- 1 Assuming good faith
- 2 Abiding with privacy
- 3 Acting with civility
- 4 Avoiding drama when possible
- 5 Acting with morality
- 6 Concluding remarks
This page serves as a supplement to the policy page and is dedicated to further elaborate on how users are expected to act while serving as a member of the community.
Assuming good faith
This is the assumption that all editor’s edits and comments were made in good faith - most people who join the wiki try their best to help the wiki and not hurt it. If this were untrue, then CCSW would not be where it is today. Everyone makes mistakes, and most of the time, this can be corrected with a polite warning. It is especially important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with the more complex regulations of CCSW but may become one of the most prominent contributors here. By “biting them,” they would be scared off, resulting in a huge loss in potential contributions. Many new users who initially lack the knowledge of CCSW’s policies and regulations soon will learn what is needed, but it requires proper guidance and a gentle guiding hand.
Administrators especially need to assume good faith when dealing with other users and their edits. If something is incorrect, attempt to fix it. If the edit needs to be undone, politely explain what was incorrect in an edit summary and help them improve their practices. Encourage others to assume good faith by showing that you are willing to work with others, even if disagreements occur.
In the case that a user is acting bad faith (such as showing little to no care in attempting to learn the rules and regulations), do not return the behaviour by fighting fire with fire and respond with bad faith. In general, it is easier to moderate and maintain a neutral point of view if one side is able to diffuse a situation.
Attempting to game the system by deliberately using this rule to disrupt the atmosphere simply for retribution and attempt to get away with it is indeed not good faith.
Abiding with privacy
- Users are allowed to use userpages for whatever they please, as long as it is in accordance to policy, does not offend others, and is not controversial. Generally, this space is used to let others get to know about each other, such as level progress, country of origin, and wiki background.
- It is not allowed to plagiarize userpages, including text or formatting, without permission from the original author. In such cases where permissions are granted, a source linking to the main userpage should be linked for attributions and courtesy.
- For safety purposes, no one should not reveal any of their own personal information. This includes but is not limited to personal photos, home addresses, credit card numbers, and social security numbers. In addition, no one is allowed to force others to reveal personal information that they may be uncomfortable sharing or disclose other users’ info.
- Because a userpage is one's free creative space, no one should edit other people's userpages, even for typos and grammatical errors, unless the page is in severe violation of the rules or the user requests others to edit (proof of this may be asked).
Acting with civility
Along the lines of assuming good faith, editors should always treat each other with respect and behave calmly while working together for a greater good. That being said, working with many people can result in disagreements in the workplace, as no one person will ever think like another at every point in time. “Faceless” words on comments and talk pages along with different levels of English fluency can also lead to misinterpretation. Thus, a sarcastic post can raise heated and spirited arguments on both sides - resulting in conversations that can derail the project and undermine the conducive working environment.
All editors are expected to treat others as they would treat their colleagues in real life: abide by the rules to the best of their ability, refrain from attacking other users, and help others in good faith rather than turning them away.
In order to avoid incivility, especially when it seems like tensions are rising, both sides are encouraged to do the following:
- It is okay to sincerely apologize for wrongdoing. These words, although not said frequently in real life, do not hurt you. Never be too proud when it comes to those two famous words.
- If the dispute is regarded to mainspace or related pages, refrain from edit warring. Users are not allowed to revert edits more than three times in a row. When such a case happens, both sides need to initiate a conversation and work out any differences.
- Keep all discussion on one thread and one platform. All new threads other than the original ones will be closed or deleted.
- Do not be a bully. Before posting a thread, think about how you would feel if someone said the same exact thing to you.
- Do not edit or engage if you are in a bad mood or under any influence. Goes without saying, but these things do rub off on others.
- Do not be discouraged, and do not lash out at users if you run into conflicts during your first days of editing. When you begin, it is very likely that users will edit pages right after you to fix formatting and try to steer you in the right direction. They are fixing your edts and trying to help, just as how you are fixing the edits of all previous contributors.
