MarioWiki:Proposals

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To
 * 1) Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
 * 2) Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
 * 3) *Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
 * 4) *Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
 * 5) *Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
 * 6) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 7) Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. The voter can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the Administrators.
 * 8) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 9) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 10) If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
 * 11) Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
 * 12) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 13) Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a Sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
 * 14) All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 15) There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a PipeProject.
 * 16) Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 17) If the Sysops deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
 * 18) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). If a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: , 27 2024 (EDT)

Miis
I am new here and not sure If I'm doing this correctly, but I propose to extend what this wiki covers to a greatly overlooked part of the Mario universe. Miis.

The reasons for this are, 1) They could be considered crossover from other series. 2) I think that they may play a larger part in the Mario series in the future.

To help back this, I wish to point out that Sonic and DK have numerous pages dedicated to them. These barely make the cut, and so, I think this is precedence enough to add these and other overlooked series characters part of the wiki.

Proposer: Deadline: January 5, 2010, 17:00

Oppose

 * 1) - Our current coverage of Miis is fine; they have all of their appearances listed, and their article is featured. They do not originate in the Mario series, so they don't need any more coverage. And if they will become more important in the future, then the future will be the right time to expand this info. As for now, we live in the present.
 * 2) Per Edofenrir.
 * 3) - First of all, did you know that the Mario Series is actually a sub-series of the Donkey Kong Series? That's why we cover Donkey Kong games and characters. We don't cover, the Sonic Series, except the Sonic characters that appear in Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games. So right there, you know why we have all those articles dedicated to those series. If that's not enough, per Edo.
 * 4) &mdash; Per Edo.
 * 5) Per the fury of Fawful.
 * 6) As said time and time again, our current Miis article covers them enough. Indeed we have multiple pages for DK and Mario characters as they appear in multiple places as different things. We're not dedicated to Miis or any of that such. Until then we don't need any other Mii articles added.
 * 7) - Per EdO!!! and I dont like miis....
 * 8) - per Tucayo.
 * 9) - Per All
 * 10) I am Zero! The coverage of the Miis are fine as they are; all third party characters (Miis can sort of be considered third party) only have info covering there cross over (not including there info boxes), and the information given about the Miis conserning there appearence in the Mario series is just fine. Zero signing out.
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) PEr all.

Comments
Fawfulfury65: Really? I thought it was vice versa regarding the Donkey Kong thing. Still, something that splits off the main series would still be allowable on the Mariowiki, such as the Yoshi games.
 * Well, Mario first appeared in Donkey Kong so...

What are we even voting on? What would happen if the proposal passes? Have a list of possible Mii faces? That's not even realistically doable. -

If the proposal does pass, we will probably have to make articles on things like Wuhu Island and all those games featuring miis.

@Zero: Miis were made by Nintendo. Thus, they are not third party.
 * I'm pretty sure he was just using "third party" as a way to refer to character originating outside the Mario series (is there an actual term for those? "Third party" nor "Crossover" seem like accurate titles). BabyLuigiOnFire and Fawfulfury65: the original Donkey Kong titles are not considered part of the recent Donkey Kong series (i.e. Donkey Kong Country, DK: King of Swing, Donkey Konga, etc.), and are usually organized so that the emphasis is on their relation to the Mario series (see and ). At most, the two series are equally spun-off of the original Donkey Kong, but that does not make Mario a spin-off of the ongoing Donkey Kong series. -

Removals
''None at the moment.

Splits & Merges
''Please note: From here on out, no new splits or merges will be accepted in this area. All splits and merges must be done on talk pages, as this section is reserved for talk page proposals. The below proposal is allowed to stay because it was initiated before the new rule was put into practice.''

Merge All Golfers and Tennis Players
I propose that all the generic human tennis players and golfers appearing in every Mario Tennis and Mario Golf game should all be merged together. If this proposal does pass the only idea I have to name this new article could be "List of Generic Humans". The reason is that about every single character except for three or four are stubs, being composed of only two to four sentances, some with no images.

