Forum:Backseat Moderating Rule for the Clan Chat

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Backseat Moderating Rule for the Clan Chat
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 11 December 2009 by Calebchiam.
Summed up: It's a rule against people trollbaiting/trolling/feeding the trolls/violating DBAD and hiding under the rules while doing it.

This is a proposal to make a rule against backseat moderating in the Clan Chat. Simply put, one should refrain from telling others what to do, or continously criticising others' behaviour. This is extremely similiar to troll baiting. If someone is actually breaking the rules, reporting that person would be the best course of action. Additionally, those with rank will probably warn and/or kick such an offender, if there is an actual offence. In that case, telling such a person to stop would be more likely to encourage them.

Telling someone that they are breaking the rules if they are not is generally frowned upon, and may be taken as trollbaiting or simply trolling as well. Of course, referring someone to the list of rules, RS:CC, especially a newer user or sometimes an older one, is always a good idea, but may sometimes be taken the wrong way, and is even done in spam-like manner sometimes. Any player that comes into the CC would stick to the RS rules, or be treated like a regular offender otherwise. Breaking RSW policies would bear a consequence on one's status in the CC. We allow everyone in our CC. Least we can ask is that they read and follow the rules.

Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 23:17, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - As nominator, in hopes of ridding the CC of this bothersome behaviour, as was done on the Forums. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 23:17, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Support - 'nuff said. Per D4k. Andrew talk 23:21, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I completely agree. No reason for this not to pass. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:29, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

I've rethought my stance per the below points, and I've decided to slightly oppose; unranked users giving a warning may still caused the warned to troll back (heck, happens to ranked users too). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:20, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Ranked users were mainly supported (if not fully) by their fellow users, then had a b'crat look over and give the last OK. The regulation of behaviour should be left to those who were given the rights. Sure, suggesting something tiny of a mod can be okay, but parading around saying "Kick him already gdi!" or "Cmon kick him!" is indeed rude to the moderator(s) and the accused. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 23:30, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Can't really say much more, all else said it too. ~MuzTalk 23:33, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per D4K. Ryan PM 00:20, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Changed to Slight Oppose - Per Butterman. I didn't think of it besides a command when it is a suggestion. Cannot think of much else to say on the matter. Ryan PM 05:19, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose - I can see that this proposed rule has good intentions. However, I have a few concerns.

First of all, we have other rules to mostly cover this occurrence; if someone is repeatedly spamming that someone should be kicked, that counts as spamming, "gdi" counts as offensive language, and repeatedly bugging someone with kick requests generally counts as disruption.

Second, while I agree, things like "Kick him! Kich him!" are unnecessary, we must allow users to express their grievances by, for example, saying, "I am offended by your language, <insert name here>. Please stop". In addition, some users may not be fully aware of the rules, and if a ranked member is not paying attention, etc, it may be helpful to have someone else inform such a user about our rules. Finally, RuneScape wiki's policy, at least concerning administrators, is to allow, and even promote, such "backseat moderating"; per RS:ADMIN, "Any user can behave as if they are an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions. Users doing so are more likely to be nominated as full administrators by members of the community and more likely to be chosen when they are finally nominated." As such, we should probably allow other users to participate in moderating, as long as they are not disruptive.

Finally, as I mentioned before, this rule has good intentions. However, there is a phenomenon called instruction creep, where rules pile up until they are unmanageable. In this case, the rule is probably being prompted by a person/people participating in such behaviors. However, this passage sums it up well:

Process is an embedded reaction to prior stupidity. When I was CTO of a web design firm, I noticed in staff meetings that we only ever talked about process when we were avoiding talking about people. "We need a process to ensure that the client does not get half-finished design sketches" is code for "Greg fucked up." The problem, of course, is that much of this process nevertheless gets put in place, meaning that an organization slowly forms around avoiding the dumbest behaviors of its mediocre employees, resulting in layers of gunk that keep its best employees from doing interesting work, because they too have to sign "The Form Designed to Keep You From Doing The Stupid Thing That One Guy Did Three Years Ago".

In summary, we have rules designed for this, we should allow some sort of unranked moderating, and the whole thing could pile on to instruction creep, despite the best intentions. Therefore, in the interest of the wiki and clan chat, I must oppose. Butterman62 (talk) 01:11, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Comment The reason I believe that this rule is neccessary, is because non-spamming backseat moderation is not against the rules as of now, and as was mentioned earlier, is quite vexing to many. This rule has intentions of discouraging acts similiar to trollbaiting and feeding the trolls, but not exactly either of the two. Therefore, the people using the CC cannot do much other than asking whoever's doing that - and in many cases there are several people - to stop. And that request would rarely be followed. Moreover, continous violations of the proposed rule are possible and have occured in the past, and the users with kicking abilities are unable to do much as no rule is being directly broken. And no, loose interpretation is not possible due to the high possibility of misinterpritation and rules being smudged to the point of being impossible to enforce or follow. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 01:24, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose This is not needed, we don't need more rules. All wikians are equal so any one of us can give the warning. Saying a ranked person must give the warning goes against this entirely. --Degenret01 01:46, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. And per what Butterman said, good stuff there.--Degenret01 02:00, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Anyone should be allowed to ask someone to stop something if its bothering them. People should not need a rank next to their name to be able to do that. If someone is trolling or troll-baiting, we already have rules for that. I think this rule starts to intrude on RS:AEAE and just seems to add unecessary rules to the CC. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 02:38, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I had to add the summed up version just to prevent people from thinking that. It's not telling people what to do at all - it's an extension of the rule telling people not to troll, if you must. Backseat moderating is counter-productive, and is usually more harm than help. There's no rule against citing policies with no reason - but that doesn't make it a nice thing to do. There's no rule not to tell people to stop breaking the rules whilist they are not breaking any - but yet again, it is detrimental to the victimised. It is to prevent possible flame wars and trolling sessions - and yes, I've seen several of those begin to happen. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 03:42, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Butterman, Tollerach and Degenret. I can't really add anything that they haven't already expressed. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  04:45, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Is our wiki really on the path to elitism? I sure hope not. Per all as well.— Enigma 05:24, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - The reason people backseat moderate is because they're trying to help, no? RS:AGF. And if it was a rule, what would we do? Kick them for trying to help? That really would not aid the situation. If they're feeding the fire, they can be kicked for general incivility. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 05:25, November 18, 2009 (UTC) (Edit conflict)