- Avoid ridiculing others and condescension. No matter how frustrating things get, these only heighten drama and do not serve any role in diffusing a situation.
- Remain calm, and be prepared to turn down the heat on your own end. In general, if one side remains calm, the other side will begin to cool off too.
- Be especially careful when writing in edit summaries, as they are (1) much shorter than usual messages and can be easily misinterpreted and (2) cannot be revised after it is published.
- Do not bring up previously resolved issues that have already been worked out.
The following quotes were written by a former wise administrator, Imamadmad, in 2016, which are worth remembering and bearing in mind:
- If you are going to accuse somebody of using offensive language, do not use equally offensive language in your accusations. Do not use attacking language towards other users, and don't use hyperbole to throw situations way out of proportion.
- [Users must] keep [their] language calm...and must never break the rules by making personal attacks on another user. Please remember that it is the action, not the person that we should be condemning when things go wrong.
- To anyone wishing to point out fault to another user: if you have an accusation to make, back it up immediately with evidence. Link to the problem page, quote the text you think was wrong, and then explain why you thought it was wrong. Especially in the case with alleged insults, people's ideas of acceptable content differ wildly, especially when you throw unfamiliarity with the English language into the mix. Calmly explaining the words you think are inappropriate and why they are inappropriate is much more helpful to all parties than shouting.
- This is especially true when the supposed victim is one of your friends; by having to explain why the words are wrong, you may just discover that they aren't actually that bad and that protective feelings towards your friend just make them seem worse than they actually are.
- If a user did do something wrong, try and give some sort of advice on what they should have done instead so they can avoid trouble in the future.
Avoiding drama when possible
We’ve all been there. If you lock even two best friends in the same room and ask them to spend a couple months together (with suitable living conditions, of course), they are bound to fight at some point. In most cases, there is a fallout, a few days or arguing, and then forgiveness.
But multiply the number of people by a factor of at least five to ten thousand with a duration much longer than a month. Some people will get along almost instantly, while others may not get along as well, taking advantage of policies that favor them, such as good faith. Most of CCSW’s community success is credited to it being open to any Candy Crush fans who seek a group of virtual friends to spend some time with. However, unfortunately, this type of community also attracts people (potentially those who have evaded indefinite bans) who use the platform to exploit situations and promote unnecessary conflicts and arguments.
The goal of drama is to intentionally exaggerate conflicts, divide the community in order to gain support for a cause, or serve a goal such as driving away editors. While CCSW is mainly for enjoyment, dramamongers can easily take advantage of the nature of forums, message walls, Discord, mainspace and good faith to incite the community and begin flame wars. The dedicated dramamonger will generally then try every way to score points with the users around them (including staff members) and polarize the community. When facing such a drama, effort then will be needed by all users to repeatedly enforce community policies. In a community that cannot respond to conflict in an efficient manner, many people can start to leave, leading to the deterioration of CCSW.
It is the goal of everyone to put an end to the situation as quickly as possible while also keeping in mind not to feed the trolls and act like a jerk in the process. Dramamongers strive to divide and test the waters continuously until they're sure the community is a “house that is not divided amongst itself.” Then and only then they will leave.
Challenge the behavior of the dramamongers, not their actual comments. Ask them point blank if they have noticed any problem with their communication. If they try to spread the dispute, ask them what they are benefitting from doing so. If they make fun of your facts, ask them what was factually incorrect with what you presented. Cite exactly what part of the statement you're referring to. And most importantly, do not post if your message has no intention in calming a situation down. Posting a meme of someone eating popcorn, for instance, does absolutely nothing to improve the situation in any way and only draws more attention to the situation, becoming a part of the problem. Many times, getting to the root of the issue will unite the community, help the drama fall apart, and force the instigator to leave.
If you can't think of a way to dissolve a conflict without producing more drama, just sign off the night. You might have a better idea on how to phrase things tomorrow, and by then it is very likely that someone will have already helped diffuse the situation. As Wikipedia famously states, "Not every stupidity requires an immediate answer; not every conspiracy theory needs immediate refutation; not every accusation requires a defense; and not every loud voice needs any more attention than does the barking of the neighbor's dog."
