Forum:A Modest Proposal

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > A Modest Proposal
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 24 March 2011 by Aburnett.

(Or, rather, proposals.)

I have some proposals for the cc. They are inspired, but should not be bound by, recent events.

The first is that resetting the cc for an accidental or incorrect kick is verboten. It is too disruptive a measure to allow one person to rejoin the cc for an hour. It's also a problem because it's not going to be applied evenly: ccs will be reset for some people but not others, and let's just not deal with it at all. As if oft-cited in, well, pretty much any other thread about kicks: an hour isn't really that big a deal. Go outside and play with a butterfly. Sunlight is good for you.

The second is that being a forum admin, sysop or bureaucrat does not provide an ex officio cc rank. Simply obtaining an upper division userright on the wiki does not mean someone is qualified to be a cc rank. Different skill sets and temperaments are expected for each role. While it is often the case that people with these userrights are active and trusted members of the cc, it's not a guarantee and it makes no sense at all to allow an admin to come into the cc for the first time in months and make all kinds of trouble simply because he does not know the ways of the cc better. Let it be that all who are ranked in the cc got their position by virtue of their conduct and judgment in the cc.

As a result of #2, my third proposal stipulates that all ranks be reduced to sergeant (or whatever other shiny we select). There is simply no valid rationale why some ranks should be able to kick other ranks—but not the other way around. Ranks are not trusted in gradation, and the current scheme is actually counter-intuitive: sergeants are selected (theoretically) solely because they are outstanding cc members. This means they are, in fact, often more trusted as members of the cc than sysops/crats. Furthermore, if a rank has done something that warrants a kick, the response should not be to kick him it should be to remove his rank.

Fourth is that ranks not be held "during good behavior". I propose that cc ranks be yearly positions after which time holders must re-apply. As with any role of power, turnover and accountability are good things. If ranks must be renewed by vote yearly, ranks are less likely to behave in a manner which is unbefitting of their role but not so outrageous as to be stripped of their position in a YG.

As a corollary to #4, I also suggest that half/a quarter of the current ranks (randomly selected and excepting excluding the six recent appointees) be forcibly renewed at the close of this thread, and the other half/quarter in six/three months' time—tiered in this way so that we don't have sixty ranks being renewed all at once.

(wszx) 02:44, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Oppose first, because sometimes the kick is useless, and the person should be let back in.

Strong Support second, because many of the ranks we have are qualified for their job on the wiki, but just plain terrible at moderating the clan chat.

Neutral on the third, because on one hand it could be good, helping to keep the clan chat free of bad ranks, but on the other hand, we'd have to go through even more of the drama we've had with the past few rfrs, and drama is the last thing we need right now.

Slight support some ranks are doing a fine ob, and won't really need to be re-evaluated, though some could be requested by others or themselves to be re-evaluated if someone thinks they aren't doing an adequate job.--Attack cape.pngYodaAttack-icon.png 02:52, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose 1 - Resetting a CC for a bad kick takes less than 30 seconds if everyone cooperates, which was not the case this time.

Oppose 2 - That's how we get most of our ranks. Most users who are good at catching vandalism on the wiki are also decent at catching trolls in the CC. Furthermore, remember that sysops/crats are not automatically given the rank-they have to request it if they so choose.

Oppose 3 - If history is any lesson, drama in the CC tends to occur in the lower ranks, mainly because the standards for RfA/RfB's are generally higher than those for RfR's. It helps to have someone able to moderate people should rogue kicks occur. I can think of several instances where a higher rank would have helped to kick a sergeant/lieutenant, but not where a higher rank would have been necessary to kick a sysop.