Comment - if someone was trying to help, report the rulebreaker. How is being a troll back at them of any help to anyone? Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 00:04, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I too must agree with butterman.

Bonziiznob Talk

18:04, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - calling people elitist because they have their own ideas and opinions disgusts me. Andrew talk 20:23, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

When you take away something that was everyones and only allow it to a select few chosen individuals as though only they deserve that thing, I find it a rather accurate description.--Degenret01 23:48, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
Um..all we want to do is make a rule against feeding the trolls...Andrew talk 23:53, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
That is not the title, and the title is the thing.--Degenret01 02:19, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
Well if you're only going to focus on the title.. Andrew talk 02:23, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
The title matters one hundred percent. If this passed then the first time some one says "hey your doing this wrong please stop" there would be freaking flame war "cuz omg you aint a sysop you cant tell me I aint gonna listen to you". If some one is being a tool enough to be disruptive they would be a tool enough to try to use that reasoning.--Degenret01 05:43, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Far too much censorship in the CC. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 20:28, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Should we allow people to egg on, and in some cases insult, sysops kicking abilities, how is it not troll feeding or even trolling? Yes, sysops are the servants to the community, but in matters of kicking trolls, that has to be left to their judgement, not for consensus. If the entire cc said to kick a person not trolling, would a good rank kick? No, I don't think so. The cc is an extension of the wiki, I understand, but it is not a Yew Grove. It is a real time chatting environment, and adding "Just kick them!" would be equivalent to saying "Cmon, ban him for doing that vandalism!" We do that on our own with no consensus.

tl;dr Kicking is like banning, it's not up to the wiki, it is up to the sysop's personal judgment, a factor of why they were (or a should of been a factor) in their consensus to be one. We are trusted users for a reason, be it here or the cc. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 00:36, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Comment We do not need a specific listing of every type of kickable offense, If some one is being an idiot or ruining the cc for the others and just being a jerk, they are booted. Period. It does not require discussion.--Degenret01 02:26, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Being an idiot never was, and will never be, a kickable offence. It's being an idiot towards others that counts. Not, we should not have a rule for every type of possible offence. Yes, we should have a rule for all general types of offences. It is power abuse to kick without some rule or policy to back it up. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 03:47, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
I use the one about not being a dick. If someone is being one then everyone in the CC knows it and they are all glad when the d is kicked. Not for having a different view, but for being a d. --Degenret01 05:39, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
Then maybe make DBAD an official RSW policy? Cause, unless it is, we can't really kick people for it. Unless they spam/swear/troll/etc. With how much it is referenced, definately would be a nice policy to actually have around. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 03:41, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
From our Clan chat page, I think there is enough there to accomplish what you are seeking.
  • "... All users must follow the rules Rules of RuneScape regarding Honour, Respect and Security..." Definitely respect would cover a good bit.
  • "...No Flaming. This is pretty much self-explanatory. There is absolutely no need to flame anyone..."
  • "...Keep your conversations mature..."

So between respect, no flaming, and be mature, would that not cover all the butt heads that need to be kicked?--Degenret01 23:29, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Extremely weak oppose - Sometimes I am not even paying attention to what is happening in the CC and, whenever I happen to have a quick check, need to know if someone said/did something inappropriate. If everyone is not allowed to say anything about it, I probably would not realise rule-breakers for awhile. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 05:34, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see the problem anyway. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 06:30, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - This would only do good for our clan chat. IF someone is flaming, spamming, repeatedly using obscene language, or any other offense, I see nothing wrong with kicking/reporting them (if the offense is severe)--Cheers, Off-hand ascension crossbow.pngYodaAscension crossbow.png 23:37, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Degenret. If someone breaks a Jagex rule or Wiki rule, and there's no ranks in the cc, you'd best believe I'll warn them. Even if a rank is there, I'm still going to. The only time this rule should apply is when someone makes a ridiculous statement because they don't know the rules, e.g., someone screaming "L A N G U A G E!!!!" when someone only said "damn". All editors are equal. No one person has more authority than another. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 07:30, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Why should this really be necessary? Only one rule and one rule needed: DBAD. If the whole CC is doing that, just leave. It's that simple. Hello71 02:11, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Degenret. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 16:45, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all opposition. We are all equal and unneeded censorship for the clan chat. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 20:25, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to have the Backseat Moderating Rule in the Clan Chat. C.ChiamTalk 15:22, December 11, 2009 (UTC)