unbecoming activities against other places happens here, we have a duty stop it. Punishment for doing this should be the same as for any other ordinary violation of rules. [[User:Limmiegirl|<font color= "purple"> '''Limmiegirl''' </font>]][[File:Lildeneb.png|20px]][[User talk:Limmiegirl|<font color= "purple"> <sup>''Talk! ♪''</sup> </font>]] 13:06, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | On October 9, 2008, an Xbox 360 review copy of ''Fallout 3'' was leaked on torrents all around the world. Bethesda Softworks reacted by closing streaming videos and YouTube videos of the leaked copy. However a large amount of information was leaked, including most of the main quest line. |
||
| + | :I have to agree with Agent c on this one. If we are under the impression users are instigating a raid or troll attempt on this wiki, on another wiki, or site, then it should be on our best interest to stop them immediately. Kicking those who initially started it should set an example for anyone else wishing to follow suit. [[file:Neko-signature.png|x28px|User Talk:Gothic Neko|link=User_Talk:Gothic_Neko]] [[User:Gothic_Neko|Gothic Neko]]<sup>[[User Talk:Gothic_Neko|Neko's Haunt]]</sup> 13:10, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ==Production== |
||
| + | :I agree with Limmie 100%. {{User:SigmaDelta54/Sig}} 18:36, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ===Developers=== |
||
| − | [[Image:Fallout 3 devs.jpg|thumb|Fallout 3 development team]] |
||
| − | {{Main|Fallout 3 developers}} |
||
| + | The term '''Trolling''' needs definition as a whole. but as the topic so far seems focused on groups here is my take on Trolling groups. |
||
| − | The project is headed by executive producer [[Todd Howard]]. Other producers include [[Ashley Cheng]], [[Gavin Carter]] and [[Jeff Gardiner]]. The lead designer is [[Emil Pagliarulo]] who previously worked on ''Thief'' games as well as the Dark Brotherhood quests in ''Oblivion''. Lead level designer is [[Joel Burgess]]. Other leads are lead artist [[Istvan Pely]] and lead programmer [[Steve Meister]]. PR and marketing for the game is coordinated by [[Pete Hines]]. |
||
| + | * If a group conspires i.e. goes out of their way and plots to ''disrupt and or harass another'' then that is a act by definition, "malice of forethought". One person can conspire to do wrong but a "conspiracy" requires 3 or more. Any coordinated effort to act in a hostile manor is worse the "subjective" term trolling as it requires conscious effort with an obvious intent. |
||
| + | [[File:User SP Bad Medicine.jpg]] [[User:SaintPain|SaintPain]]→ '''Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n.''' 01:59, August 31, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | See: [[Fallout 3 developers|''Fallout 3'' developers]] for a full list of known developers. |
||
| + | ===Rule 7 - Don't be a dick=== |
||
| − | ===Music=== |
||
| + | Perhaps being a dick can be rephrased. I know that it's a legitimate term, but when you warn a user to not be a dick, they often become even more agitated. Even worse when you ban a user and tell them it was because they were a dick. I think people will be less volatile should we call it something like "Don't be offensive" or "Be respectful". Otherwise the rule itself is fine, if not open to interpretation. [[File:Yes Man default.png|25px|link=User:Yes-Man]][[File:User Avatar talk.png|13px|link=User talk:Yes-Man]] 04:15, August 29, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | {{Main|Fallout 3 soundtrack}} |
||
| + | I think my point was missed. Rule 7 states '''Don't be a dick''' in accordance to [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick the general rule] of... well, not being a dick. Yet frankly common users unfamiliar with chat rules are often a bit agitated when they're asked not to be a dick, which often either leads to a situation where they think they're being insulted when it's just an attempt at enforcing rules or the user in question claiming that the "mean ol' admins" are allowed to call them names etc. I thought in order to combat this, the rule could be rephrased... y'know, something that wouldn't set an already annoyed user off when they're asked to abide Rule 7. [[File:Yes Man default.png|25px|link=User:Yes-Man]][[File:User Avatar talk.png|13px|link=User talk:Yes-Man]] 11:45, August 29, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | The soundtrack of ''Fallout 3'' is comprised of two main elements: the ambient soundtrack composed by [[Inon Zur]], who also created the soundtrack of ''[[Fallout Tactics]]'', and songs and other musical works which are played by in-game [[Fallout 3 radio stations|radio stations]]. |
||
| + | :Maybe just a more general "Be Nice"? [[User:Agent c|Agent c]] ([[User talk:Agent c|talk]]) 12:09, August 29, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | ::I disagree. "Don't be a dick" and "Be nice" are not synonymous - one can be neither of them. Many times I am not "nice" nor am I "being a dick". It does not matter if they are agitated by having to follow our rules or be warned of them. It is a valid term and has seen inveterate usage on many sites. "You are ''being'' a dick" is different than "You ''are'' a dick", as the latter is an insult and the first one is not. The rule is fine as it is right now. {{User:SigmaDelta54/Sig}} 17:48, August 29, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | how about A simple few words, Don't be rude? ([[User:Wildwes7g7|Wildwes7g7]] ([[User talk:Wildwes7g7|talk]]) 20:43, August 29, 2012 (UTC)) |
||
| + | I'm fully aware that the rule works and the wording makes sense, that's not what I'm arguing. But there have been situations that have arisen when a user is asked not to be a dick, and unfamiliar with chat rules they take offence by this. Something like "Be respectful of other members in chat" is a bit less volatile, so if someone is being a nuisance, you can ask them to show respect rather than call them a dick, the latter of which is more likely to escalate the situation. [[File:Yes Man default.png|25px|link=User:Yes-Man]][[File:User Avatar talk.png|13px|link=User talk:Yes-Man]] 06:06, August 30, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ==Products== |
||
| + | :Ignorance of the rules is no excuse; if someone wished to debate that they felt a ban for being a dick is obscene and insulting, then they have admitted to not reading the rules to why it is called "being a dick". The rule is fine as is, changing it to something more "polite" for the sake of profanity, which as I've stated before is lunacy, reduces the meaning. "Don't be a dick", it's simple and most should be able to understand it without us over-exemplifying the rule. [[file:Neko-signature.png|x28px|User Talk:Gothic Neko|link=User_Talk:Gothic_Neko]] [[User:Gothic_Neko|Gothic Neko]]<sup>[[User Talk:Gothic_Neko|Neko's Haunt]]</sup> 13:43, August 30, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ===Collector's Edition=== |
||
| + | ::Neko summed it up very well. Just because the rule itself is "Don't be a dick" does ''not'' mean one must admonish someone by saying "Don't be a dick". There are many "less-volatile" alternatives to warning someone about the "Don't be a dick" rule. Perhaps I could take offence in someone telling me to "not be rude" (unlikely), but it will be just as well. We cannot modify our rules just so certain users will not take offence to being warned of them. {{User:SigmaDelta54/Sig}} 14:24, August 30, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | [[Image:Fallout 3 Collector's Edition.jpg|thumb|The products included in the ''Fallout 3'' Collector's Edition.]] |
||
| + | You guys are ridiculously wrong, rules are to be respectful, they're not supposed to make someone feel small for breaking A little rule, when you are arrested for disorderly conduct, you are arrested for disorderly conduct, not for the crap statement above which basically is the same thing, maybe people would feel A little more motivated to quit breaking the rule if they're handled neutrally-at the least! ([[User:Wildwes7g7|Wildwes7g7]] ([[User talk:Wildwes7g7|talk]]) 00:37, August 31, 2012 (UTC)) |
||
| − | The collector's edition of ''Fallout 3'' features: |
||
| + | :This makes little to no sense. People can choose what "makes them feel small", and that is a variety of things that we cannot ever control. Rules are rules and they are to be followed. The current phrasing of the rule is short and simple, and a good representation of what is expected, along with a full (and rather well-written) [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick essay], which also serves as the rule's namesake. And the last bit is quite ridiculous: if they are not "motivated" enough to stop their transgressions of the rules, then they will be banned. It's plain and simple. {{User:SigmaDelta54/Sig}} 00:47, August 31, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | A [[Vault Boy]] [[Bobblehead]], ''[[The Art of Fallout 3]]'' (which features never before seen exclusive concept art for the game), and "[[The Making of Fallout 3]]" DVD. The entire package is contained in a [[Vault-Tec lunch box]] container. |
