User blog:Emeraldblade95/PG Permission

Hi everyone, Happy [Belated] New Year and Happy [Belated] Lunar New Year!

I hope everyone's doing well now that everyone has settled into 2020 so far. It's becoming clear that Pure Good Proposals are becoming a rising trend on this wiki, but even with various rules put into place, abuse continues to appear from time to time. Following |a recent post on our sister wiki, new changes will be made starting this month to help control the flow with Pure Good Proposals.

 The Following Rules will take effect as of Now: 

New Requisites to Make and Vote on PG Proposals
Initially, there was no minimum requirement to vote or create proposals on this site, but due to the number of users with low edit counts voting in proposals and in some cases, accounts created only to create and vote on Pure Good Proposals, the issue is starting to become problematic. To counter this, only users with at least 100+ edits and at least one month's worth of activity will be permitted to vote, and only users under a Special List of Permissions will be able to create Pure Good Proposals and Removals. The users listed in the list are the ones that trusted to make proposals but that does not mean they cannot be removed if they get themselves involved in trouble. This is all to reduce the number of spam PG proposals that has been growing over from users that commit Edit Spam to increase their number of edits so they can make PG proposals without consequences.

In a way, this is a sort of "watered-down" version of Villain's Wiki's requirements for voting in and creating PE Proposals, but I felt this needed to be put into play to counter users who are unfamiliar with how Pure Good Proposals work.

Punishment

 * Asking admins to add your name in the list WILL result in a week ban, with no exceptions. If you continue to insist, the ban will increase naturally.


 * Edit spam to increase your votes will obviously result in a ban depending on her many times you did it.


 * If you are in the list and get yourself blocked for PG abuse, votes with weak justification, trolling, spamming, harassment or any other deed that will get yourself banned, your name WILL be removed from the list.

No more Pure Good Lineup Posts
Due to the overall stable flow of PG Proposals in recent months (as well as the fact that some users from other wikis getting notifications from here), I feel that it is time to end the Pure Good Lineup Posts on the Announcement board, and revert back to the original method of simply watching out for PG Proposals and posting them every two days.

Please remember however that users still can only have one proposal up every two days (unless they are extended).

Changes to Pure Good Content
Starting this Month, new measures will be put into place to help control the flow of PG Proposals:


 * 1) Knowledge: While this isn't as serious of an issue as Villain's Wiki, we still need to take a stand against the shameful attempt to rack up support votes simply because a hero is "nice" or "friendly" at first glance.  It is IMPERATIVE  that the nominator does their own research in the work has a decent amount of knowledge of both the character and the series in question before and while creating a PG Proposal.  Writing a proposal with the lack of knowledge will be considered inaccurate, and if such lack of knowledge is shown, the proposal will be deleted on sight, no exceptions.  Users caught with isolated cases will be given a warning, but if repeated more than three times, they will receive a one week block, which will grow naturally if further repeated.


 * 1) Copy-Pasting:  Another issue that's becoming noticeable in Pure Good Proposals that more or less ties in with the aforementioned rule is that some users (most notably The Crazy Terror) are copying and pasting large quantities of information from articles onto Pure Good Proposals.  This is not acceptable, as this is seen as a method to quickly post Pure Good Proposals without putting in a lot of effort.  This action is seen as both lazy and in a way as a way of showing that one is not wholly aware of a character's/series' plot line, background, and actions.  Users caught doing this will be warned and have their proposal deleted, and if repeated three times, they will receive a one week block, which will grow naturally if further repeated.


 * 1) False Information/Flanderization: While not as serious of an issue, it is still noteworthy that the spread of misinformation and exaggeration about a hero on a Pure Good Proposal by purposely leaving out corrupting factors to help rack up support votes is not only forbidden, but is also considered dishonest.  The Corrupting Factors section is ESSENTIAL, and unless there are no actual corrupting factors, anything flawed about a character MUST be stated, even if it does end up leading to users voting against a proposal.  Users caught doing this will be blocked for up to a week, which will grow naturally if further repeated.

Also Keep In Mind:

 * Characters from Religions (such as God and Zeus) are NOT ALLOWED in Pure Good Proposals due to the fact that there are multiple adaptions of the character.


 * Organizations (e.g. the Hellsing Organization) and Species (such as Angels) are also NOT ALLOWED in Pure Good Proposals due to the vast variety of individual personalities and migrating factors among each of their members.

Update in Voting
Months ago, we removed the simple yes/no or cut/keep system and considered it invalid and that users must now have a legitimate reason for why they support or oppose a nomination, but even then, some users still have the tendency of doing this, or even giving vague reasons such as "Yes, because he/she is nice and kind", or "Keep, because I like him/her". To counter this the  Reasons for Vote  rule will be updated from:


 *  Reasons for Vote : Simple yes/no votes will be invalid for lacking real context or proof the user actually read the proposal to come to a solid conclusion. Anyone, including veteran users, MUST put a reason for their votes.

to:


 *  Reasons for Vote : Simple yes/no votes will be invalid for lacking real context or proof the user actually read the proposal to come to a solid conclusion. All justifications need to be given or why and how the villain qualifies as a PG in a work. Comparing them with other heroes' actions in the work, judging their actions in the Admirable Standard of the work, what make them unique in the story and how they are knowledge in this world as an "pure hero" are the most basic principles of judging a hero as a Pure Good character. Anyone, including veteran users, MUST put a reason for their votes.

Lazy votes will be considered invalid, no exceptions.

Punishment
If a user continues to write lazy and weak votes with acceptable justification in the commentary section of PG proposals, their names will be put in a Black List of the admins. Their name will be removed from the list once they learn how to write proper votes following their punishment listed below:


 * If the user wrote more than 3 weak votes, they will be banned from the PG proposals' commentary section for 3+ days;


 * If they wrote 10+ weak votes, they will be banished from the PG proposals for a week;


 * If they insist, then they will be banned not only from the PG proposals but from the wiki for a month. If they persist, the ban will increase naturally as well.

If you have any questions, let me or another Administrator know in the comments section.

Thank you, and have a nice day.