Forum:Player Stories

Archived discussion

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new thread.

Forums: Index → Community discussions → Player Stories | Post

Hey, I would like to talk about the player stories and why we Shouldn't of deleted them. Reason 1: We had more than 9,000 pages added together. Reason 2: If we set up a rule that you had to sign your posts with 4 tildes it might work and the one's unsigned should be deleted. Reason 3: People liked reading them and sometimes found it interesting and Users liked to write about them too! shame I didn't get to. Reason 4:It took too long to delete all of the Player stories by hand so we had to have Bot's to delete all player stories and that was wasting people's thought's on the game.

and those are the reasons so far. Devdevdev (talk) 11:27, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Well I guess my thoughts is....

1. What's done is done...really can't revert what everybody (consensus) voted on.
2. Signing posts really wouldn't change any thing at all.
3. I don't think anyone actually READ them. They've probably skimmed....
4. It took a while to pile up information for this wiki....so it'll take a while for bots to delete player stories....

I'm sorry but those were not really good reasons, to me of course. :/ Star-Talk 12:18, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

1. We're aiming for quality, not quantity. I'd rather have 900 very good articles than 9000 terrible articles.
2. We already had that rule and it was still broken - it became nearly impossible to moderate.
3. Okay...
4. Actually at the time, none of the bots were able to do an automated mass deletion process hence us asking Wikia staff to do it with a nuke script. My bot was upgraded since to support mass deletions but still.

Finally since you didn't make this clear when you created this thread, what is the purpose of this thread? What are you hoping to get out of it? I can only assume you want to propose that we re-introduce Player Stories to The Sims Wiki and on the offset, I don't support this based on the numerous issues we've had in the past. If however the community did want them reintroduced then I'll only show even a minimal sign of enthusiasm if we start on a clean slate rather than restore everything. Yes Abusefilter can regulate against profanity and whatnot but bearing in mind that wasn't the only issue, I can't see much hope the second time around unless we very carefully organise this.

tl;dr version: I'm against re-introducing Player Stories. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 17:58, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I support encouraging players to use the Fanon namespace to make stories regarding canon sims. I and a few others have made precedents, so I don't see why we need to reintroduce Player Stories, given that those in the Fanon namespace tend to be better.

There are good reasons to go for the Fanon namespace method over the Player Stories

1. The past Player Stories could be edited by anonymous users: This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is far easier to notify named users, and only named users can contribute to Fanon namespace, at least indefinitely.
2. Like Lab said, there were like 1000+ pages just for player stories. It is very difficult to watch every single one of them, and recent activities aren't going to cut it when 100s of people make stories in a short frame fo time. This is an exaggerated scenario, but if there were like 20+ edits in say 10 minutes, it would be difficult for admins to monitor it.
3. Quality: as mentioned, the stories in Player Stories tend to be far poorer in quality than those of the Fanon namespace. Sure, there may be good stories in the pile, but users that contributed such good stories tend to care more for the story, hence they are the ones more likely to be in the Fanon Namespace, and have more incentives to move their stories to the Fanon Namespace. None have happened, which isn't saying that they didn't care, but it is very likely that very few of those contributors take note of the news and changes in policy. Additionally, it also creates a wall of "quality pressure:" I for one also wrote a short player story for Cycl0n3 Sw0rd and Thornton Wolff: however, I didn't get enough interactions and visible stuff out of the latter that I simply didn't bother to recreate the Thornton Wolff page, given that I deemed that I didn't have enough outstanding material to constitute a page, while I had enough material for Cycl0n3 Sw0rd to deem that he deserved his own fanon page. I'd think the Player Stories page is a easy way in, and on the long run not worth the trouble of monintoring torrent of low quality material that results. And this isn't an inclusive thing either: if one wants to participate, simply make an account and make a page. It's not too difficult to do, nor does it restrict any enthusiastic player with a decent story from contributing.

tl;dr: Frankly the usage of Fanon namespace to handle this is just way better for moderation and quality. I also am in agreement with Star and Lab, as the registration requirement allows it to be a very good method of separating the wheat from the chaff.

MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 18:13, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

lel no we're not getting them back, they were a nightmare to moderate. Plus what the other guys said. ―ฬђ ^talk 22:18, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Going along and fully agreeing with the folks above me. There were a lot of good reasons why we deleted the stories, and un-deleting them would be a huge mistake. The number of articles our wiki has is pointless if the articles aren't good, and most of the player stories were atrocious. They're gone and they should stay gone. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 22:28, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Look, Dev, as a fellow Wikian, I appreciate your concern about player stories. But the thing is, Player Stories are a hassle. Having everyone sign their posts would help, because of we run into profanity we can eradicate it. I also agree with Lab that Abusefilter would in some way help. B it what happens when users start getting cocky, or when a Wikia Contributor argues that this is their first edit, and that they have never been on another Wiki before? Player stories DID increase the page count, but as LiR pointed out, the Wiki is based upon quality, and not quantity. Player Stories were difficult, and eventually spiraled out of control. I think we should all agree that Player Stories are, and should stay, gone. PGR7 ^{(parler - entendre)} 03:11, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I was just showing what had happened to them, I barely edit them anyway and I do not care that they have been deleted that much but I know some people have been concerned about Player Stories and have missed them, but there gone now as not very much people read them. Plus a lot of work would be needed to do player stories for the Supernatural Sims. -- DevlyHallows ~ (Inform me here)

Closed - Given that there was no desire for anything to come out of this discussion (as even admitted by the original poster) besides everything being further summarised and answered, there is no reason for this particular thread to remain active. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 15:57, December 2, 2012 (UTC)