||
| + | ::There's another aspect to the "Don't be a dick" rule, and that is that it could easily be used as an excuse to personal attacks using just that word: dick. If someone - well versed with the rules, at least - were to insult another using the exact term "dick" then it could easily be excused by the offender stating that they were simply reprimanding the victim about not being the aforementioned phallic organ. Now, most of the time this can be an easily discarded as a weak explanation, but nevertheless it makes the process of taking action against a user harder and longer, maybe even requiring chatlogs and the like. This, as well as the aforementioned reason of Yessie, I feel are good reasons to change the name. If anything, it'd make our life easier if we didn't have to deal with newcomers who get all pissy every 45 seconds; weak an argument as that is. Hugs [[file:MadeMan2.png|20px|link=User:Scarface11235]][[User talk:Scarface11235|<font color= "Purple"> <sup>''"Say 'ello to my little friend!"''</sup> </font>]] |
||
| + | :::Again, from wikipedia: ''"Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is generally a dick-move — especially if true"''. So the situation you described shouldn't be an issue at all, since reprimanding somebody that way is by definition a violation of the very rule, and therefore not a valid defense. [[User:Limmiegirl|<font color= "purple"> '''Limmiegirl''' </font>]][[File:Lildeneb.png|20px]][[User talk:Limmiegirl|<font color= "purple"> <sup>''Talk! ♪''</sup> </font>]] 16:57, August 31, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | From [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick Wikipedia]: {{quotation|'''Being a dick isn't equivalent to being uncivil or impolite''' (though incivility and rudeness often accompany dickery). '''One may be perfectly civil and follow every rule of etiquette and still be a dick'''. Standard dick-moves, for example, include such things as willfully (but politely) drawing attention to genuine (but inconsequential) errors in spelling or grammar of an interlocutor's comments, disregarding the Chomskian distinction between language competence and language performance. So '''the use of a vulgar term here to convey the concept is intentional''', and distinguishes this principle from issues of politeness and other protocols of interaction.}} |
||
| + | The highlighted parts I believe speak for themselves as to where my position in this issue stands. [[User:Limmiegirl|<font color= "purple"> '''Limmiegirl''' </font>]][[File:Lildeneb.png|20px]][[User talk:Limmiegirl|<font color= "purple"> <sup>''Talk! ♪''</sup> </font>]] 16:19, August 31, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | ===Rule 9 - Unanimous consent to Real World Discussion=== |
||
| − | ===Survival Edition=== |
||
| + | Rule 9 can be controversial. On one hand we're having to censor real world political discussions against the will of the majority in chat; on the other hand these debates can get emotionally charged and having rule 9 to stop these discussions before disruption occurs or tempers flare. |
||
| − | [[Image:Images (21).jpg|thumb|Pip-Boy 3000 digital clock|right]] |
||
| − | In addition to the above products, the Survival Edition features a life-size model of the Pip-Boy wrist computer upon whose screen is a fully functional digital clock display. |
||
| + | However, sometimes Rule 9 can be used as a troll shield - a debate is stirred up by a user, who after "poking the bear" runs to rule 9 to shut down the conversation - every now and then if you dont realise what you've gotten into is fine, but continued use of the rule in this way is kind dickish, isn't it? |
||
| − | The Pip-Boy is a dashing rendition of the one you use in game. However it is made from a lightweight plastic that surprised many users. Undeterred fans put the batteries into their clocks, however many found the buttons to not be functional. Others had the clock function for a time, then turn into a flashing "12:00" before never working again. |
||
| + | So, how do you feel about rule 9, too harsh? Not harsh enough? Do protections need to be in place to squish the use of rule 9 as a troll shield? |
||
| − | The piece is still considered valued amongst hardcore fans for the chance of having a Pip-Boy on their desk, however the quality of the construction, and its value as a collectible, has been put into question. |
||
| + | :I think my views in this, although I've tried to be fair and balanced are clear. Keep rule 9, but prevent persistent misuse of it. [[User:Agent c|Agent c]] ([[User talk:Agent c|talk]]) |
||
| − | ===Limited Edition=== |
||
| − | [[Image:336332ps 500h.jpg|thumb|''Fallout 3'' Limited Edition]] |
||
| − | There was also a limited edition of the game simply called the ''Fallout 3 Limited Edition'' that was exclusive to the UK and only available through the retailer GAME. It comes with the game and a Brotherhood of Steel power armor figurine. |
||
| + | :Keep rule 9, yes, though I'd prefer to see it used less and less. This should be more for the wider audience to disagree with, if only one person disagrees with the conversation then it should not be enforced so quickly, a consensus must be agreed upon that the conversation should be dropped and not on the whim of a single user. [[file:Neko-signature.png|x28px|User Talk:Gothic Neko|link=User_Talk:Gothic_Neko]] [[User:Gothic_Neko|Gothic Neko]]<sup>[[User Talk:Gothic_Neko|Neko's Haunt]]</sup> 13:10, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ===Add-ons=== |
||
| − | {{main|Fallout 3 add-ons}} |
||
| − | [[Bethesda Softworks]] has released five [[Fallout 3 add-ons|add-ons]] for ''Fallout 3'': |
||
| − | * ''[[Operation: Anchorage (add-on)|Operation: Anchorage]]'' |
||
| − | * ''[[The Pitt]]'' |
||
| − | * ''[[Broken Steel]]'' |
||
| − | * ''[[Point Lookout (add-on)|Point Lookout]]'' |
||
| − | * ''[[Mothership Zeta]]'' |
||
| + | :I think rule 9 needs to be changed. The conversation shouldn't have to end just because one person doesn't like it. It should be a majority of chat wanting to shut it down, not just one user. Perhaps at least half of the active chatting users must agree to stop the debate. [[File:VictorFaceMonitor.png|25px|link=User:Victor the Securitron]] [[User:Victor the Securitron|Victor the Insane Cowboy Robot]] 16:27, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ===Game of the Year Edition=== |
||
| − | ''Fallout 3: Game of the Year Edition'' was released on October 13, 2009 for PC, PS3, and 360; this edition includes all five add-on packs. ''[[Mothership Zeta (add-on)|Mothership Zeta]]'' will not be available in any disc version aside from the ''Game of the Year'' edition. |
||
| + | :I disagree. The point of rule 9 is to generate a comfortable atmosphere for everyone, regardless of their background or views. Keep in mind that there is are Private Messages and even large-group messages that are available with some modifications. But otherwise, I think the judgement of present mods/admins is sufficient to see Rule 9 not be misused and abused. {{User:SigmaDelta54/Sig}} 18:32, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ==Behind the scenes== |
||
| − | * The original inspiration for [[Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System|V.A.T.S.]] was ''Burnout''{{'}}s crash mode replays. |
||
| − | * In the world of ''[[Fallout]]'', the bombs fell on October 23. Bethesda tried to coincide the release of ''Fallout 3'' to that. |
||
| − | * The downtown D.C. area in ''Fallout 3'' was twice the size at one point. The team decided it was too large and confusing and cut the area space in half. The [[Wasteland]] area was half the size, and the team felt it was too small, so the Wasteland size doubled. |
||
| + | :I have to say that rule 9 should be here. It's a great rule with many benefits. We have no idea how the subject might make others feel. I personally hate talking about these kinds of stuff in chat. Sig also brings a point. It must not be misused, as it can easily be.--[[file:Fo2_NCR_Flag.png|40px|link=User:For NCR]][[User talk:For NCR|<font color= "Orange"> <sup>''A Safe People is a Strong People!''</sup> </font>]] 18:43, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ==Gallery== |
||
| − | <gallery captionalign="left"> |
||
| − | Fallout3 Cover Art PC.jpg|Box art for the PC version |
||
| − | Fallout 3 PlayStation 3.jpg|Box art for the PS3 version |
||
| − | Fallout3XBox360RetailBoxArt.jpg|Box art for the Xbox 360 Version |
||
