Forum:Improving NFW

Preliminary discussions
Just like what we're doing at Bleach Fan Fiction, let's discuss what should be done in order to improve this wiki. To start, this wiki is plagued with poor quality works due to its popularity with younger and less experienced writers. What would the rest of you suggest in order to minimalize this shortcoming? --れび (talk to Lavi!) 17:55, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that a few well written articles should be used as a model for the new users to read and see how to properly format their own articles. In this way they can start off on a good foot instead of the usual bad one.-- 楽しい Kiryu's Eternal Eyes.png (talk to Fenix!) 18:10, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fenix 100%! Some articles like Ryu Uchiha or Reiko Himegami should be used to show good, detailed, and revised articles.  무극  (talk to Joker!) 20:24, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can agree, but I offer a step one further, one similar to what we suggested on BFF; a Featured Article. This would demonstrate to all users what high quality articles look like. Unlike on BFF, NF has managed to successfully keep the FA process going for long periods of time, so it wouldn't take too long to get that up and running. I suggested it once, but I think it needs to be discussed in detail here; an abolishing of the godmodding policy should also improve the writing on this site. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 23:30, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel that the NF FAs really did not show much of a quality standard: I have absolutely no idea how the FAs on this wiki were selected. However, it was due to the dedication to the wiki that allowed the FAs to be constantly updated. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 02:54, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been a lot of different systems, I believe. I think that we could get better FAs, and update frequently, if we try. I suggest we use a vote between admins (simply because admins are more likely to be able to discern what constitutes an exemplary article).--User:Thepantheon 03:07, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel that is fair enough. Admins should know what to expect as far as featured articles go. Votes are how it was done in the past on Naruto Fanon Wiki:Featured Article. We would need to update the qualifications, but I think it should work well enough. This wiki certainly has dedicated users, and with enough help, I'm sure that NF won't go down the drains again. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 03:26, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that requirements should include that the article have good spelling/grammar, and a proper infobox. In my opinion, proper formatting and grammar/spelling is something that this wiki needs that could be improved a lot simply by showing a good example, so we should take advantage of that with the FAs. --User:Thepantheon 03:46, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Content is just as important as visual aesthetics, though I would say that it be more of an unwritten rule, or else members would just be sucking up to the people in charge instead of focusing on writing something fun to read. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 15:57, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrat Limitation

 * Panth brought this to my attention; a few of the admins here (namely Kurosaki and ANBU) are inactive, and seem that they won't be returning. As such, they should be stripped of their B'crat status (Ask Uberfuzzy about doing it), but keep their admin rights. Now, here's the idea me and Panth discussed. How 'bout we have two B'crats (Kind of like Head Admin, but at the same time, not), while the others are just normal Admins. We have six B'crats who are active on NF right now, and that isn't really necessary. So, I think we should put it to a vote on which two Admins remain or become B'crats. My vote is Lavi (As he's the creator of NF) and Ten (As he is the driving force of this "rebirth" as I like to call it). Anyone oppose?  무극  (talk to Joker!) 00:43, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * You have no opposition from me. I actually brought this up awhile ago but no one really liked it. We have a ridiculous amount of admins/bcrats on this site. Limiting bcrats to 2 is an excellent idea, since they are the ones that need to approve new bcrats. If we have too many of them, then we have issues with people promoting users to bcrat without a real reason and that can be a problem. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 01:21, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, somewhat. Considering we've had several hacking issues in the past, with my account, and even Kou's, it wouldn't be wise to limit the Bureaucrats. Should, let's say, Lavi's account go under seige, and Ten's absent, the hacker will have free reign and no admin would be able to stop him. Bureaucrats can demote Admins, but not other Bureaucrats. We should have two more as back-ups, or even one at least. Also, this is gonna sound very arrogant of me, but if I'm not mistaken, Ten was ready to give up on this place until I persuaded him with my own decision to rejoin the workforce here (I may be wrong, but I'm HIV positive on this). >_> So thanks Kou, for not mentioning me at all. That's nice to know my actions go unnoticed. --Seireitou-shishō (My True Identity 01:32, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Sei, perhaps have a backup account with a different password that the bcrats can use in case of emergency? Also, the main resort in case of hacking would likely be calling in Wikia, no matter whether we had a bcrat or not. And I'd like to mention that as Kou isn't very active on BFF, especially with the "rebirth" here, he probably didn't notice your talking to Ten. I put my vote in for Lav and Ten. Sei, you'd be a third choice, but I think that just since Ten is doing a large amount of the renovation, as it were, it makes sense for him to have the spot. No offense to you. --User:Thepantheon 01:39, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sei's right. He did convince me to give this place a second chance. Something I jumped on. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 01:39, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh no, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I should be chosen in lieu of Ten and Lavi; especially with my upcoming Taekwondo importance and stuff, and luckily, I can still help on NF and BFF. By all means, I firmly believe that if two should be chosen, it should be those two. The thing is, I believe giving credit where credit is due. Like I said, I know it's arrogant. I'm not perfect, and I can be selfish sometimes. I don't appreciate nobody even mentioning any of the effort I put into some of the renovations we attempt. Anyways, I'm sorry for the selfishness of the statement; it's just who I am. --Seireitou-shishō [[File:Seireitou's signature picture.jpg]] (My True Identity 01:52, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Sei. I haven't been very active on BFF since this week began, so I didn't know that you encouraged Ten to come back. Thank you. :D Now, as for a third "back-up", I'm split between Sei and Fenix. Yesh, Sei is a senior member and a very good one at that, but Fenix has been more active around NF. Well, that's my final thought on the matter.  무극  (talk to Joker!) 12:55, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

So, it seems like there is a lot of support for limiting bureaucrats. I'm gonna put up a vote, since this topic has wound down. --User:Thepantheon 22:29, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Since the discussion has been stagnant for a while, with the exception of Tak who just voted, I took the liberty of closing this vote, and opening another for who should take the two spots. --'''User:Thepantheon 02:56, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Vote

 * Let's vote for the above discussion. If you support limiting bureaucrats, then vote support, and put your vote in either the "2" or "3" section, depending on how many you think they should be limited to. Votes in both of those sub-sections will be counted for support. If you oppose limiting bureaucrats altogether, then vote oppose.
 * A separate section will be made to vote on who should fill the spots, if this limitation idea is passed. Do not vote for it here.

Support

 * 1) --Seireitou-shishō [[File:Seireitou's signature picture.jpg]] (My True Identity 18:23, November 6, 2010 (UTC) (Note: I honestly find no difference in the matter, so I do support the limitation, but I don't care whether it's two or three.)

Limit them to Two

 * 1) --User:Thepantheon 22:29, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 22:30, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) ~ NOTASTAFF Koukishi (Ultimate Chaos, Chōmyaku) (talk) 15:19, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) --Takeshi (Talk here) 18:28, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Limit them to Three

 * 1) --れび (talk to Lavi!) 23:50, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) -- 楽しい Kiryu's Eternal Eyes.png (talk to Fenix!) 23:59, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) ---Fah

Vote on Bcrats

 * Let's vote for the above discussion. If you support an admin occupying one of the two bcrat spots, put your signature under their heading. We will not be having negative votes, unless people see a specific need for it, so it shall simply be whichever two get the most votes.