Weak oppose 4 - I believe that's what deranking threads are for. --LiquidTalk 03:21, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

1. Everyone is not going to cooperate, because not everyone is required to pay attention, and what happens when someone doesn't want to cooperate? Are you going to force them to by kicking them? That's absurd. People idle in the chat all the time, and they shouldn't be kicked for an hour simply because they weren't watching the chat at the moment. Also, who gets to make the call? The ranks have to actually decide if a kick was valid and we can't even do that efficiently on the wiki: how can you expect it in the chat? 2. I wholly reject this notion. Admins are not selected only because they can catch vandals, and trolling and vandalism are completely different. Also, all admins who are competent at moderating the chat will receive a rank after a vote; this proposal could only possibly weed out unfit ranks. 3. Your anecdotal evidence is uncompelling. There is no substantive reason why admins are any better at moderating a chat than chat-selected ranks. 4. De-ranking threads are impressively difficult to effect successfully. There is a difference between "remove rank" and "do not renew rank" in how much evidence is required. This method allows for so-so ranks to lose it, instead of just "outright atrocious" ones. (wszx) 03:42, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Support first only - First one is good, it's just an hour and reseting is a huge rukus and should only be done if everyone is paying attention and agrees to it. As for the second, I don't see the ranks as power in the cc but more of a reference of tools on the wiki. If you are trusted enough for such tools on the wiki, they would definitely be able to a cc. If they abuse their powers, they will get them removed on cc and wiki. I'm not sure of 'the way of the cc' as the rules are on RS:CC which should be 'the way of the cc'. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:31, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - Everything else simply over-complicates an already ludicrous process. --Aburnett(Talk) 03:39, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

What process? At this point the process is substantively nonexistent. You get sysop/crat, you get a rank. (wszx) 03:43, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
The process is RS:RFR which leads to constant whining about why it's never open, why we don't have more ranks, etc, etc. I honestly believe that only admins and crats should have ranks, as the need for a kick is so few and far between. It makes perfect sense to just give admins/crats rank, because they have proven they are mature and capable of sound decision making. If we cant trust them in the CC, than we should not be trusting them as admins. It also makes perfect sense that they have the ability to kick ranks below them, because the higher the rank, the more rigorous the selection process has been. While a sergeant has only had to pass a quick RFR, a general has had to pass both a RFA and a RFB. Requiring a constant cycle of RFRs does no good, and as I said, over-complicates something that is already too complex. --Aburnett(Talk) 03:53, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
Not to nitpick, but at 45 there are more sysop/crat ranks than sergeants. Using that number, why doesn't it make sense to choose 45 active people in the cc to be ranks, irrespective of on-wiki rights? Not every sysop/crat rank is active in the chat, and while you are correct that sysops/crats are often generally good at moderating the chat, it's not always going to necessarily be true. The selection processes on-wiki do not correspond to the what's needed in the chat. Knowing how to read consensus in an RfA is not the same skill set as maintaining order in a chat. So simply being a bureaucrat doesn't make you a good rank. And not to invoke the AEAE specter, but allowing that bureaucrats may kick admins who may kick forumadmins who may kick sergeants effectively says "yes, actually, you are smarter and better simply because you are a crat/sysop/fa", as editors with those userrights do not get to overrule the actions of the lower-tiered userrights on wiki. Why should you get to do it in the chat? (wszx) 04:07, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
The kicking of ranks is something we hope won't be needed. Allowing ranks to be able to kick eachother can make one rogue rank kick all other ranks. With this hierarchy-like system, this can't happen. It's like a safety precaution. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 06:05, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
Um, actually, only with this hierarchical system can that happen. Under my system ranks could not kick one another. Under the current system they can. (wszx) 06:08, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Support1 - If someone is unfairly kicked they can usually wait an hour to return, especially since unfair kicks are so rare.

Neutral2 - There hasn't really been any problems with this as it is mostly the same skills needed for ranks and admins. Although I can't see any harm in doing this.

Oppose3 - In a situation like just happened if this happened there would be no way to kick the offender and I very much doubt an admin/crat let alone any rank would need to be kicked, but in rare situations they may have to.

Oppose4 - People become more mature and better candidates rather than worse so I don't see why people should have to go through rfr's every year. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:52, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