| − | Fallout 3 GOY edition.jpg|Box art for the PC Game of Year Edition |
||
| − | Fallout3 1 lg.jpg|Example of the game's graphics in Springvale |
||
| − | Wasteland.jpg|Capital Wasteland concept art |
||
| − | Memorial m.jpg|Jefferson Memorial concept art |
||
| − | Carrier m.jpg|Rivet City concept art |
||
| − | FO3 capitol concept2.jpg|Capital Hill concept art |
||
| − | </gallery> |
||
| + | :I think the rule would be better off saying something along the lines of "no user who wishes to be part of a real-world politics/religion discussion shall be forced to participate in said discussion should they wish not to." This way, the user who feels that the topic is in any way inappropriate for them will not be a part of the conversation, and the rest of the chat is not interrupted. That's just the way I look at it. [[User:Tocinoman|<font color= "580000" size= "+1"> ~ '''Toci''' ~ </font>]][[User talk:Tocinoman|<font color= "333300"> <sup>''Go ahead, make my day.''</sup> </font>]] 22:59, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ==See also== |
||
| + | ::I don't understand, how is anyone supposed to force someone to participate in a discussion? {{User:SigmaDelta54/Sig}} 23:20, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | * [[Fallout 3 announcement|''Fallout 3'' announcement]] |
||
| + | :::Lol. I'm not entirely sure. I'm just brainstorming here, but it was something like not talking directly to someone about a subject they don't wish to talk about. [[User:Tocinoman|<font color= "580000" size= "+1"> ~ '''Toci''' ~ </font>]][[User talk:Tocinoman|<font color= "333300"> <sup>''Go ahead, make my day.''</sup> </font>]] 23:57, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | * [[Fallout 3 teaser|''Fallout 3'' teaser]] |
||
| − | * [[Meet the Fallout 3 devs|Meet the ''Fallout 3'' devs]] |
||
| − | * [[Fallout 3 FAQ|''Fallout 3'' FAQ]] |
||
| + | I am fine with how the rules are now. We need almost nothing added or taken away in my opinion. The rule nine troll shield I agree needs to go. I am in favor of toci's change, [[file:Pigeon Approved.png|20px|link=User:Denis517]][[User talk:Denis517|<font color= "Purple"> <sup>''"THE WABBAJACK!"''</sup> </font>]] 23:12, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ==References== |
||
| − | {{References}} |
||
| + | For me it's the same case as the potty mouth rule, folks who hang around a chat for a mature game should be mature enough to deal with topics like religion and politics, and if they ain't then they shouldn't be around in the first place. If a fella gets too worked worked up on it then give him the boot for a couple of mins to cool down, but don't sound too proper to put a gag on the fellas who want to talk about it and can deal with it like civilized folks. Strike this rule down and let abuses be handled with by the mods through the other rules. [[User:CharlesLeCheck|'''CharlesLeCheck''']] [[File:Icon_check.png|x20px|link=User talk:CharlesLeCheck]] 15:29, August 31, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ==External links== |
||
| + | :Absolutely not. People may take offence especially to sensitive things such as religion and/or politics. This is irrelevant to maturity. And being too emotionally involved in a discussion is '''not''' bad faith, so suggesting that he should be "give[n] the boot" is absurd at best. And I already mentioned above that with a few modifications, group conversations can be arranged so they can continue a desired topic of conversation away from the main chat. This rule is perfectly fine as it is right now. {{User:SigmaDelta54/Sig}} 15:53, August 31, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | ===Official links=== |
||
| − | * [http://fallout.bethsoft.com/ Official site] |
||
| − | * [http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showforum=32 Official Fallout 3 Forum] |
||
| − | * [http://planetfallout.gamespy.com/ Planet Fallout] |
||
| − | === |
+ | ==="Wiki Profiling"=== |
| + | Recently it was suggested to this and another wiki (by a member of staff) that the members of each wiki do not visit each others chatrooms, [http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Issues_with_Halo_Nation#For_all_Fallout_members|with an administrative member of the other wiki stating their intention to turn away members of this wiki who were not previously active members]. Whilst this would seemingly prevent a wiki war and worsening relations, it can be seen as being contradiction to one of the cardinal rule of wikis - that good faith should be assumed. Do you think this policy by the other wiki should be returned? |
||
| − | * [http://nma-fallout.com No Mutants Allowed] |
||
| + | :No. I am reminded of the Magna Carta. "No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right". No Chatter will be banned, or removed of their ability to join chat, or any other part of the wiki- but for judgement as per the rules and policies of this wiki, and when this occurs there is an unambigious ability to question, clarify and even appeal this ban. Other members of a wiki are not responsible or accountable for the actions of other members of the wikis they choose to visit. [[User:Agent c|Agent c]] ([[User talk:Agent c|talk]]) |
||
| − | * [http://www.duckandcover.cx/archives.php?page=1&game=Fallout%203 Duck and Cover] |
||
| + | ::This is unacceptable. People should be accountable to their own actions only. If they personally haven't done anything improper, no sanction should befall on them, end of story. [[User:Limmiegirl|<font color= "purple"> '''Limmiegirl''' </font>]][[File:Lildeneb.png|20px]][[User talk:Limmiegirl|<font color= "purple"> <sup>''Talk! ♪''</sup> </font>]] 13:09, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | * [http://www.fallout3zone.com/ Fallout 3 Zone] |
||
| + | :::I don't care if the President of fucking Wikia suggested this, it is utterly ridiculous and not even worthy of consideration. Not only does it directly contradict the fundamental rule of "assuming good faith", it essentially advocates discrimination and restricts full access to those who have interests in both ''Halo'' and ''Fallout'' or their respective chats. {{User:SigmaDelta54/Sig}} 18:09, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | * [http://rpgcodex.com/gamedetails.php?id=283 RPG Codex] |
||
| − | * [http://fallout-hq.de/ Fallout 3 Headquarter (German)] |
||
| − | * [http://www.nukacola.com Nukacola (French)] |
||
| + | {{od|:::}} I, myself, sent out an ultimatum to everyone who read that post and to everyone who visits our chat regularly. Said ultimatum stated that if I see '''anyone''' committing an act that has to do with Sannse's comment of asking people to leave based on background that I would come down on them full force, be that person a Bureaucrat, Admin, Mod, Chat mod, or plain user. I won't tolerate this at ''all''. [[User:Tocinoman|<font color= "580000" size= "+1"> ~ '''Toci''' ~ </font>]][[User talk:Tocinoman|<font color= "333300"> <sup>''Go ahead, make my day.''</sup> </font>]] 22:59, August 28, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| − | {{Navbox Fallout games}} |
||
| − | {{Copyright Wikipedia|Fallout 3}} |
||
| + | :'''EDIT''': So, as I surf throughout the page and see the "joining of other chatrooms". And...joining other chats don't immediately start a wiki war. Me and some user go to a chat where we have fun with other people, not to come to other chats like people who look like we want to make trouble upon entering. So does this develop a concept where '''no one from outside enters, and no one from inside leaves''', similarly to Vault 101's policies? [[File:applejack.png|35px|link=User:Gauzz Rifle]] |
||
| − | [[Category:Fallout games]] |
||
| − | [[Category:Fallout 3| ]] |
||
| + | ::This proposition is so completely and fundamentally absurd that, if it is enforced, I - and hopefully many others - will leave. It's idiotic at best and, as Sigma says, shouldn't even be considered. Hugs [[file:MadeMan2.png|20px|link=User:Scarface11235]][[User talk:Scarface11235|<font color= "Purple"> <sup>''"Say 'ello to my little friend!"''</sup> </font>]] |
||
| − | [[bg:Fallout 3]] |
||
| + | |||
| − | [[de:Fallout 3]] |
||
| + | ==Comments== |
||
| − | [[es:Fallout 3]] |
||
| + | (please post rules specific comments in their section. Comments may be moved to relevant sections to aid in following the discussion. Any more general information, or new rule suggestions can be included here. |
||
| − | [[fi:Fallout 3]] |
||
| + | |||
| − | [[hu:Fallout 3]] |
||
| + | ===Saintpain=== |
||
| − | [[it:Fallout 3]] |
||
| + | |||
| − | [[ko:폴아웃 3]] |
||
| + | Looking at the list I have been accused of many but I will try to re visit them in detail, '''now that others have opened the topic''' of course. |
||
| − | [[lt:Fallout 3]] |
||
| + | |||
| − | [[nl:Fallout 3]] |
||
