User talk:Famine/Rules

Comments?

I think this has promise, but I think I see clearly now David Gerard's vision of less-is-more. Where is the balance between "not enough info to know wtf they are talking about" and "doesn't require that many words to explain"?

I've also mulled the cluefull vs the clueless over for the last day or so. We've spent a lot of time working with the clueless, and it's starting to drag the spirits of the Admins down. While we've had some successes, for the most part it's just been an excercise in futility. I think it's time to try being hard-assed bastards, to see how that works. It would be nice to remove some of the large quantity of shit from this website, and prevent the shittification which has been happening over the last 9 months or so.

Anyway, I trimmed this down a little, but I feel that we do need to point out the job of admins, and make it known that there are consequences to these rules. How much less do we need? Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 18:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

NRV is the greatest tag ever. Noticed how the article count isn't actually going up that fast any more, but the average content seems to be improving? - David Gerard 09:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I already owe beers to those responsible for it. Really, really a nifty tool, and I agree that we're already seeing its potential to make this website less crappy. It seems that we've hit some growing pains in the last few months, and I'll be glad to see the other side of them. But NRV has the potential to really help out, as do our current crop of admins, after we finish up with this bout of PMS and get our shit in order. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 23:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)