People become more mature and better candidates rather than worse clearly you've never met Stinkowing or Arin. (wszx) 05:55, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
Arin is a rare case and I wouldn't say stinko got less mature, he just hadn't snapped for a while, if you actually look at his history. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:23, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
I detest being referred to as if I were a psycho maniac or something...7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 23:25, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not referring to you as that I'm just saying you have been aggressive before but for a long time you also weren't. I'm not trying to offend you, just saying I would say you haven't become less mature. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:26, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1, Neutral 2 oppose the rest - Resetting the CC for a one hour kick is too much hassle for nothing, I am sure people can survive an hour without a group of Wikians to speak to. Proposal two is basically what occurs in the IRC, only active sysops in there have operator tools (basically equivalent to a rank), it works there, and would cut down on the number of unnecessary ranks, however, it is a relative waste of effort to identify which users are active for little gain. For the rest I oppose, reducing ranks to sergeant would be detrimental as increasing levels of trust (or less risk of power abuse) come with each rank, I would trust a general ('crat) more to not abuse power than say a lieutenant (forum admin, in light of recent events), if such rank does abuse power, a higher rank is required to kick them (as I have been told). Finally, proposal four is another wasted and unnecessary effort for little to no gain, forcing ranks to apply for "renewal" simply wastes time and effort. 222 talk 06:11, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that every person who would survive a derank thread would inherently also pass an annual renewal, and vice versa? (wszx) 06:16, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

IDC about 1 and 2 much, but I oppose three and support four. We do need diff levels of ranks in case one guy gets out of hand. Sad but true.
As for getting reranked each year, I kind of like it. Some people just do not handle it well and therefore do not represent the wiki that well in the CC. We really should not have a system where it is so much easier to get than to lose. It should be the same either way. As for comments of how much of a pain and a bother it will be, well, if its a hassle for you, don;t participate. Pretty simple really. If this by some crazy ass chance happens to go through put my name on the first six to be reevaluated. If the cc community feels I do not represent well, I should not be ranked. And neither should anyone else.--Degenret01 08:34, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

To clarify any potential misunderstanding, I meant the six ranks who were promoted when RfRs were recently opened (to3, raging bull, pharos, real, glendonna and qwert). They would not have to be reconfirmed at the closure of this thread, since they only just got the rank. As for your objection to #3: while I accept that it is perhaps sometimes necessary to take action when a rank behaves inappropriately, I reject that it is any more likely for a chevron to behave this way as opposed to a star. If anything, chevrons are more likely to respect the ways of the cc simply because they were selected solely because of their conduct in it. (wszx) 08:59, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2, partially support 3, Oppose 1, Neutral on 4 - Now, I never liked that sysops etc get ranks in the cc immediately since it is quite irrelevant to the cc, however, reducing every rank to sergeants will mean that we won't be able to stop a rank if they decide to go against a rule. Therefore, I always thought we should have some levels to rank requests, request for lie., request for capt. and request for gen.. The only reason I never proposed this is that it makes things too bureucratic. However, IMO, it is better than giving people ranks just because they passed an irrelevant request on the wiki. For 1, if the kick is unjust, I don't see anything wrong with resetting the cc, people can survive being outside the cc for 10 seconds instead of forcing someone to wait an hour. For 4, you could just go create a de-rank thread if you do not like the way they moderate. However, people are reluctant to support those unless the rank did a major mistake, so I'm neutral on this. bad_fetustalk 09:22, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1; mass kicks are way too ridiculous under any circumstances to be allowed. Reluctant support 2 ; I'm used to the tradition of automatic CC ranks upon a successful RfA, but I can see the logic behind your proposal and that of the supporters. No comment on 3. However, oppose 4, on the grounds that no other position (rollback, custodian, sysop, bureaucrat, IRC operator) requires periodic renewal in order to assess whether the user should keep their position. Such a process would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. The status quo is that users who are granted a position of responsibility are assumed to be qualified for it unless they royally screw up, at which point their removal from that position can be discussed. I see no reason for this to change. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 09:24, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