Kou

 * 1) --'''User:Thepantheon 02:56, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) -- 楽しい Kiryu's Eternal Eyes.png (talk to Fenix!) 02:57, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) ~ NOTASTAFF Koukishi (Ultimate Chaos, Chōmyaku) (talk) 04:15, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Takeshi (Talk here) 04:39, November 7, 2010 (UTC) (Note: I'm only voting once because otherwise my votes would get us nowhere)

Sei

 * 1) --'''User:Thepantheon 02:56, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) -- 楽しい Kiryu's Eternal Eyes.png (talk to Fenix!) 02:57, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 03:40, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) ~ NOTASTAFF Koukishi (Ultimate Chaos, Chōmyaku) (talk) 04:15, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Ten

 * 1) --Seireitou-shishō [[File:Seireitou's signature picture.jpg]] (My True Identity 03:00, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 03:39, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Fahuem 03:43, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Lavi

 * 1) Fahuem 03:43, November 7, 2010 (UTC)--Fahuem 03:43, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Panth

 * 1) --Seireitou-shishō [[File:Seireitou's signature picture.jpg]] (My True Identity 03:00, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comments
If there are no other admins, I believe that Sei and I will be the B'crats for NF. ~ NOTASTAFF Koukishi (Ultimate Chaos, Chōmyaku) (talk) 15:19, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Sharingan Issue
Alright, I believe I should split the discussions from here now. I, honestly, don't care for the idea of multiple universes. That shouldn't be justification for millions of Uchiha, and Sharingan users, running around. NF is formally, and primarily, a fanon, meaning we need to adhere to canon. It was stated several times that Itachi and Madara killed off all of the Uchiha except for Sasuke. Now, I agree that there is holes in that; they could have been on missions, or weren't in the village, or were rogues at the time of the massacre. However, I don't believe that people should have millions of Sharingan running around here. Before, we limited each user to two Sharingan and/or Uchiha maximum, but that was a bust; some admins were manipulating the numbers for their own gain. Therefore, I set forth this proposal. We assign admins to categorize all current active Uchiha on this site, and delete all Uchiha and/or Sharingan-using pages that are no longer applicable. In the meantime, we close all Uchiha allowance until we finish this. From there, we can all vote on a concrete set of rules regarding this. I understand that not everybody here RP's, but we are first and foremost, an RP wikia. There needs to be some sort of rule. Now, my proposal will be different because it doesn't just apply to Uchiha, but all things that were stated in Naruto to be destroyed or rare. For example, Rinnegan was said to be very rare. We still aren't sure if there are two. Madara claims that Nagato's eye was his. For all we know, maybe that eye is Rokudou's eye. We don't know. So, in the meantime, I propose we ban all access to new Sharingans and Uchihas until all current ones are accounted for. From there, we (Administration) shall decide on a firm set of rules that will not be manipulated or changed. I hate to say it, but yes, we need an NF Constitution. --Seireitou-shishō (My True Identity 17:46, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Sei, There needs to be a list of all Uchiha/Sharingan users here on NF and a constitution rather than the policies we currently have.-- 楽しい Kiryu's Eternal Eyes.png (talk to Fenix!) 18:08, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I generally believe in following the canon, which would be a strict "no-Sharingan" policy. However, for users who need an Uchiha as part of their backstory, that lived and died before or during the massacre, that is fine. They should be able to create Uchiha as long as they're already dead (either pre or post Massacre) and cannot be used in a roleplay unless the roleplay takes place before the massacre. This is possible, for example, a majority of Lavi's stories take place before the massacre or before the canon events. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 18:41, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should limit Uchiha based on canon precedent. However, I do agree with Ten that anything done before the massacre is fine. I say that, as Sei said, we lock down Uchiha/Sharingan allowance while we count up Sharingan/Uchiha, and set a limit. Also, I propose that we make all Uchiha/Sharingan users tag their articles in an appropriate category. As to Rinnegan, as it seems to be an eye that heavily influences events, it does make sense that some users would have one to play an important part in their story. However, I think that it should be definitely limited to one per user, and perhaps admin permission, or a simple policy of maybe no Rinnegan RP usage outside of the story in which it was created to play an important role in? I realize that last one might be a bit iffy, but the other two are very plausible, in my opinion, and I'm just putting stuff on the table. --User:Thepantheon 18:48, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * One last thing I want to point out, Sei. I realize that the idea of everyone having their own universe is a bit of a headache, but I think we all know what happens when you try to put everyone into a site wide continuality. Everyone should have the right to create their own fanons without having to worry about intruding on others or feeling like they can't express themselves without having to constantly rely on admin permissions and a bunch of regulations. Make a general list of rules and leave "admin consent" out of it. Number one, its too much work for the admins to do; their job is to maintain the site and make sure that things are properly categorized, grammar is correct, and problem users are blocked. Number two, its a pain in the butt for users to have to ask admins and then wait several days for a proper responce when they want to get their stories underway. I, in no way, support an "admin consent" system. If we vote to implement one, I say that all admins have to answer to the two bcrats that are in charge and have to ask them for permission. That way admins can't just galavand everywhere saying who can and can't create something while they create whatever they want. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 19:02, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * As soon as you mentioned that, Ten, I realized I'd completely forgotten that loophole. Yes, normal users would have to get permission from admins, and admins would have to get permission from a bcrat, and the bcrat would have to get permission from the other bcrat, I suppose, or else maybe two or three normal admins? We can't have admins giving themselves permission, of course. --User:Thepantheon 19:07, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with all the points made on this issue, especially the Uchiga/Sharingan order. Since what I wanted to say on this matter has already been said, I purpose a vote.  무극  (talk to Joker!) 22:04, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the limiting Sharingan/Uchiha actually. Everyone is entitled to have their own universes if they want, so they would not be walking all over canon if each universe only had a small number of "massacre survivors." Sei, you are identifying the mass of Sharingans/Uchiha as one universe by stating that the sheer number of them are breaking canon while mentioning that they all can very well be in their own universes. A clear contradiction. Remember assuming good faith? Yup: that applies here too. In regards to applying to RP purposes, the regulator of the RP can just flat-out deny the usage of an Uchiha for story purposes. There's no need to be all nice and accepting of every character if you feel that the character will break your role-play's canon. If someone is writing ridiculous stuff, like a million Rinnegans or something, feel free to ignore that user's content, especially if he or she attempts to insert that kind of thing into your stories. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 23:46, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

I explained down in the Alternate Universe that I won't assume good faith, as people on the Internet don't know the fuck they're doing, according to Armed anyways. Secondly, I doubt either of you took into account that if we were to assume the Uchiha Massacre did not happen in an alternate universe: in said alternate universe, the Uchiha would hold the bloody uprising that the Massacre prevented, very likely causing the deaths of several important characters and completely changing the story. Alot of events were started from the Uchiha Massacre: Madara promised to leave the village alone as per Itachi's deal, Sasuke wouldn't be the revenge-seeking douchebag (which makes up half of the story in itself), and Itachi's awesomeness factor would be lost. Also, as it was stated above, the Uchiha would have gone through with their plan to start a rebellion against Konoha, which would pretty much screw up the entire story. --Seireitou-shishō (My True Identity 20:02, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Vote

 * Let's vote for the above discussion. If you support temporarily suspending the Uchiha/Sharingan creation on the wiki in order to work out a policy, vote for support. If you oppose the temporary suspending of Uchiha/Sharingan creation, vote oppose.
 * A separate section will be made to vote on admin consent matters. Do not vote for it here.