Proposer: Deadline: December 31, 2009, 17:00

Merge

 * 1) I am Zero! This is a wiki, we put full information on every single article, we are not a wikia, only having one to three sentances on one article, so merging would be the best to do now. Zero signing out.
 * 2) - Most of these characters are playable once and have virtually no information surrounding them, so they are neither major aspects of the Mario series nor can full pages be written about them: there are more substantial entries in List of Implied People. When we merged the Waffle Kingdom people Luigi spoke of into said page, it did not mean that we valued them any less than before - we merely did it for consistency and organization; similarly, merging the human golfers and tennis players would make navigation faster and easier. Giving pages to everything that has a name has not worked like we hoped it would, and as more named things get added to the Mario series with each new game, it's doubtful we will ever fully catch up; instead of grasping at straws, perhaps we should try something different.

Do Not Merge

 * They are rather major characters from a Mario-sub-series. If their articles are too short, expand them rather than merge them.
 * 1) - per Time Q.
 * 2) - Per Time Q.
 * 3) More can be added, like stats, appearances, or where that character is found.
 * 4) The reason these articles are short is because nobody adds information to them. Max and Tina are examples of what they should look like, while Tiny and Putts are pretty much a complete article.  was deleted due to its shortness (thanks to Knife), but that doesn't mean they're worhtless. One last thing: What is the Mario Wiki coming to if we need to merge articles on playable characters?
 * 5) Per Time Q.
 * 6) &mdash; Per Time Q. There's plenty of info and images to be supplied to those articles, so long as one is knowledgeable and willing enough to do so.

Comments
What about other random human sports players? I'm assuming you'd want to see the tennis players merged as well as the golfers (in a separate list page), for the sake of consistency. -

Hm, I think this proposal is a good example of why we should keep "Splits & Merges" proposals on this page. On which talk page would we put it?
 * When in doubt, put it on here: since it deals with so many pages from so many different games, there is no logical central place for it ( deals with all the effected pages, but it's sorta removed from the pages itself; same with Category:Humans). It's also dealing with MWiki policy as much as straight merging - it's the old "what warrants a page" and "how to deal with stubs" debate - so putting it here in Changes would work. -

I am Zero! The reason I said merge them is that there is really not that much to expand on most of them because they only made one or two appearences (most of them) in the Mario Golf and Mario Tennis series only. Zero signing out.

Would you mind making a short or complete list of which characters you mean? I did a cursory glance to try to find some of these characters, but didn't really pop up with anything. It'd be easier if you could show us who you mean. Redstar 17:53, 25 December 2009 (EST)
 * He means all the characters that you face in the Mario Golf and Mario Tennis games, like Sophia, Meg, Mason, Joe, Gene, or Grace. Those characters are human characters that you face in some Mario Golf and Mario Tennis games. There's a ton more characters like that. Although, I actually don't see most of those as stubs.

Split Category:Special Moves
While patrolling, I found that tehre is no such category as "Moves", so all of the things that will clasify as normal moves, are listed as special, so I propose we choose which from the Special Moves are not special, and are just "moves". Since when is Jump something special? It is the most common and ordinary thing in the Mario series. You can post in the comments section which Special MOves you dont think are Special. For example, some things as the Baby Drill is special, because it is something that is not commonly done, while something as Baby Toss simply isn't, because it is just throwing the babies. How will they be separated? I think that most of the SM are found in RPG's, moves like the Green Shell, Copy FLower, and those. Normal Moves are the ones you can "Normally" do, like jumping, baby tossing, high jumping, perhaps.