As a note, passage of #2 somewhat necessitates the passage of #3: how will we determine which shiny future ranks get since the current hierarchy is determined by on-wiki placement, and such practice would be abolished by #2. As for your objection to #4, simply because we don't do it for other positions doesn't mean we shouldn't/can't do it for this one. Do you oppose renewal for cc ranks because it's a poor idea or simply because other userrights don't require it? (wszx) 16:41, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
I don't quite get why mass kicks to allow someone back in is such a big deal. Sure having someone kicked for an hour is not a huge deal, but do you know what's less of a deal? Being kicked and allowed to rejoin within a minute. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 16:46, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
The problem is more than just it's an inconvenience for everyone else (although it absolutely is). It's problems with implementation. Ranks will decide to empty the cc for some but not others. Some people won't be paying attention and will be kicked, and like yesterday, sometimes it doesn't work, meaning all those people are kicked for an hour. Sometimes not all ranks will agree if a kick was valid or not. Aside from these, it's really, really not okay to inconvenience 30+ people so that one person may join the chat for an hour. (wszx) 16:52, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
I will agree that its a problem when there is contesting opinions of whether a kick is valid or not, but what if someone really is accidentally kicked? Like a misclick or something. Surely there's nothing wrong with a rank kicking everyone and allowing them back in. If it really was an accident there's no reason for any rank to refuse to leave after the kicking and allow the chat to reset. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:59, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - If the kick was unjust, a message of apology can be sent via private messages or talkpages (like when I accidently kicked Stinko). Oppose 2 - Some sysops are more active that some ranks. Oppose 3 - Sysops have been selected as some of the most trusted users on the wiki. Plus, if a rank commits a kick-worthy offense, that's not power abuse and as such does not merit a deranking, only a kick. Strong oppose 4 - Just what's the motivation behind this? Ranks have passed RfRs, just like sysops have passed RfAs. If that passed, sysops would have to be desysopped after a year too. Real Crazy 17:01, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Some sysops being more active than some ranks is irrelevant, it is related to the levels of trust. I see no reason why an admin is trusted more than a usual person, and there are several users that I trust more than most admins. Honestly, a RfA shows that the user needs the tools, it doesn't show that the user has achieved a level of extreme trust. bad_fetustalk 18:54, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
So you support giving someone the ability to completely lock the wiki down, to delete pages, to move pages without restriction, etc, etc, without trusting them? I don't think we should count your future votes on RfAs if that is the case. Christine 22:09, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that doing something kick-worthy does not merit a de-rank. If a rank is doing something kickable, he is unfit to police others. And sysops probably should be reconfirmed. But I didn't propose that because I don't care that much, and just because we would make renewal the law of the land for cc ranks does not mean we would have to apply that to sysops. (wszx) 00:14, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
I neglected to mention that serious offenses would, of course, mean a deranking, but more isolated incidents of flaming and trolling don't. We should only remove ranks when necessary - if a user passes an RfR. they are trusted by the community. They have their powers taken away if they misuse them, or seriously break policies like RS:UTP and the CC rules. I hate to dredge up old ghosts, but look at the admins that have had to be desysopped. Puremexican blocked Christine as a screw-you message. Shadowdancer tried blocking the whole wiki after a disagreement. Stinko had his rank removed after what is now deemed to be an unfair kick, and several violations of UTP. We should only remove ranks in similar cases to these, when it becomes a liability to let users continue having their powers.
As for Chess' comments, anyone can need the tools to become a more efficient editor, but if they aren't trusted, their RfR won't pass, will it? I could probably start an RfA for myself, seeing as .I would be of more benefit to the wiki if I could delete/protect pages and close dead discussions, but I don't think I am trusted enough to actually get them. Completely inactive ranks are of no help whatsoever, and we have way more sysops than ranks frequenting the CC - the only regular sargeants I can name apart from the 6 most recent RfRs are you, Brux and Jack. On the other hand, I could rattle off a long list of frequest, long-term sysops. If ranks are solely for the CC, then for the sysop-rank-removal proposal to actually pass, we'd have to run about 10-15 more RfRs to keep the CC policed and backed up with emergency ranks. I for one do not want to sit through that many RfRs - it was hard enough reopening them the first time, let's not go through that again. Real Crazy 20:17, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
You think people who troll and flame should be ranks? (wszx) 22:39, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
Consistent trolls should obviously be deranked, but a derank thread cannot be based solely on a single incident. If MrRank123 loses his temper trying to deal with MrTroll321, that's a single slip. Forgive and forget. Real Crazy 22:08, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
Which is exactly why this proposal should pass. An entire de-rank thread can't be based on an incident, but declining to renew a rank can be. And really? Forgive and forget? We have enough people who are qualified to be ranks. We are not in such a need for ranks that people who cannot keep cool when dealing with a troll should have the bit. (wszx) 01:36, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
So in a year's time, you would remove my rank for losing my temper with Bawble about 2 or 3 months ago? Real Crazy 14:20, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
Well I don't recall that you did, so probably not. But otherwise, yes. It was very easy to not be angered by bawble: the ignore button exists for a reason and he wasn't that annoying anyway. Numerous people in the cc behaved appropriately, and the fact that you lost your temper with him is proof that you do not have the temperament to be a rank. (wszx) 17:40, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that anyone that loses their temper, even once, is unfit to be ranked. We are only human, we all have emotions, sometimes they get the better of us. If we removed ranks from anyone who ever lost their temper, we'd remove at least 90% of our ranks, almost all of which are doing a good job as it is, with the exception of those completely inactive ones that haven't gone through the 6-month wait for a derank yet. Real Crazy 20:46, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 oppose all others As an admin I am a trusted member of this community, that includes the CC 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 17:13, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