| + | # I doubt with some confidence I '''ever''' used raciest or sexist slurs. Gay is OK as is Black, white um..? Is Pony a bad word. I honestly thought Ponies like be'n called pony. If I am wrong I will offer a lengthy formal apology to the whole Pony community. |
||
| − | [[no:Fallout 3]] |
||
| + | |||
| − | [[pl:Fallout 3]] |
||
| + | * I went a year here with a self imposed Zero use of profanity. After that I tossed a few "F" bombs but never at any individual. I honestly never curssed any one or group here unless Obama is a member and in that case he should except it as part of his job ( Americans hate our leaders. They ask for it ~;P )Damn I just broke rule #9 provoked''!'' I am sorry I will discuss this with my therapist but honestly I meant no harm to any here. DAMN I just confessed off topic again. ( It is a sickness that harms me more than you '''''But it can be funny''''' . |
||
| − | [[pt:Fallout 3]] |
||
| + | |||
| − | [[ru:Fallout 3]] |
||
| + | In Honor of the Myth that the world will end Dec 22 2012 I renew my vows " I shall make ''all reasonable effort'' to not swear or use dirty words again until the end of humanity's days on line. ( Please do remind me if I ever slip.) |
||
| − | [[sv:Fallout 3]] |
||
| + | |||
| − | [[tr:Fallout 3]] |
||
| + | * Never once really made a difference as to anyone at this sites sex, real or imaged. This is a forum that lends it's self to role play and I don't trust cyber sexing so as far as I care you are fine to be what ever sex and or species you choose. I don't judge such things. It is OK to be Gay. Gay is not a bad word and I do not care where you live. |
||
| − | [[zh:辐射3]] |
||
| + | |||
| + | * I rarely use none English words here ( No matter what you think of my English use :p ) I have at least only used them rarely as a reference and never enough to be banned for that "offence". |
||
| + | |||
| + | *I have been guilty of joining conversations on slow nights relating to politics. I don't recall ever ''starting'' the discussion but it always led to more happy chat. We were just killing time until some thing more fun came along. |
||
| + | |||
| + | * Going over the list I am innocent of ,all above, less the non issue confessions to the best of my perspective. |
||
| + | |||
| + | * General irritation or disruption of other users ~ That is subjective. We all want to have fun on this site. Most of all on chat. " A long day at school or work should melt away in mirth & tom foolery " |
||
| + | |||
| + | If a member dose not like another member that is their perspective, they should never be given the power to just say " Stop or I'll tell on you for ''irritating'' me. That takes away the others rights to have fun. |
||
| + | |||
| + | * Say what you will there have been so many nights where I sat with few around to keep chat alive. Yes it can get a wee bit out of absolute control but that is what made chat fun. A taste of chaos that lightens the heart and caused no one any real harm. it was all ''just fun''. |
||
| + | |||
| + | * Bottom line : All these rules should not divide a site, ''just nudge it in the right direction''. |
||
| + | |||
| + | To the best of my hearts truest knowledge, I never meant any here harm. Being a free will is not defiance. It's just asking for equal rights and the benefit of a doubt. |
||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | *What are your thoughts ? |
||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Final edit tonight ~ There are far to may typos for me to fix this late. |
||
| + | *If you disagree with the underlying miss spelled point, I can't change your mind with this ramble. I'm just to tired. |
||
| + | |||
| + | * Sleep well & have a better tomorrow. |
||
| + | |||
| + | [[File:User SP Bad Medicine.jpg]] [[User:SaintPain|SaintPain]]→ '''Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n.''' 07:54, August 29, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | :This is not the place to discuss any one users ban. This is a place to discuss the rules of chat in general. Please direct any queries regarding a single persons ban to an admin. [[User:Agent c|Agent c]] ([[User talk:Agent c|talk]]) 08:41, August 29, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | ===Enforcement=== |
||
| + | Once again Yes Man you're pretty much on the money, here's the thing, these rules are pretty good rules, so my question is Why don't we just enforce them?The problem doesn't lie with the rules it lies with admin who post nude pictures of women, or just overwhelmingly gross or vulgar comments, someone needs to enforce THESE rules, not make up new ones, so I guess I would like to add A rule, Rule 11: A bureaucrat or some admin who has some sense has the authority to enforce these rules on other admins by way of A ban or other such punishment. In regards to profanity, I've seen it get out of control, but yes why would someone be in chat or play the game(or be on nukipedia) if they couldn't handle cursing, but at the same time it doesn't need to ever get to A point of no control on what you're saying at someone or something. Rule 9 is A somewhat ill-advised rule; as long as the persons involved don't get to A point of bullying the minority position! These are pretty much my thoughts, at some point the admins themselves need some policing! :) ([[User:Wildwes7g7|Wildwes7g7]] ([[User talk:Wildwes7g7|talk]]) 05:47, August 29, 2012 (UTC)) |
||
| + | :Let me get something straight here: Our Administrators have never posted nudity in either our chat feature, nor our main article space. If they have, then please provide me with names and logs, and I will help take care of it. As for cursing, we do not need political correctness here. Political correctness is for people who can't handle the world around them, and I will never advocate it here. The truth of the matter is, using expletives is not a bad thing. Especially so on a mature wiki such as this one. Even using a generous amount of expletives is not a bad thing. The only time it ''is'' a bad thing, is if someone spams expletives, or uses them in a way to personally insult people. And we already do punish people who do this. I just wanted to get that straight here. [[file:ForGaroux.png|40px|link=User:GarouxBloodline]][[User talk:GarouxBloodline|<font color= "Black"> <sup>''Some Assembly Required!''</sup> </font>]] 07:35, August 29, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | *A bureaucrat or some admin who has some sense has the authority to enforce these rules on other admins by way of A ban or other such punishment. |
||
| + | :This already exists. The rules of chat apply to mods and admins just as much as they do anyone else. If you have a complaint about the behaviour of an admin, please address it to another admin, bureaucrat or moderator. Additionally the community can call for a reconfirmation request if unsatisfied with the response. |
||
| + | :Additionally, I must echo Leon's point on Porn. The one time I've been aware of an image that might be termed "soft core" porn being linked, it was by a regular user who received am immediate ban. [[User:Agent c|Agent c]] ([[User talk:Agent c|talk]]) 08:15, August 29, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | ::If you have actual proof of instances you are describing above then please post them as they will be dealt with separately and according to existing policy. As far as I see it, our current chat mods are doing a good job in enforcing to rules so I'm afraid I can't quite see where you're coming from. {{User:SigmaDelta54/Sig}} 13:55, August 29, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | A question to the starter of this discussion: It seems like Rule 7 and Rule 9 have received the most controversy. Would there be a vote soon? If so, I would suggest we do not use the typical yes-no vote but rather the multiple selections option so that more than two possible amendments/modifications to a specific rule may be presented. {{User:SigmaDelta54/Sig}} 16:28, August 31, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | <s>==Anti Bullying code== |
||
| + | |||
| + | There should be an anti bullying code in chat to prevent bullying of the other users, specially when it's from admins and mods. The rule against insults is not enough because sometimes bullying happens subtly and then it's even more damagin and traumatizing because the victim is labeled as paranoid and too sensitive. Mocking people in particular should never be allowed at any circumstance. [[User:Corniolio|Corniolio]] ([[User talk:Corniolio|talk]]) 03:39, September 2, 2012 (UTC)</s> |
||