Support

 * 1) -User:Thepantheon 22:19, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  무극  (talk to Joker!) 22:20, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) -- 楽しい Kiryu's Eternal Eyes.png (talk to Fenix!) 23:59, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) --Seireitou-shishō [[File:Seireitou's signature picture.jpg]] (My True Identity 17:05, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --れび (talk to Lavi!) 23:46, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 23:53, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) ---Fah --Fahuem 00:23, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Admin Consent
The argument has been made that certain characters, clan members, kekkei genkai, etc require admin consent. Personally, I am strongly against this. Admins do not have authority over a persons personal fanon/fanfiction. The question is then, what about having too many Rinnegan/Sharingan/Wood Release etc characters? Keep in mind that fanons do not have to take place in the current storyline. It is canon that the Uchiha were abundant before the massacre, therefore if a person's fanfiction takes place before the massacre, they can make as many Sharingan users as the want. Any other logic is absolutely bogus. You cannot restrict another's character creation if it adheres to canon; I don't care if there is 100, or 10 million Sharingan on this wiki, you cannot do it. Admins have the duty of watching grammar, deleting pages, using rollback, and blocking rule breakers. They do not need an extra job to do. Not to mention, what happens when an admin wants to create one of these? Do they approve themselves? Nope. If an "admin consent" program is approved (and I strongly suggest that it isn't), then we should limit the bcrats to 2 and force admins to answer to them. If one of the two bcrats wants to create one, they have to ask the other bcrat. This creates a checks-and-balances system that assures fairness. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 22:24, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% that we cannot ban material on the basis that it is overused. I, however, think that Rinnegan and Sharingan usage does grate against canon, in that the Rinnegan is said to be very rare and, as Sei said, may only be one set of eyes, though Rinnegan usage is debatable, but should at least be restricted to one per person, I believe, and Sharingan usage/Uchiha (after the massacre, of course) is almost definitely odd, as it is stated that the Uchiha were massacred. Therefore, I propose that we do as Sei said and limit the number of Uchiha per person, to a reasonable number given the massacre (I suggest two or maybe three). As you say, Ten, admins must get permission from bcrats, etc. --User:Thepantheon 22:33, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * As long as everything is well balanced and there is no cheep unfairness going on I'm fine. I really want to keep the limitations, if any have to be placed, as loose as possible. Rinnegan is up in the air, so it should be able to be freely be used (albeit rarely) by anyone until its clarified by the canon. Sharingan (after the massacre) should be prohibited, while Sharingan (before the massacre) should be free game. Limitations should only be used in extreme cases. I'm still not so happy about them, but if the admins here vote for it I'll go along with it. Remember, we're trying to lessen the view that admins are the "elite". The less control they have over things that aren't their business, the better and more friendly they'll be viewed, which is what we want. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 22:42, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Something was just brought to my attention that I think needs to be mentioned. We're so wrapped up in stopping the number of Sharingan and Rinnegan used that we've forgotten something. We often restrict fan creation dojutsu, etc more harshly. I have decided to take a strict "no-restrictions" stance on anything that isn't supported by canon. Rinnegan should be freely owned and so should Sharingan before the massacre. To quote another user, the reason we have so many Sharingan and Mangekyō Sharingan running around on this site is because we limit so many things by either entirely banning them or by limiting them (for example, in your old rules you allowed characters to have only one of anything) that users have to default to Sharingan/Rinnegan just to feel they have something powerful enough to contend with other users. If you eliminate all restrictions except in extreme emergency situations, you'll have a lot less Sharingan/Rinnegan and a lot more fan created dojutsu/kekkei genkai, which is what we want. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 23:08, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I say that there should not be any restrictions on anything that is not plagiarism, crossover, or canon contradictory (unless I am forgetting something >>). --User:Thepantheon 23:55, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Vote

 * Lets vote for the above section. If you support admin consent, then vote support. If you oppose admins consent, then vote oppose.

Oppose

 * 1) ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 13:51, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  무극  (talk to Joker!) 13:53, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) -- 楽しい Kiryu's Eternal Eyes.png (talk to Fenix!) 13:56, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) --れび (talk to Lavi!) 15:48, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) --User:Thepantheon 16:08, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) --Seireitou-shishō [[File:Seireitou's signature picture.jpg]] (My True Identity 17:05, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Alternate Universes

 * Outside the perspective of Uchihas being more numerous before the massacre and the like, it's entirely possible for users to create "alternate universes" where they could cut out or include events that were not mentioned in canon. In this regard, a user can remove the Uchiha Massacre event entirely, bypassing the limit on Uchiha characters. This should be kept in mind. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 23:48, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Lav, I disagree with the allowance of destroying canon. In my opinion, that would cause too many issues, especially with a large number of our users (I include myself in this) being not well-suited to do this in a great way, and I believe it would be detrimental to the wiki. --User:Thepantheon 23:55, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I also disagree, as on this page, Talk:The Mibu Clan, this argument was about breaking canon law. If everyone has their own universe, we're not functioning and it causes a lack in control of the site, which is what NF needs.  무극  (talk to Joker!) 00:07, October 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll have to agree with Lavi on this one, he does have a point. --Fahuem 00:17, October 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between breaking canon and altering canon. Altered canon can only occur if the author specifically explains the difference between his or her said subject and the canon established by the actual author (Kishimoto, in this case). Breaking canon is specifically contradicting it without explaining yourself. Also, it's not fan fiction, or fanon, if others are telling you what you can or cannot do in terms of content. In terms of the discussion on that talk page, I do agree that although Kurenai does not have a KG does not prevent the possibility of her clan having one: not everyone in the Uchiha clan had a Sharingan, for instance. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 00:37, October 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Lav, I am sorry for saying this, but I just can't agree with this; I think it's a really bad idea for the site. I'm aware that my opinion isn't law, but my two cents is a solid no. --User:Thepantheon 01:02, October 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm totally fine with a disagreement, though I still stand with my opinion. What I am suggesting is not to destroy and disregard canon; an alternate universe only works as an alternate universe if the basic principles remain unchanged. Otherwise, it's a spin-off that has no place on this wiki, since this wiki is for everything Naruto fan fiction. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 01:44, October 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I must say this; Wasn't the point of coming back to NF because you wanted it to function correctly and whatnot? Well, altering canon will just make it less functional. To me, all of the "run off" admins seem to be doing more harm than good. However, I do not speak for everyone, nor do I intend to. But, even Shirokei, a user that was at the bane of my existence agrees that the old rules were better than this. But whatever. I agree with Panth, my vote is no.  무극  (talk to Joker!) 12:43, October 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Im with Kou; It seems that you all who ran away from NF only ever come back when the New users swarms calmed down. Then you take the wikia away from the ACTIVE admins that stayed and weathered the N00b-storm. It's not constructive at all If your gonna run away. If you're gonna run away, stay gone. Then, you come back and just take over and change whatever the active admins did because it inconveniences you. We did what we had to to keep this wikia running while you ran off to either BFF or SWF or both and abandoned NF all together. Please correct me if im wrong.-- 楽しい Kiryu's Eternal Eyes.png (talk to Fenix!) 12:49, October 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, Kou, you and Shiatori are on my final nerve. I'm not a confrontational person, but you may not talk about people who are trying to HELP you because you aren't getting your way. The only reason we're even suggesting these things, is because quite frankly, this site under ANYONE'S control thus far has continued to go further into the sewer and we've seen these ideas work, given time. I am extremely furious with you right now Kou. You act as if you are owed something. Run off admins or not, at least when we left the place, there was a Policy page in place and things were starting to become functional again. Then when we return, we found out you have totally ignored the policies, even as ADMINS, and in your own words, "due to the administrations boredom, we have decided to revise the rules last night." First of all, where do you get off changing the rules in the middle of the night without prior warning of the user base, or without holding a forum for other admins and inviting ALL of them.