Proposer: Deadline: January 3, 2010, 15:00

Create the Moves category

 * 1) - Per me.
 * 2) - I don't consider Jump to be a "special" move.
 * 3) Yeah I was just thinking about that category today. Jump isn't a special move at all!
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) - I just browsed Category:Special Moves, and there seems to be enough material to warrant the creation of a new Category. When splitting however, please take into account what I said in the comment section.
 * 6) I am Zero! I notice that a few months back I didn't really care, but that is a good idea. Since hen jump considered a special? Zero signing out.
 * 7) There's nothing so special about "Jump" and "Gulp" concerning with the main series so why list them under the Special Moves Category? I agree with this proposal, make a normal moves section. Why isn't there a normal moves category yet?
 * 8) Per all.

Comments
Please consider that the term "Special Move" comes directly from gameplay jargon and is not determined by how out-of-the-ordinary the action in question is. Wheter something is a normal move or a special move depends on how it is accessed and executed, not what exactly it is. In an RPG f.e. special moves are those moves that are an alternative to the plain "attack" command. They usually, but not necessarily, consume a certain source of power, like FP. Basically, everything action different from a character's normal way of attack is a special move.

If we split this category into two, then the Jump you mentioned would be in both categories. It is Mario's normal way of attack in most games, but in SMRPG gameplay, it qualifies as a special move. Because of this ambiguation, I cannot make my decision solely on the base of Jump. Do you have any other examples? -
 * I tried to clarify it :) Feel free to comment. And yes, in the way you put it, i think Jump should be in both.
 * Reading some of the comments above, one has to wonder if anybody actually reads the comment section... -

Talk Page Proposals
uses=Template:Mergeto include={mergeto}:1 format=,*Merge %TITLE% into ,.\n

Create Gallery Pages
The merchandise pages have been in a mess for a while. I propose a change to the current system by merging together merchandise pages into gallery pages. The only merchandise not affected by this proposal are books, publications, and Mario themed games since there is a lot of information to be covered. The gallery system has worked on a few pages like Figurines and Toys. Of course, the galleries won't be exactly like those pages. The descriptions will be more neutral and organization will be by manufacturer or type.

Reasons why this change would benefit the wiki:


 * 1) Many stubs and short pages would be removed.
 * 2) Many dead-end pages would removed.
 * 3) Easier to read about multiple merchandise objects at once.
 * 4) More organization and easier for editors.
 * 5) Fan-made or fan-named products won't have separate articles.

The gallery pages to be created are as follows:


 * Clothing – Anything that is designed to be worn.
 * Food – Anything consumable or used in consumption, like Mario themed gummy worms or Mario themed plates.
 * Toys – Anything that can be interacted with, like yo-yo,r McDonald's promotional item, or plushiess.
 * Miscellaneous – Things that just don't fit anywhere else, like a Mario Neon Sign.

Things that will be done if this proposal passes:


 * 1) All the merchandise images will organized by the above categories.
 * 2) All the previous merchandise pages will be deleted since the redirects will serve no purpose.
 * 3) New merchandise pages will be deleted and any images will be relocated to appropriate galleries.
 * 4) The Merchandise page will be organized like this.

Proposer: Deadline: January 4th, 2010, 17:00

Support

 * 1) – Per my proposal.
 * 2) - Per Knife.
 * 3) I am Zero! When I looked at the merchandise article you are right, it is a mess, it will be a good idea to do that. Zero signing out.
 * 4) Per Knife.

Comments
Um...what is that proposals thing in the draft?

Ignore that part.
 * I know, I was just letting the general public know

I think Toys and Collectibles should just be one page (as "Toys"), since it's hard to draw a clear line between them; some people collect anything and everything, while others simply play ("interact") with it all, especially kids (when I was little, I didn't care if my dinosaurs were "models", "figurines" or "action figures" - they were all just toys to me). Board games could probably fit in Toys too, and then anything that absolutely could not be played with (like neon signs or collector's cards) could go in Miscellaneous. Also, will Nintendo Monopoly be merged into the galleries? It seems substantial enough to keep its own separate page. -

Points taken.-- 23:47, 29 December 2009 (EST)