| + | :Most of the rules for the chat already address this. Moot statement. [[File:UserGreatMara.png|25px|User:Great_Mara|link=User:Great_Mara]]<sup>[[User talk:Great_Mara|Message]]</sup> 03:43, September 2, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | ::You have already started a forum up about this, and it was greatly rejected. So instead of letting you hijack this forum, I am now shutting down this thread. I am going to ask for no one to respond to this. If anyone would really like to talk about this subject, please leave your thougths on the proper forum page. |
||
Revision as of 03:55, 2 September 2012
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Chat Rules Review
Hi folks,
In response to a few recent events, I'd like to discuss the chat rules... Yes I know, another forum to change things. Hopefully this will be a bit different as for the most part I think I'm proposing changing nothing, but allowing those who feel that there is need for change to come out and let us know. I had hoped to wait until Crazy Sam's confirmation was closed before posting this, but another event I think has made one of these issues (the last) in need of discussion urgently. Agent c (talk) 12:52, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
But before we begin, lets review the chat rules:
Grounds for blocking
Users who are clearly disruptive to the chat or who fail to behave appropriately towards other contributors may be blocked. The possible reasons for blocking include (but are not limited to):
- Personal attacks, bigotry and/or racist or sexist name calling.
- Harassment and/or sexual harassment.
- Extreme use of profanity/cursing or directing it towards another user is not permitted.
- Violation of personal privacy. This includes revealing personal information about users (e.g. real name, location, age, gender, etc) and violating confidentiality on particular issues (such as issues asked to be kept confidential by other users or administrators).
- Linking to external sources, such as websites, which violate the aforementioned rules. Notably, publicly linking to websites such as Facebook or MySpace that violate personal privacy, is not permitted without prior consent from the user whose privacy might be violated.
- Trolling or general irritation or disruption of other users. This often includes, but is not limited to; excessive usage of capital letters, punctuation marks, deliberate distortions of the English language (such as "133t" or "Dolan" speak), and excessive usage of non-English languages.
- Being a dick. As a guideline, don't go out of your way to irritate others. (And especially do NOT try to test the admin's and/or chat moderator's patience and/or limits.) Vicious abuse is grounds for sanctions.
- Whining. Users who ask for something from another chat user and are refused it should not stoop to complaining. It is acceptable to be persistent, but in a mature manner.
- Discussing real-world politics and/or religion without unanimous consent. If someone doesn't want to talk about them, drop the subject.
- Spamming. The meaning should be obvious. Don't say the same thing six times because no one is responding to you. Don't keep yammering on about a subject nobody cares about. Meaningless and/or random posts can also be considered spam, alongside disruptive internet memes.
The Review
Rules 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10
Basically I think we're all right here and these rules have absolutely no controversy about them. This section on the off chance someone feels the need to discuss them in detail or suggest a change. (nb - Rule 7 was in this section, but has now been spun out.)
Rule 1
Dose just play nice cover this one ?
Seriously I think it is clear to most Racism, Sexism, Ageism and honest slurs against an others religion, political view, fashion sense or choice in video games when spoken with honest hatred or other wise undefined ill intent, then they are all wrong.
- The question is: What should be actionable ?
I think, intent, exact context should be taken into account.
TOSH.O, the Chappelle show, the Daily show & all the Comedy Central roasts are irreverent and beyond disrespectful when taken out of context. Yet they intend no harm and so they are considered by many, many of the folks from all ages, races, sexes and social code to be uplifting fun.
My point is : All rule interpretation should be considered with an honest eye toward intent and exact context before jumping to any conclusions.
SaintPain→ Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 02:51, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
- any communication has two critical and inseparable Parts; how the message is sent, and how the message is recieved. When a message is "sent" as a joke and "recieved" as something else, then the "sender" is obliged to stop as soon as informed of this (and a warning may be appropriate), if after this they do not then it is most certainly actionable, joke or not. Certain behaviours, like using certain sensitive words in the wrong way (or in some cases at all) are always actionable. Agent c (talk) 08:40, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
Rule 3 - Profanity and language
There has been a suggestion that we need to tighten up the langauge rules, and make profanity and "adult content" against the rules. The suggestion has been that this may make our chatroom more welcoming to newcomers. Others feel the opposite, that the current regeme allows them to feel relaxed as they talk the same way as they do in their everyday lives. How do you all feel about the current rules, are they too tight, too loose, or just right?
- Personally I think they're fine the way they are. I've tried to represent all of the major points of view here, but I am definately in the limited policing of this allows people to feel relaxed and natural. Fallout is an adult orientated series, and this wiki is Nukapedia: The Fallout wiki; it isn't the My Little Pony wiki where kids and those unable to deal with such language and concepts are more likely to visit (that is of course not to say that (older) MLP fans aren't welcome here). Agent c (talk)
- Profanity and "adult content" is surely of no concern here, we are, or should be, mature enough to handle a few stray foul words and lewd conversations. Profanity is part of everyday life, a means of expression, to outright ban the use would be to section off a great way to sum up our feelings. Furthermore, issues would arise when certain words may be seen as "profanity" but are simply not as such, example of this would be "Bastard Sword" a medieval weapon which does contain profanity, this causes no end of disputes as to whether or not it is still deemed as acceptable or not.
- To help sum up my feelings on the ridiculous notion of swearing as "uncouth", here is the ever wonderful Stephen Fry on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM
Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 13:10, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
This requires no change. People may and will take offence to certain things said, but that will never change with any tightening-up of the rules. Profanity in itself is not malignant as long as it is not directed to another user. --Skire (talk) 17:46, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- This wiki is based around an M-rated game with profane language, violence, and sexual references. If we can't handle someone saying the word "fuck", then we shouldn't even be here. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 22:59, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
This rule needs to completely deleted. It makes no sense to have a rule like this on a site about a game where it allows sex, gore, violence, drugs, swearing, etc. People who get offended when a person says "sonuvabitch!" not to the user but to a topic, or jokingly state "you lovable bastard" to another, then they do not deserve to be on this wikia, or play the game series, and I myself will direct them to a more suitable wikia that is more user-friendly to them, such as MLP or Victorious. The other bone I got to pick with this rule is the fact it literally clashes with most of the rules we placed. I mean look at the rule for example:
"Extreme use of profanity/cursing or directing it towards another user is not permitted."
right there it clashes with 1, 2, aaaand 10. There's absolutely no point in this rule to exist as it's absorbed into these other rules. A user yelling out "SHITCOCK" or "FUCK FUCKERY" more then 5 times is considered spamming as it is. A user putting 5-10 "fucks" in their one sentence is also might as well considered spamming to the point I would ask: "that's a beautiful word, do not make it the new 'the', mmmkay?" Telling someone to go fuck themselves and their kind? Well buddy, you just broke 1 and 2 combined! Telling a female she's a 'sexy bitch'? Guess you really love being #2 in the spotlight eh? These are just examples of this thing clashing and basically being 1,2, and 10 combined. There is no point whatsoever in this rule. My "2 Cents" on the matter.
