Forum:Change requirements for requesting a clan chat rank

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Change requirements for requesting a clan chat rank
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 8 December 2015 by Liquidhelium.

I am proposing some changes to the requirements for requesting a clan chat rank. The current standards for these requests can be viewed on RS:RFR. I originally proposed some of these ideas here. I'm making another thread to allow for more in-depth discussion of these specific proposals and to amend some of my previous suggestions (in favour of leaving it to discussion to decide whether a person should be ranked or not rather than having arbitrary time length type requirements for requests). I am proposing we change the requirements to the following:

  1. The candidate should be a well-known, helpful and trustworthy clan member who is consistently active in the clan.
  2. The candidate should have some need for the additional abilities entrusted to ranked users, as well as the necessary qualities to handle these tools .
  3. The candidate should have an account on the wiki and be aware of clan rules and processes/discussions relating to the clan that take place on the wiki.
  4. If a candidate's request is unsuccessful, they should wait some time and try to address any issues raised before making a further request for rank.

Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 19:48, November 18, 2015 (UTC)


Oppose - The first two points of your proposal can't be made a requirement for requesting a rank. They describe a bunch of key qualities that are for the wiki's community to consider and discuss once someone makes a request. By definition anyone can request a rank, and I don't think we should discourage anyone from doing so by imposing some vague rules. Additionally, it seems to me that the last point of your proposal is already followed in practice, although not stated anywhere. 5-x Talk 20:21, November 18, 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this is my bad for calling these "requirements". The current page has a list of requirements and guidelines for requesting a clan chat rank. My intention is that the page should have a "things we look for in ranks" type list so that people who are interested in requesting a rank know what they are going to be judged on (and can decide whether they think they meet with what we're looking for) and that people who are participating in discussions know what we're supposed to be judging candidates on. We can call these whatever (call all of these things guidelines rather than having "requirements and guidelines"?) - I just think we should change what the actual things are. For the last point, the page currently says wait 2 weeks. I think it'd be better to remove the arbitrary suggestion of waiting this period of time and replace it with saying people should address any issues from their last request. It is pretty much what we do already, so it would make sense to have the page reflect that. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 09:45, November 20, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral - 1. As far as I know these things can be seen when someone requests a rank trough all the support/opposing/neutral comments. Tho it could be good to be written somewhere that you need to be trustworthy, helpful and well-known. Even though that's kinda obvious isn't it?

2. Same as with #1.

3. Copy directly from RS:RFR: "The user must have an account here, even if he or she never uses it. Users running for clan adminship should have it for at least 3 months.The user must be recognised in the clan chat, and must have been in it consistently for 1-3 months."

By being aware of clan process/discussions I assume you (mainly) mean Yew Grove? Support for that!

4. Copy from RS:RFR - Decision process: "If a request fails, it is generally a good idea to wait a few weeks before nominating that person again. Once that person has been around for a longer period of time they can be nominated again. This also remains the case for self-nominations."

I think our way of requesting a rank is good as it is now. ^^

- Metal Angel

Question - What's the aim behind these changes? cqm 04:59, 19 Nov 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

We've had people say before that these requests aren't thorough enough. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I think that clarifying what we're looking in our ranks would help improve this negative perception of the process. For example, stressing more that being ranked gives tools that requesters should should need/want to use to help out the clan. Of course these are just my own ideas of what we're looking for in ranks, but I'm open to other suggestions :) Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 09:53, November 19, 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'd look at the request process itself, rather than the set of pre-requisites. It's been discussed in the past, although at the time it appeared that the existing ranks were working well or moving towards improvement. To take inspiration from RfA:
  • If we're looking for active, helpful members of the clan - What do you feel you could contribute to the clan as an administrator?
  • If we're looking for mediators - What examples of conflict have you seen in the clan and how do you think they could have been handled better?
And so on. I think it's more prudent to tackle any potential issues at the request stage than anywhere else, and it gives the community a more informed view of how the candidate processes these type of topics. cqm 12:41, 19 Nov 2015 (UTC) (UTC)
In this case, I don't think the solution to "requests aren't thorough enough" is "add some rules for requests" - I believe we need more engagement with the requests (and clan related threads) from the general community of the wiki and the clan. However, that's a more nebulous thing I don't have a clear way of resolving or improving (if there even is a way). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:32, November 19, 2015 (UTC)
These are both the bigger issues here, but I don't see how to address them easily. Potentially making it clearer what we're looking for might encourage people to comment (if people are avoiding commenting because they're not sure what comments should be about) or make more informed comments during the process (previous misgivings about the process have been "people support because the nominated person is a nice guy" type things). I'm not sure whether the things I've suggested would have much of an impact, because I don't think these are the main reasons behind the problems you've mentioned, but I'm willing to put in the (minimal) effort to make the page more informative and hope that this does something to help. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 09:45, November 20, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I don't mind supporting the new changes, but they almost seem like common sense. Furthermore, I don't see the need for more ranks. Even in the rare occasion where I log on and there were no recruit+ besides me, I haven't had any chance where I need to tell someone to stop or kick. I think really that everyone is growing up more on RuneScape that the amount of personal attacks to wiki chat is not as high as before. Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 13:11, November 19, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - These rules, with the exception of the "have an account" rule that we already have, are basically impossible to enforce. The point of the RfCCA discussion is to determine whether these criteria are met. If you want to make an RfCCA guide, then this is a fantastic outline. If the goal is to allow administrators to quickly close requests with RS:SNOW, then that should be its own proposal. I just don't see how the proposed rules, as written, could ever work in practice. --LiquidTalk 22:54, November 21, 2015 (UTC)

My intention is just to change the list of "requirements" that we have on RS:RFR - which I have always understood to just be used to give people an idea of what we're looking for. Whether someone actually met with what we're looking for would, as always, be decided by discussion. I don't think we need any criteria for admins to close requests early, that's why the things I've suggested aren't things that could be applied for this purpose. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 09:11, November 23, 2015 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus. --LiquidTalk 05:35, December 8, 2015 (UTC)