I have some concerns with No Cross, No Crown. First, how is it enforced? I've seen South delete a users comments & replaced it with "Deleted remark due to the political nature (about real life people) - NCNC principle". Is that right? If anything that is a political statement (i.e censorship)

The NCNC article states, "'s important to note that No Cross No Crown is a behavior standard that, like everything else, reflects the history and culture of the people that abide by it."

Sometimes, in order to debate what would be most accurate for a TL, politics, religion & other related subjects have to be discussed to have an accurate as possible TL.

Would it not be easier if we just stuck to the "play nice" rule? Then we can let people have their debates and discussions so long as they are civil and respectful. (No name calling, stuff like that) That way we can discuss what ought to be done without the fear of the TSPTF swooping in and censoring comments. If the NCNC page states "it's a general rule of thumb or a guideline, not an ironclad rule.", why are comments being censored? It does not sit right with me.

Anyway, I'd like to hear what the people think about this. --GOPZACK 19:54, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you ZACK. The way south is conducting his NCNC work does look and feel like censorships to meVegas adict 20:03, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that flat-out deletion of comments is not the best way to handle them. Better to say "Watch out, you're turning this AH discussion into a political/religious debate. Let's stay on topic." There are timelines themselves that violate NCNC with a vengeance - but we shouldn't delete them; we just should sort of complain/ignore as needed. NCNC is about politeness more than anything else. Benkarnell 20:04, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
I pretty much always saw it as a way to step in to stop any flame wars. Obviously they could start with one comment, but deleting said comment is probably going to far. Mitro 20:07, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Frankly it shouldn't be a problem for users to debate anything. It should only be of concern when one or more users are uncivil or disrespectful to others. GOPZACK 20:12, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Okay guys, it is a "silly rule" any way. I have not outright deleted anything without first informing the editor. And I have not exercised the duty more than a few times anyway. Timelines, as far as I can see, are fair game for dealing with alternate situations. I would just as soon not say anything, really, because there are times when I would like to talk politics, but more often religion, on the talk pages. But those are contentious issues with many and that is why the rule of thumb is there. Let's just agree to "play nice" and leave the judgment calls to a minimum. I'm for removing this "guideline" altogether. Leave it at "no personal attacks," which is a more authoritative way of saying "play nice." SouthWriter 20:57, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I think getting rid of the policy altogether is a little drastic. I think we should at least no longer remove or edit people's comments. I made that mistake a while back myself in regards to a rude editor on another article when I first started as an admin. I think the policy should be used only as leverage when an admin steps in to stop a flame war. Mitro 21:13, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
We don't have to rid ourselves of it if and only if we reign it in. We must end the censorship, reduce it to a guideline to avoid these "flame wars". NCNC cannot stand as it is. --GOPZACK 23:13, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
One of the three or four of my attempts at this NCNC policing was an actual case of a user commenting on the political leanings of another user. The offender apologized. Another case was an editor blasting certain public figures as deserving to die in the DD attacks. Such a statement might even be called "flaming" for it just 'begged' for a response. Earlier exchanges, since apologized for, went on for pages "off topic" but were not designed to incite argument. It is the subject matter, not the attitudes that I see the NCNC rule in place for. If we keep those discussions from getting started, then we can have reasoned discussions "on topic." I will never again delete anything - even with notice - but reserve the right to check "discussions" from escalating into heated arguments. Are politics and religion the only things to look for, or should I look for other inflammatory subjects as well? SouthWriter 05:42, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Shortly after I returned from studying the bar, Zack and I did discuss creating something on civility. Zack even created a page for it: Alternative History:Civility. However not much has been done with it since, to many other things kept coming up. Mitro 15:46, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me about that Mitro. I think we should begin to make Alternative History:Civility the successor to NCNC. --GOPZACK 23:12, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.