P.S.---TLDR; Offended you are? A FUCK I DON'T GIVE--Zerginfestor (talk) 23:11, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
Never limit the use of profanity. Simple as, after all - kids under the age of 13 won't be able to use the site because of COPPA. So, we can continue cussing all we want. 
"С нами Бог. Remember, no ponies."
I find this the most important part of rule #3 ""Extreme use of profanity/cursing or directing it towards another user is not permitted."
- The use of profanity in general is not so much the issue as I see it. It is profanity directed at others directly that is the offence that should be enforced.
As I have mentioned else wear, I self impose a vow to redouble my own efforts to avoid using profanity online. I once went a whole year with only the rarest of exceptions when exclamation got the better of me. I do not expect others to take any such vow or make any promise. I simply state this as a token of my support for rule #3 as it pertains to aiming profanity at others. Such actions only serve to bait heightened disagreements and ill will.
SaintPain→ Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 00:36, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of bad language myself, but I ain't fond of having mods playing momma and passing curse jars either. Folks who play Fallout and hang on the chat are big enough to deal with a few four-letter words, and if they ain't then I reckon they shouldn't be there in the first place. CharlesLeCheck 
15:23, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is the most important step to make the chat a friendlier and safer place. There is no need to use bad language and it only offends people and make them feel bad. There is nothing you can say using bad words that you can't with nice words. Sexual and innapropriate language has to be prohibted at all costs from the chat and the wiki. There is no need to offend other people and it shouldn't be allowed and tolerated. Corniolio (talk) 03:32, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
- If someone can't tolerate M rated laguage coming on a wiki based around M rated games, then perhaps they should find somewhere more acclimated for them.
Message 03:40, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
Rule 6 - Trolling
Trolling is bad, however there is a suggestion that this rule needs some clarification. We all know how annoying it is when chat is "raided" by a group of trolls from another wiki, however it seems that some wikis feel that this has been on occasion arranged from here. The question is what should a moderator/admin/etc do if they are aware of an attempt to mass troll another wiki.
There seem to be two schools of thought - We are only concerned with what happens here and that as long as the trolling does not occur in "Nukapedia space" it is none of our affair, the other school being that when this happens from our chatroom it negatively effects the wiki as a whole, and the "conspiracy" if you like to troll does indeed happen in our space - giving our mod an obligation to act: to kick/ban in line with the normal guidelines here and/or alert the ongoing wiki to the upcoming problem.
So, do you feel there is an obligation for chat moderators (etc) to act if/when they become aware of that are designed to disrupt other wikis, and if so what do you feel the result this action should be.
- I believe that if a conspiracy to troll occurs here, this is within our remit, and that at least a tip to the receiving wiki is warranted. I think we should be at least kicking to prevent this being discussed here. You don't want people to troll our chatroom, don't use ours to support trolling methods. Fair and simple. Agent c (talk)
- My view is that whatever happens outside the wiki is none of our concern. However, if planing or inciting of unbecoming activities against other places happens here, we have a duty stop it. Punishment for doing this should be the same as for any other ordinary violation of rules. Limmiegirl Talk! ♪ 13:06, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- My view is that whatever happens outside the wiki is none of our concern. However, if planing or inciting of unbecoming activities against other places happens here, we have a duty stop it. Punishment for doing this should be the same as for any other ordinary violation of rules. Limmiegirl
- I have to agree with Agent c on this one. If we are under the impression users are instigating a raid or troll attempt on this wiki, on another wiki, or site, then it should be on our best interest to stop them immediately. Kicking those who initially started it should set an example for anyone else wishing to follow suit. Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 13:10, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Limmie 100%. --Skire (talk) 18:36, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
The term Trolling needs definition as a whole. but as the topic so far seems focused on groups here is my take on Trolling groups.
- If a group conspires i.e. goes out of their way and plots to disrupt and or harass another then that is a act by definition, "malice of forethought". One person can conspire to do wrong but a "conspiracy" requires 3 or more. Any coordinated effort to act in a hostile manor is worse the "subjective" term trolling as it requires conscious effort with an obvious intent.
SaintPain→ Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 01:59, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
Rule 7 - Don't be a dick
Perhaps being a dick can be rephrased. I know that it's a legitimate term, but when you warn a user to not be a dick, they often become even more agitated. Even worse when you ban a user and tell them it was because they were a dick. I think people will be less volatile should we call it something like "Don't be offensive" or "Be respectful". Otherwise the rule itself is fine, if not open to interpretation. 
04:15, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
I think my point was missed. Rule 7 states Don't be a dick in accordance to the general rule of... well, not being a dick. Yet frankly common users unfamiliar with chat rules are often a bit agitated when they're asked not to be a dick, which often either leads to a situation where they think they're being insulted when it's just an attempt at enforcing rules or the user in question claiming that the "mean ol' admins" are allowed to call them names etc. I thought in order to combat this, the rule could be rephrased... y'know, something that wouldn't set an already annoyed user off when they're asked to abide Rule 7. 11:45, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe just a more general "Be Nice"? Agent c (talk) 12:09, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. "Don't be a dick" and "Be nice" are not synonymous - one can be neither of them. Many times I am not "nice" nor am I "being a dick". It does not matter if they are agitated by having to follow our rules or be warned of them. It is a valid term and has seen inveterate usage on many sites. "You are being a dick" is different than "You are a dick", as the latter is an insult and the first one is not. The rule is fine as it is right now. --Skire (talk) 17:48, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
how about A simple few words, Don't be rude? (Wildwes7g7 (talk) 20:43, August 29, 2012 (UTC))
I'm fully aware that the rule works and the wording makes sense, that's not what I'm arguing. But there have been situations that have arisen when a user is asked not to be a dick, and unfamiliar with chat rules they take offence by this. Something like "Be respectful of other members in chat" is a bit less volatile, so if someone is being a nuisance, you can ask them to show respect rather than call them a dick, the latter of which is more likely to escalate the situation. 06:06, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
- Ignorance of the rules is no excuse; if someone wished to debate that they felt a ban for being a dick is obscene and insulting, then they have admitted to not reading the rules to why it is called "being a dick". The rule is fine as is, changing it to something more "polite" for the sake of profanity, which as I've stated before is lunacy, reduces the meaning. "Don't be a dick", it's simple and most should be able to understand it without us over-exemplifying the rule. Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 13:43, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
- Neko summed it up very well. Just because the rule itself is "Don't be a dick" does not mean one must admonish someone by saying "Don't be a dick". There are many "less-volatile" alternatives to warning someone about the "Don't be a dick" rule. Perhaps I could take offence in someone telling me to "not be rude" (unlikely), but it will be just as well. We cannot modify our rules just so certain users will not take offence to being warned of them. --Skire (talk) 14:24, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
You guys are ridiculously wrong, rules are to be respectful, they're not supposed to make someone feel small for breaking A little rule, when you are arrested for disorderly conduct, you are arrested for disorderly conduct, not for the crap statement above which basically is the same thing, maybe people would feel A little more motivated to quit breaking the rule if they're handled neutrally-at the least! (Wildwes7g7 (talk) 00:37, August 31, 2012 (UTC))