You are indeed trusted, but being an admin does not mean you are more trusted than a normal rank or a forum admin. You passed a request for adminship, not a request for extreme trust. bad_fetustalk 18:54, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
Uh...is there a difference between trust and extreme trust? 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 14:17, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
Clearly there is. Otherwise we wouldn't have different tiers of ranks in the cc. That's the very underpinning position for tiered ranks: that some people are more trusted than others. (wszx) 22:39, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
I am of the understanding that there are 'crats (highest rank) admins (next) and then people who pass an RFR. What is the harm in that? It is essentially what we have here on the wiki 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 22:42, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
The difference is that on the wiki the roles and what they do are distinct; in the chat they all have the some role: to police it. Bureaucrats are not super-admins, but in the chat, they are super-ranks. (wszx) 22:50, February 8, 2011 (UTC) (wszx) 22:50, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose All - 1) Yes, resetting the CC can cause problems, but then again, so does the CC as a whole. It is possible for a CC to be reset calmly, so long as the ranks go about doing it correctly (Jedi did not, and that one instance should not result in banning CC-resetting). 2) I would support removing ranks for Forum admins, because I think being a rank requires more trust than being an F. Admin. As for regular admins, if they cannot be trusted with a CC rank, they should not be given adminship at all. 3) The ranking system in the CC serves the same purpose as the hilites do on the wiki. 4) I'd support this only for non-admin ranks. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:15, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

It's more than just general trust, though. Criteria for passing an RfA are different from those for passing an RfR. They should not overlap. (wszx) 00:14, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
Why does being a F. Admin not give you as much as a rank? Becoming a F. Admin requires a lot of trust and isn't given out to anyone. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:26, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
I don't trust D4K or Jedi with either F. Adminship or a rank. Dave, on the other hand, I trust with F. Adminship, but not a rank (sorry, Dave). The forums, back when they were active, had a completely different community with a different set of rules. Unlike regular adminship, I don't think it should go both ways for F. Admins. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 10:18, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if this sounds a bit rude, but did you just basically say "You guys can allow your ranks to be removed if you want, but admins sure as hell arent."? - [Pharos] 10:37, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
That's not rude. An RFA is a much more vigorous than an RFR, so (I think) the chances of a rank turning out to be untrustworthy in that regard are greater than that of an admin. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:39, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
It's rude if you took it a different way. It just sounded a bit odd how you put it and I needed a more detailed reasoning on that point - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 20:53, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
What I think he is trying to say is that a RFA is far more difficult to pass than a RFR. An admin is a trusted member of the community and therefor should also be trusted in clan chat. If I am mistaken, then I am sorry for putting words in Steeler's mouth 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 21:06, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
There is no Steeler, only Zuel. Aside from that, you're correct. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:22, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 Oppose rest Resetting the CC is far too tedious to bother with. For the most part ranks on the wiki have made for good ranks in cc, if not then they can be dealt with individually. --KgnomesTalk 22:29, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - True, resetting the clan chat does cause inconvenience.

Oppose 2 - I opposed that one because, sysops, and bureaucrats were skilled on the wikia, with years of editing and removing vandals, so that does qualify them to be CC ranked too.