 * And another thing, "run off admins"? Really? We're down to name calling now? How very childish. I took a break from ALL wikis before the summer because I'm sick of the drama that was produced. Then I returned to help. The point is, whether we were active on another wiki or another site, you never even messaged any of us once to ask for help, to ask where we went, or to talk about anything for that matter. If you think for a second that this is our fault, you're sadly mistaken. YOU were in charge for several months, and YOU are why we're even on this page. There would be no need to revise the rules at all if you had just followed the established policy from the beginning. Lastly, this section is wrongly named, the argument here is about alternate universes, as Lavi stated, NOT breaking the canon. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 14:05, October 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ten, I only said "run off" because you mentioned it on the rules talk page. So, sorry if that was offensive. And on almost every issue on this forum, I have agreed with you, so you can't say I'm mad about not getting my way. The policy page did not work, as after you guys left, the policy wasn't even looked at, even when I tried telling users of it. "You act as if you're owed something" Really? What do I think I'm owed, because I honestly have no clue. Also, I did warn the user base about the change in rules and didn't hold a forum because no admin was around on NF besides me, Fenix, and Fahoo and I wasn't going to wait idly by to see if any admins cared enough to join in. Also, I never mentioned once that you leaving before the summer was running off. I respect that you were tired of drama and left. I'm talking about after Koga. And in actuality, I DID ask for help, but you completely ignored it. And in fact, I was only in charge since about October 15th, so it was not several months. Lastly, thank you for changing the section name, was confused about which to put.  무극  (talk to Joker!) 14:21, October 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. I'm sorry if I seemed to blow up, I was indeed angry, because I came back here to help, not to take control and get my way. How can you help people if you just sit around and talk about it. I just took a strong stance and the drove it home. My issue is that I take interest in something like Naruto or bleach and then I can only focus on that one thing. Then when my interest changes, I go to the next. I'm actually trying to curb that by continuing to edit on the other wikis I'm on. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 14:28, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * And Ten if you knew the WHOLE truth about why we could do minimum to help the wikia you wouldnt be saying any of that. Like kou said we have only been active ADMINS since 10/15/10 because after the raid by Sai we were all left without admin powers as Uberfuzzy blocked the ability to restore them until recently. So saying we had several months to do anything is false we've only had a few weeks.-- 楽しい Kiryu's Eternal Eyes.png (talk to Fenix!) 14:30, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think we all need this. HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!


 * The primary reason why I haven't been contributing to NF for a long time is because I had no ideas for Naruto. I've been role-playing Naruto since November 2006 - that's almost four years. I was also never very happy with the massive number of administrative users since it left the majority of such users with very little to do. Therefore, I spent little time on NF since there was already several admins doing the work. I had never backed away from checking back when called upon. Did you forget that my messages brought Uberfuzzy's attention in the fact that he made a mistake when dealing with Sai? Also, I would never suggest something if I felt that it would be detrimental to the future of the wiki. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 15:54, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm growing tired of this arguing between the "run off admins" (not used derogatorily, just used to differentiate between the two) and the "stayed here admins". I propose that we remember that this is a topic for discussion of the rules, not of different admins' merit and issues. Let's just discuss the rules we're supposed to be discussing, and not insult each other. If anyone really feels strongly and thinks they have to voice an opinion about other admins, then you could make a forum about it (I highly discourage this, however) or bring it up, if it is relevant, when we open voting for bcrats (I will open that in a few hours as it seems like we're unanimously in for having limited bcrats, we just need a tiebreaker for the number of bcrats). Let's leave this behind for now, ok?

Now, on to the topic at hand. I'm slightly confused as to what's being proposed, exactly. Yesterday Ten mentioned to me that he was against allowing users to alter/rewrite canon, so since he is supporting this, either his mind was changed or I am misunderstanding what exactly is being suggested. I don't want to get into any more of a debate about this only to discover I was under the wrong impression :P. --User:Thepantheon 16:07, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

(Break)
Alright, apparently, I need to say something. In my personal opinion, I am totally against the idea of disregarding canon; since that is what fan fiction embodies. It's extremely disrespectful to the writer of said manga, so it's adding insult to injury. But then, that's just my opinion. Moving on. As with the Sharingan, I propose we temporarily lock all attempts of fan fiction. NF's name is Naruto Fanon, so someone needs to explain why we are suddenly allowing both. It makes the entire name completely moot in the end. I believe that by doing this, we can get things flowing much more smoothly. Alot of the things that we're discussing right now won't matter if the basic foundation of the rules aren't set in stone. Nobody's gonna care if we allow Uchiha or Sharingan, or allow an Alternate Universe, if we don't even have a banning or deletion rule set up. So, I say that we not allow fan fiction for now, just to allow us Admins an easier route to fix the important issues first, then we can reopen fan fiction when things finally calm down and we are put on the right track and stay to it. As Lavi mentioned, "In this regard, a user can remove the Uchiha Massacre event entirely, bypassing the limit on Uchiha characters." I, personally, hate this idea. I don't want millions of Uchiha here. Some of you seem to forget we also are the laughing stock of several other Wikia (and 4chan, but they don't count really) right now, and no, it's not because of our lack of admin cooperation; if you recall, it was mostly because of Seireitou Hyuga. I don't need to explain him, as we all remember that Sei. Now, the image of NF to the outside doesn't bother me much, but I honestly believe in a community. I find it ridiculous to just "if you disagree with that user, just ignore them." We need to function as a team, ALL of us, not just the Admins. While our fanons don't necessarily have to cross the others, it doesn't also mean we can just plain ignore their work. We're not functioning as a cliche here, alright? That will lead to forming cliches on NF, and before long, we're gonna turn into a High School. For now, my proposal is this: we keep the concept of fan fiction out the window for now, until we establish the basic rules and NF stabilizes, even if it's just by alittle. We're getting ahead of ourselves, with the debates over Uchiha and the Alternate Universe; wasn't the issue regarding poor rule choice, with the bans and the deletions, and also poor Admin cooperation? THAT'S what needs to be fixed first, not this crap. So, I shall be opposing this idea, but not for good. It needs to be put on hold, until the important inter-admin issues are worked out first. --Seireitou-shishō (My True Identity 17:03, October 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * If this is to be put on hold, a separate vote will be necessary. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 17:13, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that while we debate rules everything that might be banned should be put on hold automatically while we debate it, because otherwise as soon as it looks like we're making a rule about anythin people will jump on it and spam it before we impose a rule about it. --User:Thepantheon 17:36, October 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to respectfully part opinions with my friend here. Disregarding canon should, indeed, be a separate vote as it is an iffy issue. Personally I don't do it because it doesn't work for my stuff, but as I pointed out, Lavi and users like him can pull it off well. However, I do not believe that we should have to worry about connecting with other people's fanons. If one or two users (or more) want to collaborate on a story, fine, but if I want my fanon to be separate, than I must respectfully ask that you "stay the hell away from my fanon". I realize I sound like Aha, but I spend a lot of time planning out my stories and I don't really care to have a bunch of people telling me how or how not to run my stories. I don't care if I have 1 or 1 million Sharingan in it, leave my stories ALONE! I write them, not all of you. RPs are for community unity, fanfictions/fanons (whatever you call them) are a user's (or partner users') personal creations, and admins and other users have no frigging business messing with them. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 18:47, October 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm going to bring the discussion that was brought up during BFF's forum regarding the GMing policy. We were talking about whether the policy would actually be productive to the wiki's progression or not. The answer was no. Why? Because the GMing policy would take attention away from proving good writing, which is the superior motive in making fan fiction better, and bring that attention over to power levels, which can be ignored or overlooked if the character was well written in biography and personality. Ten brought up the example with Aizen, who we can agree is really OP but he has a biography and personality that is fluent and really makes readers (or viewers) react the way Kubo wants them to react. The same principle can apply with Uchiha, Hyuga, etc. We should not focus on power levels: we need to focus on good writing. Part of good writing is making a character unique and stand out from the rest, but making a character one of millions of Uchiha that supposedly survived the massacre is handicapping oneself in that regard. In the short-run, yes it does prevent the cliche from running. But in the long-run, it does not solve the real problem, which is piss-poor writing. If we work on improving our younger, less experienced writers, we can a) increase our member base and therefore increase the wiki's longivity, b) improve writing by having a greater number of writers writing good content, and c) minimalize bad content by churning out more good stuff than bad. In this regard, I would prefer that universes, both identical and alternate, should be allowed. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 15:38, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