Not waiting for it to go away
It won’t, sorry.
Not thinking it is a big deal
Cuz it is.
Not emotionally investing too much in the situation
Regardless what happens, do not succumb to nihilism and immediately reconsider your emotional investment. It may be common sense, but it is important to know to log off immediately/seek local help if your mental state ever becomes unstable or you are ever contemplating any self harm from the drama at hand. Always remember that how some internet strangers perceive you mean absolutely nothing compared to how you perceive yourself. The "faceless person" only trolls because they get the protection of hiding behind a screen - and that makes them a coward. The fight is most likely not worth your time and emotional energy, so call it quits as soon as possible.
Not downplaying the situation
Many of us spend multiple hours on Discord, CCSW, and CCS per day. With the amount of online friends you make that is not possible in real life, it is more than that for most people here.
Acting with morality
The following section is generally how one bureaucrat, 3primetime3, views how wiki affairs generally work, especially when an action in question has not been covered by the main rules. This is not the only way morals can be judged but can be used as a guide.
While Kantian philosophy is generally flawed when studied thoroughly, the wiki and its users abide by a heavily simplified version of two of his philosophies: the formula of universal law (FUL) and the Formula of Humanity (FOH).
Formula of universal law
FUL states that an action is considered moral if it can be made a universal of nature and that it is immoral if it cannot.
How does this apply? In general, before performing an action on this wiki, think about the following three steps:
- Consider the action you want to perform (also known as the maxim).
- Think about what would happen if the maxim would be a part of nature, and if everyone regularly performs this action.
- Check to see if any contradictions occur. If this action can generally be willed as a principle of action for all, then you are in the clear. If not, then it is best to reconsider your plan.
For example, let’s take a basic example that fails FUL. Say you are not sure whether or not to lie to a message directed toward you. If you considered lying as a universal law of nature, where everyone lied, then the purpose of lying in the first place would cease to exist because no one would believe each other. The reason one would tell a lie in the first place would be if everyone else acted truthfully. Because performing will only work if everyone else acted truthfully, then it would be immoral to “will” upon this action.
Formula of humanity
What is unique about the human will is that it allows us to think and choose as it pleases. The FOH tells us that all people should never treat others in a way that would restrict the uniqueness of their human will. Or that people should not treat another only as a means for something else.
This basically boils down to consent and treating others as rational beings.
For example, let’s take an example and apply FUL. Say an administrator requests a user to perform edits within a certain space to jumpstart a project. If they consent and agree, then they have co-reasoned with the administrator and become a willing participant. However, if the admin threatens to block the user if the participant does not comply, then this strips the user of its ability to co-reason and utilize their will. In this case, the admin used their rationality as a means for their own self interest, which is morally incorrect.
The desire to perform an action always comes in the form of “commands” or “imperatives,” and users will have to choose whether or not to follow them. In the most general case, users are encouraged to perform actions that are good-willing (unconditionally good in itself - “from duty”) rather than actions that are not (only through self-interest - “according to duty”). To simplify, there are generally two classifications of imperatives, the hypothetical and categorical:
- We ought to do X because we want Y, and
- We ought to do X regardless of Y.
Performing actions in accordance with the second bullet point is the only way that the wiki can function - all of us must work together with a moral obligation, even if it is not in our favor.
Occasionally, the wiki and its users will run into circumstances where this simplified version of Kantian philosophy may not apply, and the checks to tell that an action is acceptable can get quite controversial. In such cases, it is important to get the opinion of as many others as possible (with an emphasis on staff members) in order to ensure that as many voices are heard in this decision. The opinion of many supersedes the opinion of the one.
If you have gotten to the end of the page, congratulations! You should notice from reading that most policy bears repeating multiple times and is generally straightforward. If there are any questions related to policy or any suggestions, please contact an active bureaucrat, and they should get to you as soon as possible.
- Return to Candy Crush Saga Wiki:Policy