Listen, while this idea may be good on the short term -- in the long term, we will realize that some of the items like Nintendo Monopoly, and possibly other notable items may have enough info to create their own article. Info would have to include: the official name (if it has one), how it was promoted in some way, which company did they make this product, when it was released, and all that info that is good for creating an entry for a merchandise item. I had some plans that have to do with merchandising, but I'm focusing on the following things: Userspace, and the Mario Party 1, 2, and/or 3 mini-game articles. 02:18, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Changes to the coverage of Crossover Series
The Mario Wiki covers a lot of Super Smash Bros. content quite excessively. We do feature every facet of the games, its characters, stages, items, music, trophies, etc. This is in accordance to Coverage and I'm not proposing against this content being on the wiki. However, I feel that a lot of information is on the wiki two or three times. The articles Super Smash Bros., Super Smash Bros. Melee and Super Smash Bros. Brawl are all big list articles. They already cover most of everything we could possibly want to know about the games (aside from splits like Subspace Emissary).

The games' articles already contain information about the playable characters, their bio and their special moves. The articles also explain all the stages, and all the items. The articles for the characters, items and stages are only repeating that information, and add very little to it like the trophy information. But the trophy information for all trophies can already be seen on Trophy Descriptions (SSBM). Thus, I think the articles are rendered a little bit superflous, and they would do better if simply merged with the main games' articles. This would not remove any substantial content about Smash Bros. from the wiki, it would just make us not repeat ourselves that often.

I propose the following: Not touched are:
 * Merge non-Mario characters into the SSB articles. This includes characters like Mewtwo. This does not include Link, as he also appeared in a Mario game. But the SSB information on the Link article would be shortened to only say he appeared in the game and link to it. The SSB information in the Mario article would not be removed.
 * Merge stages that did not make an appearance in Mario games. This includes Mute City. It also includes Yoshi's Story (stage), as it never appeared in a Mario/Yoshi game by itself.
 * Merge non-Mario items. Mario items would still contain information about their effects in SSB games. (Star Rod would have an individual discussion because of its oddity in this case. It is not covered by this proposal.)
 * Subspace Emissary
 * Trophy, Trophy Descriptions (SSBM), Trophy Descriptions (SSBB)
 * Everything else I didn't mention above.

If any content that is on the individual articles is not featured on the game's articles, it can be added with the merge. This is still a better solution than having huge amounts of duplicate content lying around all over the wiki. If this proposal passes, it will also _not_ change the way we handle Mario & Sonic content.

Proposer: Deadline: January 5, 2010, 17:00 EST

Support Changes

 * 1) - repeated information doesn't help anybody.
 * 2) - Per Cobold, repetition is bad... So, Per Cobold.
 * 3) - Per Cobold.
 * 4) I am Zero! That is a good idea, why does information had to repeat several times. Zero signing out.
 * 5) - I hate me for doing this, and I never thought I would agree on this, as I always opposed it, but in the way Cobold puts it, I think this is the best for the wiki.

Oppose Changes

 * 1) Tons of articles, created throughout years, just merged together? It's a very big shame if this happens. The Super Smash Bros. is a series pertaining to Mario. The Mario series has the most appearing things in this series, and plays a big role. All the items, stages and characters pertain more to Mario than some of the other articles. Also, this doesn't benifit the Mario Wiki and rather detriments it.
 * 2) Per Reversinator. The only thing I support merging are the stages, but nothing else. It just seems really stupid...
 * 3) Per Reversinator.
 * 4) Per Reversinator.
 * 5) This will break consistency regarding to such characters. Characters like Kirby would still have his own article while characters like Snake are all merged into one article? This applies for everything else regarding Super Smash Bros. too. Better leave it as it is.