"Commonly abbreviated AU, stories of this type are usually what-ifs, where possibilities arising from different circumstances or character decisions are explored. Unlike regular fan fiction, which generally remains within the boundaries of the canon set out by the author, alternative universe fiction writers like to explore the possibilities of pivotal changes made to characters' history, motivations or environment."
 * EDIT: Here is Wikipedia's page on alternate universes.

- Wikipedia


 * Note that this is not at all breaking canon. (I only would oppose the crossover AU) --れび (talk to Lavi!) 15:49, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm 100% behind Lavi in this. I have seen with my own two eyes what good writing can do to a wiki. Characters that would otherwise be overpowered and cliche are turned into amazing and unique reads. You are restricting and thereby ruining the content of this wiki when you start placing needless bans on fanfiction and other alternate universe writings. Preventing others from creating Uchiha, Rinnegan, and other things is yet another needless and detrimental ban that will only prove to be the undoing of this wiki. We're trying to improve NF, not run it back into the rut. I suggest you all really consider your votes and what you are doing to this site with them before the final decisions are made. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 15:50, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to say that, no Lavi. I will not assume good faith. Good faith is not to be assumed, because people on the Internet don't know what they're doing. Armed completely agrees with that statement, as he coined the statement himself, and I just happen to agree with it. Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? Then you question why there are millions of convicted criminals of all flavors released from jail after two months for "good behavior", and go right back to doing what they did before; all because our legal system assumes they are now "on the good side of the law", as if they [Judicial System] don't know shit about human nature. I refuse to believe in assuming good faith in real life, and the same goes for the internet; more specifically, on this Wikia. Second, even if we go ahead with the separate universes, canon law still applies. You can't have Uchiha running around everywhere when everyone thinks they are dead. This isn't Bleach, people do die when killed in Naruto. Even without a limitation rule, any person worth his knowledge of Naruto knows that the Uchiha, if some of them survived, there'd only be a handful of them. It's an insult to Kishi, to disregard canon, which is my moral defense on the matter. In closing, if a user really is here for serious stuff, then they would be aware of the manga and it's plot, and if they don't know it for whatever reason, admins should inform them. Also, on the idea of ignoring their work when it is completely ridiculous (such as Lavi's example of the million Rinnegan), since when did it become okay for Admins to ignore ridiculous things? I refuse to believe in a system where people look out for number one, and if any Admins here even understand the term "Community", they would also agree with me as well. This is ridiculous, that we're actually resorting to such a system. --Seireitou-shishō (My True Identity 19:31, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think it is wrong, then give something that is better. All you have given is how wrong assuming good faith is without giving a method that would supercede it. If you are suggesting that every member that comes on this wiki be looked upon "guilty until proven innocent," then it is quite evident that you are overlooking the constant necessity of a wiki to expand. By following such a policy, new members would be alienated by the iron fist of power that the administration would be imposing on them the moment they make a contribution, and that is not good member relations. I made edits on Fantendo, putting up a character and the organization that the character belonged to, and I was jumped by an admin and bombarded with "Why didn't you do this?" "Why didn't you do that?" "This is not how we do things around here." Needless to say, I left the site immediately after I realized how big of a douche the admin was. On top of that, there was another member that tried to defend me by sucking up to the admin. That made it clear to me that power abuse was going on. This is exactly what will come out of what you suggest. Go make a wiki that does that and see if it'll be remotely successful in receiving five members that you never met before. Individuals that come to any wiki are there to either be productive or be a jackass. Both can dealt with by assuming the individual is being productive. By being a jackass, aka troll, one will only get so much entertainment from people being helpful and not saying things that make themselves look like fools. And don't get me started on the justice system. There is so many things that are wrong with it and the general public's morality is the cause of the economic waste that's piled into it. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 20:09, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

