Talk:Age Restriction
Contents
Citing information
In relation to the following edit: http://archive.mfgg.net/wiki/index.php?title=Age_Restriction&oldid=12068 "Responding to a topic where many expressed concern that many active members would be banned as a result, Joey advised the members to edit their birthdates out of their profiles stating that moderators would be unable to ban them if they did not know their age."
Sources: http://archive.mfgg.net/index.php?showtopic=186382&view=findpost&p=2497650 http://archive.mfgg.net/index.php?showtopic=186382&view=findpost&p=2497970
-SonicProject 06:45, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
added reference in the article
-Draco Icebane 16:18, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
This is not factual, because he never advised anyone to edit out their birthdays - all he said was that people couldn't get in trouble for being underage without their age being known (which is practically true by definition), which does not of necessity imply that he wanted people to hide anything that they'd been open about before.
You may think that's what he implied, but judging from his message along with his edit, it really wasn't. I expect what he was meaning to say was merely that if people never put their birthdays IN THE FIRST PLACE and act like they're older, they wouldn't get in trouble concerning age because they couldn't possibly, and not that people should be dishonest and cover up what was previously there.
Also, it may be that the way he expressed it does appear to make it be such advice as you describe, but that doesn't mean he meant it that way. His posts were not a rephrased version of "edit out your birthdates so you won't get caught", so he wasn't literally saying it. If anything, it would have been an implication, and one can't judge what he intended to imply, so one can't say that was what he was "really saying".
At any rate, the controversial bit of the article isn't necessary to the article regardless, and removal of it won't falsify the article at all, so I'm removing it again; and attempts to keep trying to put it back in just because of some sort of "power struggle" would not be very mature.
-Grant
Putting it back in with a technical rewording that better fits Joey's post.
Oh, and MFGG is anything but mature ;)
-Draco Icebane 17:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
PS
Isn't reverting articles the wiki admins' job anyway? -SonicProject 17:45, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
No, anyone can do it.
-Joey
Protected
Because SP can't get it through his skull that he's completely misunderstanding what I posted and keeps referencing it in an effort to make me look bad. I am not unprotecting it.
So why don't you make it clear what you did post? The misunderstanding is your fault (your wording) and what I said had nothing to do with opinion except for the initial paragraph where I stated that your actions had made the age restriction pointless (which was not present in the revised edit I did and for some ridiculous reason, you still took offense to it). Nor did it make you look bad. Paranoia is never a good thing. The excerpt wasn't "raging" against you either, as I hear you have said that it did.
The information was based upon what you stated. It may not be what you mean but it is what you said. Are you just beyond correcting yourself or just making clear your points? I don't think shutting people up and ignoring it is going to make you look any better than what you are often accused. And that goes for everything. Not just on the wiki. -SonicProject 16:05, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
Hey Pal
Mind telling everybody what the **** you mean then?
Because "lol we can't ban you if we don't know your age" over and over in response to complaints about active members possibly getting banned doesn't sound to me like it can be anything else but "hey guys, omit/change your birthdays and shut up".
Omitting true, necessary information from articles in an effort to make yourself look good is dirty. Maybe you should have worded your posts better. Ain't my fault you didn't. -SonicProject 18:04, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
"True, necessary information"? It's not necessary at all. The article could indeed be considered complete without it; what Joey (actually) said was just an obvious truth (that people can't get underage bans if they aren't known to be underage), and I don't see how statements of obvious truths could have such an integral place in the matter of the age restriction.
Nor is it true. Once again, (1) he said something that is not a paraphrase of what you're putting in his mouth, but just something that you consider implies what you described, and (2) he clearly didn't mean to imply what you consider that his posts implied. -Grant
Whoops, I guess I should have just let the subject drop. My bad.
I hadn't yet seen the post(s) on the forums saying that the discussion should be closed. :X
Discussion here is fine; Discussion on the forums is off.
-Joey
ok
sp getting even more excited about this does absolutely nothing to help the situation
-Draco Icebane 18:05, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
I am confused. -GeneralGuy
When I know I'm right and somebody shushes me and tells me I'm not, yeah I get a little excited. -SonicProject 18:08, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