Comments
When you say "Merge non-Mario characters into the SSB articles" do you mean merging the characters into List of X articles or into the respective game articles?-- 20:21, 29 December 2009 (EST)
 * Into the respective game articles. -

I don't really fancy the idea of merging around two to three hundred articles, but if this gets merged, so should other crossover charactersr in other games, no?
 * It would apply to Itadaki Street DS, Tetris DS, and the likes. Mario & Sonic is a bit different as it has Mario in the name. -

What makes stages less important than characters? -

Hm... what are we going to do about SSB-related articles that also have some other interesting info, e.g. this one (cameos in SMRPG and MKWii) or that one (cameo in Club Nintendo)?
 * This would be a similar situation as with Link, I assume... -
 * I'm not sure if Link should really get a separate article just because of this small SMRPG role. (Ignore that part, I didn't notice he appeared in some DK and Wario games as well.) However, he was a major character in a few Club Nintendo comics, so his article will stay anyway. But the articles I've mentioned have only cameo appearances really.
 * Then we might consider merging it with the List of Cameos... -
 * What about Kirby? He had major role in a Club Nintendo comic. And Samus? She never had a major part in a Club Nintendo comic, but appeared in SMRPG and the WarioWare games, but don't those count as cameos? --
 * I think the Kirby article would definitely be kept, since he appeared in Mario comics (they could be considered crossover comics, but they are clearly named after Mario, so...).
 * Hm, and Whispy Woods? His role in the Wunderland comic is very minor. --Grandy02 15:11, 30 December 2009 (EST)

I really think you should redefine the proposal. The header is good, but the proposal itself seems to be targeted only towards the SSB series. Since you've included Itadaki Street and Tetris DS, you should probably define what kind of crossover series you are including in this proposal. Mario & Sonic is not affected, but what about Club Nintendo articles or Wario Blast? Will articles on crossover characters like Mametchi or Cactuar be effected? Second, shouldn't the character articles be merged elsewhere? The game articles are extremely long as it is.-- 12:49, 30 December 2009 (EST)
 * I'm confused about the handling of other crossovers, too. Regarding Itadaki Street DS, should it be solely decided on the name "Mario" in the title? It is a crossover between two series, Mario and Dragon Quest, and not more than a dozen of series like in Super Smash Bros. --Grandy02 15:11, 30 December 2009 (EST)
 * I have to admit that I did not put much thought into other crossover series. It just strikes me that Smash Bros. does not even have a 50% ratio of Mario content, yet we feature it on the wiki for 200% and more. If you have suggestions on how to handle those, I'd appreciate them. We can also delay the decision for further proposals. I feel like the 1 week deadline is a bit short to discuss this properly, especially around New Year. I don't want to hastily decide the fate of a lot of articles. In similar fashion, I think we could have a separate poll/vote on whether the mentioned characters/stages/items should be condensed into just the game articles or be kept in a separate "List of Characters in the Super Smash Bros. Series" and similar articles. -

Should articles such as HAL Laboratory, Sora Ltd., and Masahiro Sakurai be merged into different articles as well, as they were only involved in making the SSB series, and not necessarily Mario?
 * Those could be included as well, but they are not a big focus. They can be decided on a case-by-case basis. -

Use Present tense for In-game elements/events
As I edit articles, I see in-game events being told in past tense(ex. "Level 4 consisted of these enemies..."), present tense(ex. "The boss of Level 4 is..."), and even future tense(ex. "The player will then encounter Donkey Kong..."). Some articles use multiple tenses in the same paragraph which, obviously, is grammatically incorrect and looks unproffesional. Of course, actual events in real life that happened in the past or will happen in the future should be their respective tenses. But in-game events, which happen each time somebody plays the game, should be in present tense.

To enforce/clarify this, creating a policy may be a good idea as well should the proposal pass. This would help people to write articles in present tense when creating a new one, as well as edit existing articles to match the policy.