See, the issue is, you are giving me the complete opposite. Why is it always ultimatums with you? "Let them do what they want!" or "Fuck 'em, it's my way or the highway." If NF is gonna go anywhere, there needs to be some sort of balance. I, for one, have no opinion on a user when they arrive here. When I see what they write, my opinion of them begins to change; to what side, I'm not sure. THAT'S the system we need. I'm gonna call it the Blank-Slate System. I refuse to either assume their serious about being here or being a troll here until I see what they actually are gonna do here. If I see an Uchiha first from them, then a Hyuga. Then they begin writing a story idea. It's clear to me that they are here for serious stuff. If I see someone making a Jake Uchiha, then a Susun Uchiha, and then a Rikudou Sharingan Sennin, then I'm gonna ban the shit out of them. I'm not gonna assume anything. I would prefer to leave my opinion blank until seeing what they will do here, and then, I'll make my call. I'll reiterate, THAT'S the system we need, not "assuming good faith", but not the "guilty until proven innocent" either. --Seireitou-shishō (My True Identity 20:17, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * You are throwing words around without looking at the effect your action makes against members. Some users jumped onto fan fiction as inexperienced writers that have not received enough examples of well-written fanfic characters to utilize as reference. I will not deny that some of my early characters had corny names, as well as cliche abilities and things that I would consider now to be nonsensical. Did I improve? Yes. How did I improve? Guidance from experienced members. If you go "fuck you" to a member who writes things you don't agree with, you are not contributing to the wiki positively since you are likely going to lose a member as well as a member that could learn to write better and provide another opinion and mind of ideas to help produce more examples to help newbies. If you say "hey, this is what is wrong with the character and here are ways to make it better," members are more likely to understand how to write fan fiction and attempt to make it better, especially since they also tend to be pleasers rather than let-me-do-what-I-want. By doing that you might see a "Jake Uchiha" or a "Susun Uchiha" or a "Rikudou Sharingan Sennin" at the start, but you might see a "Ryo Uchiha" later, then maybe a "Choki Akimichi" some point later, then maybe something completely original that you would have no problem with. Improvement comes only with practice, an opinion from someone else (preferably multiple people), and practice. Remember when you hated criticism ~1-2 years ago? Yeah, the criticism wasn't there to piss you off: it was there to make you a better writer. You already wrote quite a bit of fan fiction at the time, so you thought your way was fine when others thought differently. You take criticism a lot better now, and look at the stuff you got now: nothing along the lines of the Sei-Hyu you wrote those 1-2 years ago. I wonder wh-oh wait: I know. You took the criticism you got and improved your content based on it. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 20:35, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, you are taking out certain words from what I said and twisting them around. If you saw Seireitou Hyuga's first design, when it was first written, it was surely a serious attempt. It had the infobox, serious content, and a series of stories that made sense (despite the crossovers). Nonetheless, let's say someone makes an article that writes: "This is Jake Uchiha. He's super powerful Uchiha man, and has two Sharingan arms." Now, if we follow my system, then this would be neither written off as "good faith" or "supercrap". Now, upon noticing the first article, one of the Admins would message the person and so would begin the learning process. I'm sorry by my earlier statement, it might have not explained too clearly the point I was trying to make. Now, as the Admin helps the User, the User's next few articles would probably improve, even by just alittle. Now, if the person decides to ignore that help and continue writing stuff like "Rikudou Sennin's brother is named Obama Williams III, and is super-special-awesome"'', then, I'm sorry but it's gonna get deleted the **** out of NF. --Seireitou-shishō [[File:Seireitou's signature picture.jpg]] (My True Identity 20:54, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I never made any attempt to twist your words around. I am merely expressing why I believe my opinion is better than yours, based on your own words. You can say your own character was a serious attempt, but who is to say that someone with more authority than you says "Sorry, deleting the *** out of NF!" Your example of Obama Williams III is an extreme notion that would only be pursued by a troll in attempts to get attention, and you will feed the troll by deleting it. Leave a message stating why the article is not up to your standards, give suggestions to improve, and leave it there. If the member is being serious, this would continue. If the member is not being serious, this would only continue for a short while before stopping. Stressing suggestions for improvement will help the writer. Most writers that are actually good writers realize that they have the infinite potential to improve. I do not through my name about as a "good writer," because I know I have deficiencies in my writing style. I want to improve that, but that's hard to do when your stuff gets deleted and you get banned without any constructive criticism at all. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 21:01, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not supporting the idea of "ban first, ask questions later." However, I also don't agree with assuming anything. I'd rather let nature play its course, and see how things play out with this user. Assumption is one step down from Ignorance, no matter how you see it. --Seireitou-shishō [[File:Seireitou's signature picture.jpg]] (My True Identity 21:05, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's essentially what assuming good faith represents, you know. Watch the member, help him out, he gets better, we all benefit with a new member that knows how to write, as well as become more reputable. If he's a troll, help him out until he gets bored and leave. We benefit from one less troll and become more reputable for being civil about dealing with the troll. Repeat. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 21:10, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sei, in no way am I trying to side against you on things here, but I'm telling you from experience; assuming good faith on a wiki works. I've been on several wikis that use that policy, and they've always had a top notch community and articles. Since you use the Judicial System as an example, I'll point out something to you about it to support my argument. When the founders placed the rule of "innocent until proven guilty" rule into the judiciary, they were trying to prevent people from being declared guilty by a ruler or ruling body without fair trial and then being imprisoned or executed without being first proven guilty (or innocent). Of course the idea has flaws, as does every single idea a human conceives (we are by no means perfect), but its good out-weighs the bad. Its also a good rule for society. The same should apply to this "community". If we assume that every person that edits this wiki is here in good faith, it creates a sense in the user that they want to stay; that despite countless mistakes they won't be baned but only helped to improve. If a user is, in fact, a troll, then being helpful and ignoring the troll aspect will cause the troll to leave. Allow me to use the 4chan raid as an example. Do you remember what happened when we fought back and moved several times to other chats? 4chan only got more aggressive and eventually raided the wiki itself. Why is this, we must ask. Well, simply because we were feeding their fun. Nothing we said to them was threatening, even when we threatened to get Wikia Staff involved. On that note, during that raid I did contact a staff, and you know their solution to it? Ignore 4chan. Do you remember what happened when we pretended that they weren't there and just went about our normal business? They left; slowly, but they did leave. They got bored from not getting attention. I've been a firm believer in ignoring trolls ever since.


 * Now, as to the subject of alternate universes, did you ever once consider that you are already doing that? Think about it. Naruto is far from over. Everytime we try to "stick to the canon" (reference Raian's history for this part), do you realize that we break it when our assumptions in the history are proven false? For example, in some fanons, Naruto becomes Hokage, while in other he dies. None of those are proven or disproven by the canon, yet in the future they may. Canon is always changing. I will state this plainly. I do not support throwing away Kishi's universe for the sake of fan pleasure. I do, however, support doing what-if scenarios. Naruto dying or becoming Hokage are both what-if scenarios determined by his decisions in the manga. You see these situations in a lot of Dragonball Z games. They do not always break the canon either, sometimes they just expand on an idea. Other times they explain what would have happened if one decision was changed. For example; "What if the Uchiha Massacre never had happened?" What would the shinobi world be like now? Or another, "What if Minato and Kushina hadn't died? How would Naruto be different today?" These situations are ones that would be fun to explore and answer and are the very essence of Alternate Universe fanon. Not all are so drastic, however, and are more fun to think about. Some could be as simple as, "What if Naruto and Sasuke switched roles? What if Naruto had gone to Orochimaru and not Sasuke?" This one in particular I want to write about in the near future. Not only that but it is actually suggested on in the canon(see the chapter where Naruto and Sasuke face off again, just after Sasuke's fight with Danzō. Naruto asks, "I wonder how things would have turned out if our situations were in reverse?")!)! What is so wrong with writing in these forms? Are we really so uptight on this site that we can't allow the bending of the storyline for the sake of fun and adventure? I'm not suggesting throwing out the canon structure (chakra, ninja, justu, etc), but rather bending the storyline to explore "What If?" Scenarios. I personally think that to restrict these things, we'd be losing a great asset to our site. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 03:58, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