Weak oppose 3 - Per Sentra's "Oppose 3"

Weak support 4 - I agree on all, but it shouldn't be yearly positions, should be based like the wikia userrights, see if you do have the needs to be a CC ranked player. My 1337 b0w1337rng3r|Talk Har har, my wikia bird, T-Hawk! 07:54, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose1/Oppose2/Conditional3/Support4 -

1) Despite recent events, i think this should be allowed to stay as a "case-by-case" sort of thing. Allow whoever is in the cc at the time to come to a decision on if they should reset or not. If a rank makes a decision without coming to an agreement with the rest of the cc, they will face the consequences of what will be classified as power abuse. If everyone agrees, everything should go smoothly, if a few people dont, then its the exact same situation we would be in if we had this we didnt allow resets, no harm done. Case-by-case also lets them incorporate other possible factors like the amount of people in the cc, update warnings, conditions of the kick, etc

2) I really dont mean any offence to some of our older admins, but i believe that our standard for an RfA have increased quite a bit. Ive seen quite a few very capable and trusted users attempt one only to be shot down on minor details or certain feelings that we have too many already. If a user does pass an RfA these days, they wont only be capable editors, but will have earned the community's trust to deal with conflicts and the like maturely and fairly.

4) Quickly moving onto 4 as its more related, i do think however that some of our admins/ranks are about due for a re-evaluation, or whatever you want to call it, when it comes to being ranked in the cc. A lot can change in a year (or many years as the case may be), they may have been picked by the community as great candidates when they were sysopped/ranked, but many of us are teenagers and can change very dramatically in regards to attitude or behaviour and even our community is ever-changing. This may sound like a long, arduous process but will become more efficient and streamlined after we get over the first hump. I like harle's suggestion of 1/4 immediately, if this passes and then another 1/4 in a few months and so on. Then we can schedule re-evaluations for... say a year after their RfA/RfR? Im not sure how it'll work but probably something like an RfR format. Oh, there'll be people who say that you can just start a thread if you have iasues with someone but this is much easier and less awkward. Someone isnt going to think to themself "this rank is doing a bad job, ill go start a thread about it", but if a rank is getting reviewed anyway, they may just pop in to give their 2 cents. Im not sure about inactive ranks that have had their rank removed to save space, but i guess they will just be given a "whatever the standard rank is" until they complete a re-evaluation.

3) I would support making all ranks the same if either of two conditions were met. I would feel better about supporting this if we had a very active clan chat owner, i dont mean to say that C Teng is doing a bad job or is too slow or anything. He normally manages to get changes in within a a day or less, i recall him logging in to rank me and a few others only hours after the RfRs were closed. But he doesnt actually play... There are many players in the clan chat that play many hours each day and are often online when incidents occour, being able to deal with them much faster and witnessing the situation first-hand instead of having it relayed to them by someone else. With this setup, a one-level standard rank would possibly work.

The other possibility, which i much prefer, is that after everyone is demoted to a standard rank, new ranks/admins have a rank decided during their RfR/RfA or something and then have the possibility of it being changed during their re-evaluation. This would give the benefits of harle's system and the benefits of a hierachy system. - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 14:11, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Didnt think this'd turn into such a TEXTWALL - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 14:21, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
Pharos's suggestion of allowing some people to have a higher rank for the express purpose of policing ranks and determined specifically because of suitability for that purpose (based on activity in the cc as well as expressed judgment) is acceptable to me. (wszx) 22:39, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support all- I'm not exactly aware of the situation going on in the Wiki cc right now, but the suggestions would help keep order in it. Very many clans experience almost these exact problems. That's my $.02 Farming cape (t).png Ededdeddy97 Quest point cape.png 23:07, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Strong Oppose 3 - If a rank is, for whatever reason, abusing his kicking power, there isn't time to waste in waiting a day in getting him de-ranked. In that time he can thoroughly destroy the clan chat. If someone can kick him, he can be kept out until (who controls the CC now anyway? Is C Teng still active?) arrives to de-rank. (davelopo) 21:01, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