- This makes little to no sense. People can choose what "makes them feel small", and that is a variety of things that we cannot ever control. Rules are rules and they are to be followed. The current phrasing of the rule is short and simple, and a good representation of what is expected, along with a full (and rather well-written) essay, which also serves as the rule's namesake. And the last bit is quite ridiculous: if they are not "motivated" enough to stop their transgressions of the rules, then they will be banned. It's plain and simple. --Skire (talk) 00:47, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
- There's another aspect to the "Don't be a dick" rule, and that is that it could easily be used as an excuse to personal attacks using just that word: dick. If someone - well versed with the rules, at least - were to insult another using the exact term "dick" then it could easily be excused by the offender stating that they were simply reprimanding the victim about not being the aforementioned phallic organ. Now, most of the time this can be an easily discarded as a weak explanation, but nevertheless it makes the process of taking action against a user harder and longer, maybe even requiring chatlogs and the like. This, as well as the aforementioned reason of Yessie, I feel are good reasons to change the name. If anything, it'd make our life easier if we didn't have to deal with newcomers who get all pissy every 45 seconds; weak an argument as that is. Hugs "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
- Again, from wikipedia: "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is generally a dick-move — especially if true". So the situation you described shouldn't be an issue at all, since reprimanding somebody that way is by definition a violation of the very rule, and therefore not a valid defense. Limmiegirl Talk! ♪ 16:57, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
- Again, from wikipedia: "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is generally a dick-move — especially if true". So the situation you described shouldn't be an issue at all, since reprimanding somebody that way is by definition a violation of the very rule, and therefore not a valid defense. Limmiegirl
- There's another aspect to the "Don't be a dick" rule, and that is that it could easily be used as an excuse to personal attacks using just that word: dick. If someone - well versed with the rules, at least - were to insult another using the exact term "dick" then it could easily be excused by the offender stating that they were simply reprimanding the victim about not being the aforementioned phallic organ. Now, most of the time this can be an easily discarded as a weak explanation, but nevertheless it makes the process of taking action against a user harder and longer, maybe even requiring chatlogs and the like. This, as well as the aforementioned reason of Yessie, I feel are good reasons to change the name. If anything, it'd make our life easier if we didn't have to deal with newcomers who get all pissy every 45 seconds; weak an argument as that is. Hugs
From Wikipedia:
“Being a dick isn't equivalent to being uncivil or impolite (though incivility and rudeness often accompany dickery). One may be perfectly civil and follow every rule of etiquette and still be a dick. Standard dick-moves, for example, include such things as willfully (but politely) drawing attention to genuine (but inconsequential) errors in spelling or grammar of an interlocutor's comments, disregarding the Chomskian distinction between language competence and language performance. So the use of a vulgar term here to convey the concept is intentional, and distinguishes this principle from issues of politeness and other protocols of interaction.”
The highlighted parts I believe speak for themselves as to where my position in this issue stands. Limmiegirl 
Talk! ♪ 16:19, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
Rule 9 - Unanimous consent to Real World Discussion
Rule 9 can be controversial. On one hand we're having to censor real world political discussions against the will of the majority in chat; on the other hand these debates can get emotionally charged and having rule 9 to stop these discussions before disruption occurs or tempers flare.
However, sometimes Rule 9 can be used as a troll shield - a debate is stirred up by a user, who after "poking the bear" runs to rule 9 to shut down the conversation - every now and then if you dont realise what you've gotten into is fine, but continued use of the rule in this way is kind dickish, isn't it?
So, how do you feel about rule 9, too harsh? Not harsh enough? Do protections need to be in place to squish the use of rule 9 as a troll shield?
- I think my views in this, although I've tried to be fair and balanced are clear. Keep rule 9, but prevent persistent misuse of it. Agent c (talk)
- Keep rule 9, yes, though I'd prefer to see it used less and less. This should be more for the wider audience to disagree with, if only one person disagrees with the conversation then it should not be enforced so quickly, a consensus must be agreed upon that the conversation should be dropped and not on the whim of a single user. Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 13:10, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I think rule 9 needs to be changed. The conversation shouldn't have to end just because one person doesn't like it. It should be a majority of chat wanting to shut it down, not just one user. Perhaps at least half of the active chatting users must agree to stop the debate. Victor the Insane Cowboy Robot 16:27, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. The point of rule 9 is to generate a comfortable atmosphere for everyone, regardless of their background or views. Keep in mind that there is are Private Messages and even large-group messages that are available with some modifications. But otherwise, I think the judgement of present mods/admins is sufficient to see Rule 9 not be misused and abused. --Skire (talk) 18:32, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I have to say that rule 9 should be here. It's a great rule with many benefits. We have no idea how the subject might make others feel. I personally hate talking about these kinds of stuff in chat. Sig also brings a point. It must not be misused, as it can easily be.-- A Safe People is a Strong People! 18:43, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I think the rule would be better off saying something along the lines of "no user who wishes to be part of a real-world politics/religion discussion shall be forced to participate in said discussion should they wish not to." This way, the user who feels that the topic is in any way inappropriate for them will not be a part of the conversation, and the rest of the chat is not interrupted. That's just the way I look at it. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 22:59, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand, how is anyone supposed to force someone to participate in a discussion? --Skire (talk) 23:20, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Lol. I'm not entirely sure. I'm just brainstorming here, but it was something like not talking directly to someone about a subject they don't wish to talk about. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 23:57, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand, how is anyone supposed to force someone to participate in a discussion? --Skire (talk) 23:20, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
I am fine with how the rules are now. We need almost nothing added or taken away in my opinion. The rule nine troll shield I agree needs to go. I am in favor of toci's change, 
"THE WABBAJACK!" 23:12, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
For me it's the same case as the potty mouth rule, folks who hang around a chat for a mature game should be mature enough to deal with topics like religion and politics, and if they ain't then they shouldn't be around in the first place. If a fella gets too worked worked up on it then give him the boot for a couple of mins to cool down, but don't sound too proper to put a gag on the fellas who want to talk about it and can deal with it like civilized folks. Strike this rule down and let abuses be handled with by the mods through the other rules. CharlesLeCheck 15:29, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. People may take offence especially to sensitive things such as religion and/or politics. This is irrelevant to maturity. And being too emotionally involved in a discussion is not bad faith, so suggesting that he should be "give[n] the boot" is absurd at best. And I already mentioned above that with a few modifications, group conversations can be arranged so they can continue a desired topic of conversation away from the main chat. This rule is perfectly fine as it is right now. --Skire (talk) 15:53, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
"Wiki Profiling"
Recently it was suggested to this and another wiki (by a member of staff) that the members of each wiki do not visit each others chatrooms, an administrative member of the other wiki stating their intention to turn away members of this wiki who were not previously active members. Whilst this would seemingly prevent a wiki war and worsening relations, it can be seen as being contradiction to one of the cardinal rule of wikis - that good faith should be assumed. Do you think this policy by the other wiki should be returned?