I would like to bring this up: one of the other voting sections was labeled as resolved when the votes reached 7, and I believe that our active admin count is at 7. Could someone verify this, because if so, we have several votes that should likely be closed. --'''User:Thepantheon 04:05, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I only closed that one because it was unanimous. Whether or not we had more active admins, there weren't enough to break a seven vote of other admins. The other votes are either even or only lead by one and could thus be turned around in a single vote; therefore, they will remain open until all decisions and side switching (which may or may not happen) is done. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 04:10, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I should also put out that I never meant to talk about AU in regards of throwing out everything that the original author created for this. Never have I said anything as to throwing out the basis of chakra, jutsu, villages, etc. As Ten mentioned, AU is all about "what-if-this-happened." If the Uchiha Massacre never occurred, of course there will be consequences. Madara might attack, the Uchiha might start their coup. Konohagakure might get destroyed. The reprocussions of such events would drastically affect the Naruto world, wouldn't it? How different would the world be without Konoha? This is the kind of thing that the AU explores. Also, most inexperienced writers don't know about the AU, so I don't find this to be a major problem in terms of abuse. In regards to helping new writers, we should assume that the writer is following canon if no mention of an AU is made. And we should also not encourage new members to try to make AUs, since that takes a lot more critical thinking than producing a character or jutsu. By the way, I put a break in this discussion for easier navigation, since this is a long discussion topic. If necessary, we can put this into a new forum since it's such a heated topic. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 16:05, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I almost want to laugh at the number of "Oppose" votes this section has. Now, don't take this as me being a sore loser, but the simple fact is that if this is "opposed" we have to shut down every fanon story on NF. This is because no story on NF fits with the canon completely (as Naruto is still an ongoing manga and therefore canon is still changing), meaning that every single one of us has an AU in some form. It seems none of you have considered that, and the fact that you haven't makes me question your judgement on a range of issues. The fact is that in the next chapter, for all we know, Kishi could start a flashback arc that changes our knowledge of the "Naruto canon" drastically. Facts can be changed, ideas could be expanded, and speculation could be put to rest. Its not very likely, but how can we know? Naruto isn't over yet, so nothing we call "Canon" is for sure until Kishi writes the last chapter. We all participate in AU's without most of us realizing it and to tell people "Nope, you can't have AU's" means saying "sorry NF, but the F in NF was just banned by a majority of the admins." I can't help myself when I think of that, but laugh in disbelief. You're all changing the fundemental values. If this vote passes as-is, NF will be renamed NRP (Naruto Roleplay wiki), because that's all you have done. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 03:24, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Vote

 * Lets vote for the above section. If you support letting users have alternate universes, then vote support. If you are against alternate universes, vote oppose.

Support

 * 1) ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 14:05, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) ---Fah Talk
 * 3) --れび (talk to Lavi!) 15:47, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) -- 楽しい Kiryu's Eternal Eyes.png (talk to Fenix!) 14:00, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --User:Thepantheon 16:07, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) --Seireitou-shishō [[File:Seireitou's signature picture.jpg]] (My True Identity 17:03, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) ~ NOTASTAFF Koukishi (Ultimate Chaos, Chōmyaku) (talk) 21:25, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --Seireitou-shishō [[File:Seireitou's signature picture.jpg]] (My True Identity 17:26, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) -- 楽しい Kiryu's Eternal Eyes.png (talk to Fenix!) 17:27, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) --User:Thepantheon 17:29, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 18:31, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  무극  (talk to Joker!) 00:47, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) --れび (talk to Lavi!) 15:43, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) ---Fah Talk

Comments
The title doesn't accurately state the purpose of this vote. I'm going to withhold my vote until this is modified. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 18:59, October 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think he means the he [Sei] wants to vote on putting all fanfictions that would alter canon universe facts on hold until admins can finally come to an agreement. I think this is a very bad idea (which is why I'll go on whether its voted on or not, regardless) because you can't go stopping everything around the site until admins make up their mind. When the admins make up their mind, then vote on something, but right now, to ban/put on hold fanfiction is to ban/put on hold everything but RPing, and that is a very bad and unwise idea. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 15:20, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, I'll make my vote. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 15:43, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

In other words, I meant not allowing anything that would rewrite canon facts until further notice. I didn't mean putting hold on everything that falls under fan fiction. --Seireitou-shishō (My True Identity 19:31, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is exactly why I said that the purpose of the vote isn't accurately stated. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 20:38, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Blank Slate System
I'm going to separate my opinion on the "assuming good faith", as how we go about treating users, both new and old, is the foundation of all rules we hope to establish here. My proposal is the Blank-Slate System, which I coined the term myself, based on John Locke's Tabula Rasa theory. It means that we will neither "assume good faith" of new users, but at the same time, we will not write them off as trolls or as "guilty until proven innocent." I will agree that many of us, including myself, go overboard and quickly form biased opinions. Little do many of you realize, however, that assuming good faith is nothing different; even if it is to the opposite degree. So therefore, I propose this system. Upon noticing a new user, admins will go about the usual protocol. Those users will be labeled as "Blank Slates" until they create atleast, I'm gonna say, around 7 or 8 articles on the Wikia. From there, we can decide on the proper course of action. I understand that this might be alittle more difficult than just assuming good faith or bad faith, but nobody said bringing back NF from the crap-pile was gonna be an easy job. Anyways, state your opinions, concerns, anything you'd like to add to my proposal to better it, etc etc. --Seireitou-shishō (My True Identity 20:44, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Hold off on the voting for this section until we get a few ideas and/or opinions circulated here. --Seireitou-shishō [[File:Seireitou's signature picture.jpg]] (My True Identity 20:44, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Assuming good faith isn't about "do the fuck you want," if that's what you're suggesting. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with assuming that the member is trying to be productive until vandalism comes into play. I stand on "no," regardless to this proposal because regardless of whether the user makes 1 or 20 articles, the opinion of the reader of that writer naturally comes at the first article. Assuming good faith bypasses this deficiency by saying "it doesn't matter what you think of the writer. Help him or her make it better." This system sounds like "what do you think of the writer? If he's full of shit, we slap him."


 * P.S. I fully expect a reply to my statement in the AU section. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 20:51, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. This system is meant to do quite the opposite. What I'm proposing is that we don't assume either. I realize it's not too different in terms of "assuming good faith" in this regard, but for those who disagree with assuming good faith, this can serve as a crutch. Now, the thing is, we are to not assume either. When a user comes here, who are we to decide either? If they end up being a troll, then we look like idiots who assume everyone's good and the world is such an amazing rainbow-filled place. Staying neutral, which is what I'm proposing, will effectively eliminate bias until we see what this user does. It's called, in other words, "playing the waiting game." If the user makes a poorly done article, then the Admins will obviously assist, but we shouldn't say they are gonna be productive, but neither say that they will cause chaos. --Seireitou-shishō (My True Identity 20:59, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am actually amused that you honestly think that people would never form an opinion based on the first impression, even though you made such a strong statement with the allusion to the justice system. That's like saying Communism would work on a large scale. If the new member that comes along is a troll, no we don't look like idiots that assumed that he was a good guy. Every reputable website has dealt with trolls in the past, including the forum that I administrate. Hell, we found out that we had a troll, a guy posing as a gothic girl, over a year after he came along. No one ever laughs it off after it happened, saying "oh, we were idiots." We just went "ok, bye, back to business." --れび (talk to Lavi!) 21:06, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I didn't say they wouldn't form their own opinion, but I'm saying we shouldn't state it. It's fine to think it, I mean, it's our minds. However, it shouldn't be stated on the Wikia as an official opinion until one's perspective on the user in question actually is here for a good while. Let me put it to you this way. A new user comes on here, with the intention to create articles of trolling. Admins just watch him/her and mind their own business, until that user makes their first article. From there, an Admin(s), let's say Ten for this example, would comment on the strengths/weaknesses. Ten immediately points out the issues in it, and the user gets a few laughs for thinking he fooled us all. So he makes some more of the same content, and the comments will continue. We don't assume they're doing good, or trying to troll. Overtime, the user gets bored with it and leaves. Amusement in this regard can only go so far. Ten then just continues his stuff, as does the others. My point is, I am agreeing with the way of thinking of "assuming good faith", but I don't agree with literally assuming when people come here, they are coming here to positively contribute. I'd prefer to keep a blank slate opinion of them, until further indication. --Seireitou-shishō [[File:Seireitou's signature picture.jpg]] (My True Identity 21:16, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * So you basically agree with "assuming good faith," but not with the use of the word "assume?" Now I'm wondering whether you really mean to have a separate system - this blank-slate. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 21:42, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * EDIT: It just occurred to me: if this is to be considered, admin consent would probably need to be properly defined, since we voted unanimously against it. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 22:22, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Please look in the Alternate Universe section for my responce to all of this. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 04:03, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think we've all made our cases. Time for a vote.