Proposer: Deadline: January 6th, 2010, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - I have waited a long time for such a proposal! Splendid! Per Garlic Man!
 * 2) - I was thinking about making this exact proposal earlier today, but I wasn't sure if there was already a guideline like this. I've come across unfitting past tense phrases in a lot of articles, mainly those about recurring enemies. Using past tense to describe how an enemy acts in a game makes it seem as if that game didn't exist anymore, or nobody could play it anymore, which is obviously not the case. I've been fixing some of it here and there, but there's a lot more of it still. If no guideline like this exists yet, there definitely should be one.
 * 3) - I admit that I wrote several articles in past tense (especially when related to the WarioWare cutscenes), but my views have changed. Pure fiction should be handled as such and there really needs to be a guideline.
 * 4) I'm always wondering what tense should I write in when it comes to revising articles (most of the time, I use past tense, because I probably think that the game event already happened). This proposal is necessary.
 * 1) I'm always wondering what tense should I write in when it comes to revising articles (most of the time, I use past tense, because I probably think that the game event already happened). This proposal is necessary.

Comments
I don't see what's wrong with the future tense example in your proposal description. IMO, some variety can't hurt.

Look at the talk page for Lou Albano. Apparently, with real life people, if they die, then the article must be changed to the past tense.

Time Q: Grammar doesn't allow variety when it comes to tenses. If it's present tense, for example, then the whole article has to be present tense.

Remove votes when they contain insults
Exactly what it says on the tin, actually. Insulting each other is the lowest and most despicable form of communication. I want this place to be civilized, and we should all be able to talk to each other like sapient beings, so we can ensure a good working climate here. The MarioWiki should be a place to enjoy, not to hurl foul-words at each other.

Therefore I propose to enable the Admins to remove any vote, when they contain insults, flames, and/or other mockery. I define such insults as everything that obviously attacks the personal dignity of another one, be it a minority, a single person, or even someone who isn't present here.

I know this sounds extreme, and I am well aware that this Proposal might fail, but I believe that we don't need to give in to our lowest instincts. After all, we are all civilized and able to express ourselves... are we?

Proposer: Deadline: January 6th, 2010, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - Flames are despicable, and they shouldn't have any room in our community!
 * 2) I think flaming can discourage activity in the wiki. The voters should just list the reasons why this and that should/should not pass, not insult or flame other users such as "all other users are stupid" or other stuff like that. Plus, it makes our wiki sound unprofessional and I think it's pretty immature.
 * 3) Flaming other people in a wiki makes us sound unprofessional, just what the proposal said. I remember that BJAODN proposal, and I'm pretty ashamed of how those people reacted to that poor proposer. We definitely need this rule.

Oppose

 * Of course I agree with your opinion about flames, but this proposal will likely just lead to arguments about what makes a flame a flame. Opinions differ on what "attacks the personal dignity". I don't think we should have such imprecise rules. Besides, I can't remember a single case where we would have needed a rule like this.

Comments
Time Q: I remember several. We once had that pretty demonstrative proposal, where people threatened to chop off the proposers head and such nice things. Maybe you remember it, it concerned the BJAODN's fate. And to give you a more recent example: Vote no. 28 seems to show very much respect for the debate. I'm not proposing to remove votes where it is debatable if they contain a flame, that's why I said "obvious". But if you encounter things like (just examples) "you idiot, why are you opposing??", or, "dude, you're as dumb as a load of bricks!" in a vote, then the case should be clear. -
 * I agree on your last two examples, but I don't think anyone would seriously feel insulted by vote no. 28. It's ridiculous, but nothing more, in my opinion.


 * Uh, I was kind of insulted by no 28. I'm sensitive though...
 * Okay, I don't want to claim then that no one will be offended by it - but as you see, opinions do differ.
 * And even if just one or two persons would benefit from removing glaring flames, wouldn't that still be a good thing? -
 * No offense (haha), but I don't like that kind of argument. "Even if just one or two criminals were cought, wouldn't that legitimate a surveillance society?" Of course I'm not comparing the topics, but the kinds of argument. I still think the proposal is too imprecise, sorry.