Forum:Add "No Gossiping" Rule to the CC

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Add "No Gossiping" Rule to the CC
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 28 July 2009 by Azaz129.

I suggest we add a new rule that forbids talking about a user that is not present at the moment. Talking behind people's backs is extremely unpolite, and could be constituted as mild trolling. Some users that are to remain unnamed are prone to blaming unpresent ranks for kicking them, for example. Gossiping is not in the spirit of the wiki, and should not be allowed. This is why I believe we need to add a rule saying "Do not talk in negative manner about users not present in the Clan Chat" to our set of rules. Violators would be given 1 warning before a kick, as with all other rules.

Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 22:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - Yes,indeed. I still have yet to bear witnessed to any...bad gossip,some of it was good,but still it is not right to talk about behind each other's backs. I realize I have done it before,though I have stopped now. I do hope no one's talking about me.....--

Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

23:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - I too hate yet to see this happen, but it sounds like others have and it's a good idea to prohibit it in general. Andrew talk 23:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards support Per Soldier, but in all, it's gossip. It can happen in pm's if it's not in the Clan Chat. It's human nature. The rule should pass, but if it's in the CC, then a moderator can warn/kick/ban as offenses worsen. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 01:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - After rethinking it I've decided to change my vote to oppose. Sometimes we must do so I believe. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 01:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Absolutely not. When a users conduct violates the cc rules or the wikis user treatment policy then action needs to be taken against them, but going as far as to regulate conversation is ridiculous and is nothing less than nannying and thought control. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 01:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Tebuddy. http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 13:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Instead of just completely stop talking about a person if they are not in the CC, how about we talk about them in positive ways/neutral ways? As long as you aren't even talking bad about them, I don't really see how bad it is. If a user happens to start talking about someone negatively, we can issue a warning or a kick if necessary. I wouldn't consider "Wow! Person A is so great! Look at his edits! I wanna be like him one day! isn't gossip. It seems to be compliments to me. Just my idea though. Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 13:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - If someone is talking to others about another player about positive stuff then you should leave it. If negative then the clan chat should warn them not to talk about players badly like that but should not be made into a rule. Runecrafting.gif Mo 55 55 Talk|Sign 14:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral leaning to oppose - It would be kind of silly to completely blanket-ban no talking about someone not in the CC (would that cover players like Zezima or Gertjaars too?)... just leave it, and warn/kick if it turns (or threatens to turn) into flaming. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 14:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Kalindrum (Mo 55 55) FredeTalk 14:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - Really, if things start to get out of hand, then warn/kick. We have a rule for flaming already- and, let's be honest, "gossiping", if it starts to become malevolent, it should be treated as such. Of course, simply talking about other users, whether or not they are there, is a different thing all together... and frankly, if it's not with negative intent, I don't see the problem with it. --Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 14:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I'm a bit confused here. At the start, you mention a rule that forbids talking about a user that is not present at the moment. And towards the end, you mention the rule ""Do not talk in negative manner about users not present in the Clan Chat". They're quite different so it would help if you would clarify. C.ChiamTalk 14:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Basically, I mean it to be anyone who uses the clan chat. And, to everyone, it says "Do not talk in negative manner...". Reading what you comment on before commenting helps. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 14:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. Can we stop adding lame rules and just tell people to use common sense and not act like a bunch of children? --— Enigma 17:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - per all, let people use common sence. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per TEBuddy, I believe the current rules are good enough. Zaros tally.PNGBladeQuick chat button.png# 23:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OpposeConditional oppose - To regulate chat like this is unnecessary. To be honest, I think gossip is fine; for example, see this very interesting article. Butterman62 (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, now that I think about it, some types are unacceptable. How about this; when saying something in the cc about a user, if saying that on the wiki would get that person warned/blocked for personal attacks (e. g. "So-and-so is an (insert expeltive here)"), libel/slander (e. g. "So-and-so is high on certain recreational drugs"), or privacy issues (e. g. "So-and-so's telephone number is ____"), then it should not be allowed. Butterman62 (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of "So and so is so mean to me I wish they'd just leave". Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 03:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
My word! In that article, they started a sentence with the word "and"! And because of that, they're grammar scoundrels.
With the proposed rule, I can easily forsee people twisting it to cause a ruckuss with something that the rule wasn't intended for. The way I see it, anything that this rule is meant to cover can be covered by RS:UTP. To keep confusion and misuse of a potential rule at a minimum, I don't think it should be added. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 03:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per all. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 19:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per all the above. --Quarenon  Talk 22:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Per above, can I request the discussion is closed?? --Serenity1137 14:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Doucher4000 must request the closure of the discussion, as per RS:CONSENSUS. 15:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
RS:SNOW http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 14:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Didn't know that, shan't ask again --Serenity1137 21:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Per RS:IAR and RS:SNOW I formally request closure of this. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 04:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Closed - This discussion has been closed. The consensus is to keep the rules as present. To the users who offered support, I'm not archiving this discussion. If you feel the need, please change your proposal and begin again at the bottom to accommodate what has been discussed. Otherwise, the above proposal is over.

Bonziiznob Talk

05:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)