- No. I am reminded of the Magna Carta. "No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right". No Chatter will be banned, or removed of their ability to join chat, or any other part of the wiki- but for judgement as per the rules and policies of this wiki, and when this occurs there is an unambigious ability to question, clarify and even appeal this ban. Other members of a wiki are not responsible or accountable for the actions of other members of the wikis they choose to visit. Agent c (talk)
- This is unacceptable. People should be accountable to their own actions only. If they personally haven't done anything improper, no sanction should befall on them, end of story. Limmiegirl Talk! ♪ 13:09, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't care if the President of fucking Wikia suggested this, it is utterly ridiculous and not even worthy of consideration. Not only does it directly contradict the fundamental rule of "assuming good faith", it essentially advocates discrimination and restricts full access to those who have interests in both Halo and Fallout or their respective chats. --Skire (talk) 18:09, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- This is unacceptable. People should be accountable to their own actions only. If they personally haven't done anything improper, no sanction should befall on them, end of story. Limmiegirl
I, myself, sent out an ultimatum to everyone who read that post and to everyone who visits our chat regularly. Said ultimatum stated that if I see anyone committing an act that has to do with Sannse's comment of asking people to leave based on background that I would come down on them full force, be that person a Bureaucrat, Admin, Mod, Chat mod, or plain user. I won't tolerate this at all. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 22:59, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- EDIT: So, as I surf throughout the page and see the "joining of other chatrooms". And...joining other chats don't immediately start a wiki war. Me and some user go to a chat where we have fun with other people, not to come to other chats like people who look like we want to make trouble upon entering. So does this develop a concept where no one from outside enters, and no one from inside leaves, similarly to Vault 101's policies?
- This proposition is so completely and fundamentally absurd that, if it is enforced, I - and hopefully many others - will leave. It's idiotic at best and, as Sigma says, shouldn't even be considered. Hugs "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
- This proposition is so completely and fundamentally absurd that, if it is enforced, I - and hopefully many others - will leave. It's idiotic at best and, as Sigma says, shouldn't even be considered. Hugs
Comments
(please post rules specific comments in their section. Comments may be moved to relevant sections to aid in following the discussion. Any more general information, or new rule suggestions can be included here.
Saintpain
Looking at the list I have been accused of many but I will try to re visit them in detail, now that others have opened the topic of course.
- I doubt with some confidence I ever used raciest or sexist slurs. Gay is OK as is Black, white um..? Is Pony a bad word. I honestly thought Ponies like be'n called pony. If I am wrong I will offer a lengthy formal apology to the whole Pony community.
- I went a year here with a self imposed Zero use of profanity. After that I tossed a few "F" bombs but never at any individual. I honestly never curssed any one or group here unless Obama is a member and in that case he should except it as part of his job ( Americans hate our leaders. They ask for it ~;P )Damn I just broke rule #9 provoked! I am sorry I will discuss this with my therapist but honestly I meant no harm to any here. DAMN I just confessed off topic again. ( It is a sickness that harms me more than you But it can be funny .
In Honor of the Myth that the world will end Dec 22 2012 I renew my vows " I shall make all reasonable effort to not swear or use dirty words again until the end of humanity's days on line. ( Please do remind me if I ever slip.)
- Never once really made a difference as to anyone at this sites sex, real or imaged. This is a forum that lends it's self to role play and I don't trust cyber sexing so as far as I care you are fine to be what ever sex and or species you choose. I don't judge such things. It is OK to be Gay. Gay is not a bad word and I do not care where you live.
- I rarely use none English words here ( No matter what you think of my English use :p ) I have at least only used them rarely as a reference and never enough to be banned for that "offence".
- I have been guilty of joining conversations on slow nights relating to politics. I don't recall ever starting the discussion but it always led to more happy chat. We were just killing time until some thing more fun came along.
- Going over the list I am innocent of ,all above, less the non issue confessions to the best of my perspective.
- General irritation or disruption of other users ~ That is subjective. We all want to have fun on this site. Most of all on chat. " A long day at school or work should melt away in mirth & tom foolery "
If a member dose not like another member that is their perspective, they should never be given the power to just say " Stop or I'll tell on you for irritating me. That takes away the others rights to have fun.
- Say what you will there have been so many nights where I sat with few around to keep chat alive. Yes it can get a wee bit out of absolute control but that is what made chat fun. A taste of chaos that lightens the heart and caused no one any real harm. it was all just fun.
- Bottom line : All these rules should not divide a site, just nudge it in the right direction.
To the best of my hearts truest knowledge, I never meant any here harm. Being a free will is not defiance. It's just asking for equal rights and the benefit of a doubt.
- What are your thoughts ?
Final edit tonight ~ There are far to may typos for me to fix this late.
- If you disagree with the underlying miss spelled point, I can't change your mind with this ramble. I'm just to tired.
- Sleep well & have a better tomorrow.
SaintPain→ Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 07:54, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
- This is not the place to discuss any one users ban. This is a place to discuss the rules of chat in general. Please direct any queries regarding a single persons ban to an admin. Agent c (talk) 08:41, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
Enforcement
Once again Yes Man you're pretty much on the money, here's the thing, these rules are pretty good rules, so my question is Why don't we just enforce them?The problem doesn't lie with the rules it lies with admin who post nude pictures of women, or just overwhelmingly gross or vulgar comments, someone needs to enforce THESE rules, not make up new ones, so I guess I would like to add A rule, Rule 11: A bureaucrat or some admin who has some sense has the authority to enforce these rules on other admins by way of A ban or other such punishment. In regards to profanity, I've seen it get out of control, but yes why would someone be in chat or play the game(or be on nukipedia) if they couldn't handle cursing, but at the same time it doesn't need to ever get to A point of no control on what you're saying at someone or something. Rule 9 is A somewhat ill-advised rule; as long as the persons involved don't get to A point of bullying the minority position! These are pretty much my thoughts, at some point the admins themselves need some policing! :) (Wildwes7g7 (talk) 05:47, August 29, 2012 (UTC))
- Let me get something straight here: Our Administrators have never posted nudity in either our chat feature, nor our main article space. If they have, then please provide me with names and logs, and I will help take care of it. As for cursing, we do not need political correctness here. Political correctness is for people who can't handle the world around them, and I will never advocate it here. The truth of the matter is, using expletives is not a bad thing. Especially so on a mature wiki such as this one. Even using a generous amount of expletives is not a bad thing. The only time it is a bad thing, is if someone spams expletives, or uses them in a way to personally insult people. And we already do punish people who do this. I just wanted to get that straight here. Some Assembly Required! 07:35, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
- A bureaucrat or some admin who has some sense has the authority to enforce these rules on other admins by way of A ban or other such punishment.
- This already exists. The rules of chat apply to mods and admins just as much as they do anyone else. If you have a complaint about the behaviour of an admin, please address it to another admin, bureaucrat or moderator. Additionally the community can call for a reconfirmation request if unsatisfied with the response.
- Additionally, I must echo Leon's point on Porn. The one time I've been aware of an image that might be termed "soft core" porn being linked, it was by a regular user who received am immediate ban. Agent c (talk) 08:15, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
- If you have actual proof of instances you are describing above then please post them as they will be dealt with separately and according to existing policy. As far as I see it, our current chat mods are doing a good job in enforcing to rules so I'm afraid I can't quite see where you're coming from. --Skire (talk) 13:55, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
A question to the starter of this discussion: It seems like Rule 7 and Rule 9 have received the most controversy. Would there be a vote soon? If so, I would suggest we do not use the typical yes-no vote but rather the multiple selections option so that more than two possible amendments/modifications to a specific rule may be presented. --Skire (talk) 16:28, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
==Anti Bullying code==
There should be an anti bullying code in chat to prevent bullying of the other users, specially when it's from admins and mods. The rule against insults is not enough because sometimes bullying happens subtly and then it's even more damagin and traumatizing because the victim is labeled as paranoid and too sensitive. Mocking people in particular should never be allowed at any circumstance. Corniolio (talk) 03:39, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Most of the rules for the chat already address this. Moot statement. Message 03:43, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
- You have already started a forum up about this, and it was greatly rejected. So instead of letting you hijack this forum, I am now shutting down this thread. I am going to ask for no one to respond to this. If anyone would really like to talk about this subject, please leave your thougths on the proper forum page.