What if it's a bureaucrat who is abusing his kick power? (wszx) 01:36, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
Then we have more issues then the CC if a bureaucrat went rouge. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:38, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
Why. Bureaucrats are people too. They're just as likely to go rogue (not rouge) as anyone else. (wszx) 01:40, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
No, they are not. Bureaucrats are much less likely to go rogue. The de facto standard for RfR is: does the person sit in the CC a lot without being overly rude? That's basically it. A sysop, and especially a bureaucrat, has to go through much more intensive character screening before the sysop or bureaucrat tools are given. --LiquidTalk 02:27, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
Nah. Going rogue don't mean they come into the role looking for trouble, it means something changes while they have the position. That's a human flaw and passing an RfB instead of an RfR doesn't change that. (wszx) 02:35, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
We already had one crat demoted for misusing kick powers, and being an ass a hell of a lot. So that is one crat, zero sysops, and one forum admin. I believe that's it.--Degenret01 14:37, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
OMG! Who was that? Real Crazy 14:49, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make Ghosty but I'll run with it anyway. That two people have lost their cc rank, and neither was a sergeant and one was a bureaucrat only supports my argument that all people are equally likely to abuse the rank. (wszx) 17:40, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
That is what I meant, anyone can be an abuser regardless of what they have "passed" on the wiki. Any suggestions that sysops or crats have been held to a higher standard is so ludicrous I need to wipe my ass with the idea.--Degenret01 08:06, February 11, 2011 (UTC)The previous statement is intended to be rude crude and harsh as the concept it refutes is so ludicrous it demands a statement of that nature to be certain no one misses the contempt I and and most other right minded thinkers have for it.--Degenret01 08:13, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
1 forumadmin and 1 bureaucrat is hardly "anyone", it's 2 people from groups which which have passed requests for more tools than other users. We should not have to change the standards of our CC because of the actions of 2 people. The majority of our ranked users are not randomly kicking the entire CC, so why should we act like they are? Any problems are with the individuals, not with the system. Real Crazy 15:53, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support #3/#4, they seem like very good ideas.--Quest point cape.png Yt'Haar-Mej-Joelthefrog1 Prayer cape (t).png 21:10, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose 1 - There are some rare circumstances where resetting the CC is necessary. For example, during a wiki event an accidental kick could be detrimental. There is room for debate about details (ie when the measure should be allowed, the level of consensus needed to do so, and the necessity of consent from the kicking user). However, a full ban on resetting the chat isn't the right course of action.
  • Oppose 2 and 3 - With respect to the specific incident, WhyHaveALife could have continued to wreck havoc on the chat had a proper sysop not been present to kick him. If all of the ranks were the same, the CC would have been rendered inoperable until C Teng (who is less than active) became available to derank and/or ban him. Fewer rank levels means more delays between incidents and their resolution. Furthermore, it simply makes sense that someone who is trusted to not mass block users and not replace the wiki logo with an obscene image is trusted to not kick users unjustly. And we have deranking forums in case they abuse this power, on the wiki or ingame. We need to stop blaming the system instead of the perpetrators whenever something goes wrong.
  • Oppose 4 - I just don't think this would improve the clan chat's functionality. It seems more likely to create instruction creep and additional bureaucracy than reduce the frequency of these already rare incidents. The system would also be easy to abuse, as opportunists would use it to vote out current rank holders so that they could nominate themselves and/or their friends. Ranking CC users would turn into a popularity contest rather than a means of identifying trusted users (which is already taken care of by the RfA process). Dtm142 02:24, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose all - Per Dtm. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk 17:48, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

It seems that consensus has not particularly been reached to pass my proposals. This is disappointing but not unexpected. I would, however, like the closer to pay special attention to the first one. The cc policy does not provide for resetting the cc, so there is no status quo to use as a default. This discussion clearly shows that there is not a consensus to broadly allow for the cc to be reset. I request that the closer consider making a ruling on resetting the cc—lack of clear consensus for one position notwithstanding. (wszx) 00:23, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for A Modest Proposal. Request complete. The reason given was: Complete

Closed - Proposals 2, 3, and 4 will not be implemented. Regarding proposal 1, Due to the differing of opinions amongst users I do not believe it is appropriate to completely disallow resetting the CC. Instead, an admin who has reason to believe that the CC needs to be reset should talk to members of the channel, inform them of the action about to be taken, and make sure the users are OK with it. If there is disagreement whether or not to reset the CC, don't reset it. Mistakes happen, and It's not going to kill anyone if they are kicked out of the CC for a little while. It's better to anger one person then anger everyone in the channel. I'm not going to add anything specific to our CC policy on this as the outcome of this thread is been pretty nonspecific, however I do suggest that ranks keep this in mind in the future. --Aburnett(Talk) 20:00, March 24, 2011 (UTC)