Vote

 * Lets vote for the above section. If you support using the "Blank Slate System" for new users, vote support.  If you are against this, and believe we should "assume good faith", vote oppose.

Oppose

 * 1)  Hinōmaru-sama  (talk to Joker!) 17:58, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) --れび (talk to Lavi!) 17:59, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) -- 楽しい Kiryu's Eternal Eyes.png (talk to Fenix!) 18:01, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Fahuem 18:11, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

MoS and layout guide
Illuminate Void brought up the thought of having a standardization of articles, so we can discuss this in the form of a Manual of Style (MoS) and layout guide. The MoS deals with how the article is written: capitalizations, the naming conventions for terms, etc. while the layout guide gives a standard chronology for what sections of information is given, such as introduction, followed by biography, followed by personality, etc. This would help make the wiki look more professional, but it would also make it easier to see who needs help, since an MoS and layout are usually easy enough to follow for those who are familiar with both. Discuss: should we have these policies and, if yes, what should they entail? --れび (talk to Lavi!) 20:48, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I think we should have a MoS (We actually do have one), as well as a layout guide. For the layout guide, I think we should do as we use to (In terms of order) with Appearance, Personality, History, Synopsis (If Applicable), Abilities, Behind the Scenes (If necessary), and lastly, Trivia.  As this discussion goes on, I'll add more commentary.  무극  (talk to Joker!) 21:05, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Lavi, I find it somewhat ludicrous that you'd suggest this, and yet, on BFF, you follow a style of format completely different than the majority of BFF. --Seireitou-shishō (My True Identity 21:12, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no MoS agreed upon on BFF. Plus, I do use an MoS that is standardized. Do you also find it ludicrous that I suggested this before, months ago, and was shut down? --れび (talk to Lavi!) 21:21, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lavi, somewhat. I agree that we should have a layout guide, as well as a MoS, but we all know that not everyone follows the beat of the same drum.  Everyone will have their opinions on how it should be, and then we'll all argue, then everyone's articles will look different.  In my opinion, I choose to use Template:Naruto Character Infobox, but others prefer the one similar to Narutopedia's.  I fear an arguement could arise, but I have no intention of changing my infoboxes.  I know others feel this way about other things, not just infoboxes.  Hinōmaru-sama  (talk to Joker!) 18:07, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Under 13 Policy
I'm sorry to side-track us from our other discussions, but this needs to be straightened out. As we all know of User:Soifon1219 short banning on BFF, we all know what this topic is about. So, should we ban users under the age of thirteen, or no?  무극  (talk to Joker!) 21:05, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't have any choice, seeing as it's not only a federal law, but also a Wikia rule in itself. The thing is, as most of Admins "assume good faith", we also should "assume" that people are older than 13 when they join, unless they're complete idiots and state that they are 12 and under. --Seireitou-shishō [[File:Seireitou's signature picture.jpg]] (My True Identity 21:09, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Per Sei. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 21:19, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't start with me. >_> --Seireitou-shishō [[File:Seireitou's signature picture.jpg]] (My True Identity 21:22, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sei's right. It's federal law, but, as he also said, we should assume good faith, unless they explicitly state how old they are or that they are younger than 13. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 01:14, November 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we just start voting on this? This is a very straight-forward subject. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 17:01, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we really need a vote on this, I'm sure everyone already agrees with the law that as long as users don't state their age is 12 and under, there is no need to ban them until they reach the required age. But if we must, we can vote on it. --Fahuem 17:28, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Two Sets of Rules
Alright, so, I've come to the acceptance that we all have conflicting perspectives on the matter. Therefore, I set this proposal. We assign two different sets of rules. One pertaining to RP's, and one pertaining to FanFictions. It may be more work, but in the end, it'll keep all of our ideas included, and make us all happy. One Bureaucrat could be "in charge" of one set, and the other would be in charge of the other. Now, one would back-up the other, and vice-vers, with the Admin team also backing them up together. When it comes to RP's, the rules will have more limitations. Now, of course, there can be multiple universes when it comes to RP's, but there will need to be a core set of rules. With FanFictions, the rules will be further stressed, but have more freedom in the end. I'm willing to do my share, no matter how much work it needs. I honestly believe we will either sink or swim with this, but it's worth a try. I believe that if we work together, we can all pull this off. --Seireitou-shishō (My True Identity 03:51, November 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * As discussed on the chat, I can agree with this. --れび (talk to Lavi!) 03:54, November 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I second Sei. I'd also like to help as much as I can, as my full attention is on NF currently. ~ NOTASTAFF Koukishi (Ultimate Chaos, Chōmyaku) (talk) 11:40, November 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I almost suggested this very think in th AU section, but Sei, it doesn't work. What if a Fanfiction character also participates in RPs for side stories, filler, and vice-versa? Then we would still need a unified rule set. We need to make general, loose rules and forget about "regulations, regulations, regulations". If we can take anything from governments today, its that regulations only make people mad and mad people tend to go to extremes to get rules changed and regulations removed. I support a no Godmodding policy, and a Fanfiction policy. As I stated in the AU section. If some of these votes continue as-is we'll have to drop the Fanon in "Naruto Fanon" and this whole wiki will be made into the "Naruto RP Wiki", something I doubt Lavi had intention of. ---Ten Tailed Fox talk page 03:27, November 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well Ten, the way I see it, if a person wants to make their own stories, that's fine and dandy. They can use their own system of power levels and whatnot. However, in order to RP, they would need to make sure their character abides by the rules of RPing. I know it's splitting hairs, but the way things are going, we're not gonna be able to decide on one system anytime soon. And even if we did, it'd only be by a split vote, and that would leave half of NF annoyed. Perhaps we could make a few rules that are unified, but I should also note that most of NF is all RP'ers. We've had, like, one or two people who don't RP. I find that if we use two sets, not only do both sides get pleased, but it will allow us to also limit things without tampering with someone's right to do as they please. --Seireitou-shishō [[File:Seireitou's signature picture.jpg]] (My True Identity 03:37, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I say that if a user participates in both, they abide by both (though I doubt that we will have too many FF rules that dont apply to RP as well), just because that makes sense. If your FF char wants to RP but is against the rules, you could make a version of the character altered to fit RP rules. I agree with this proposition. --'''User:Thepantheon 03:40, November 8, 2010 (UTC)