Forum:Changes to the RSW clan avatar policy

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Changes to the RSW clan avatar policy
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 25 December 2014 by Liquidhelium.


As any of you that frequent the Clan Chat will have noticed, there has been some struggle around the clan avatar. In particular, [[RuneScape:Clan_Chat/Clan_Avatar#Avatar_Wardens_2|bullet point 2]] has been interpreted in different ways. There is no need to go into too many details (as that may only lead to more personal strife). What it boils down to is: one user tends to have the clan avatar on a non-39 world very often, though world 39 is the official clan homeworld.

  • The complainers' point of view: world 39 is indeed the official clan homeworld; it is only logical that it would get an avatar before any other world.
  • The relevant clan admin's point of view: this person lags so badly on world 39 that it seriously affects the way they play the game. It is practically impossible for this person to have the avatar on world 39, and by having it on a different world, at least some people can benefit (as anyone is free to hop to the other world; noting of course that this world might be too laggy for a large portion of clanmates too).

I think we can all agree that both sides are reasonable. Yes, world 39 should get preference over other worlds when it comes to clan benefits; however, we cannot force a user to play on a world that is too laggy for them to enjoy the game.

For this reason I propose that we re-word the current clan avatar policy; acknowledging both sides (namely that homeworld, and citadel for that matter, get preference, but that we also cannot force users to play in bad conditions):

You are free to take out the avatar on any world you want; however, please consider taking it out on a clan homeworld or in the clan citadel first, as these are the main clan hubs; if all three avatars are out, but none are on a clan homeworld and/or the clan citadel, you must dismiss yours so that someone else can take one out on one of the homeworlds or the citadel (if a warden is online on one of those worlds).

In addition, I'd like to propose that:

  • Admins that do not abide by this policy are stripped of the warden job; it is handed out without consensus and therefore can be removed without consensus.
  • If this thread is closed and this new policy adopted, all current avatar wardens that have not commented on it (and can thus be assumed to not know about the policy change) be stripped of the job until they acknowledge the rule change. A message would be sent around similar to this one.

I hope we can all agree that this is a sensible rule that gives everyone the maximum enjoyment both of bonus xp and of lag-free gameplay. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:51, December 7, 2014 (UTC)


Support Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:51, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Strong support on the latter bullet point. User talk:ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of User talk:ThePsionic ThePsionic Special:Contributions/ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of Special:Contributions/ThePsionic 18:55, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Support - This is a more reasonable solution that forcing Avatars on 39 only. Slayer helmet (c).pngImmo Voted Worst Wikian 2013 Slayer cape (t).png 19:01, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Works for me and seems to benefit everyone. Lord Zaros symbol.pngWayfind3r Talk Quest Icon Crest.png 19:02, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Support - This sounds like a sensible proposal. One one hand, the clan world and the citadel should always come first. On the other hand, w39 isn't convenient for some clan members due to high ping and increased lag. What's more, avatar glitches (despawning) that plague often-used worlds (such as the clan world) make utilising the avatar difficult there. As the relevant admin who has just lost his warden privilege over this very issue, I hope this tweak in the guidelines will clear up any remaining ambiguities. 5-x Talk 19:09, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Oil gave me a quick overview of what happened to prompt your loss of the warden privilege, but seeing as it seems to be the action that prompted this forum, could you expand on why you lost them? cqm 11:43, 10 Dec 2014 (UTC) (UTC)
It's certainly related to this proposal but is it really important? 5-x Talk 23:54, December 10, 2014 (UTC)
>Be me
>Pro maxed guy killing elves on slayer task
>People want avatar on W39
>Lots of arguing back and forth
>5-x hops to W39
>"Avatar is on 39"
>5-x dismisses avatar
>"And now it's not"
>"I'm going to runespan"
>Hops back to W32
>Gaz Lloyd has removed the clan job from 5-x
>Gaz: "Don't be an ass"

mfw MolMan 19:12, December 10, 2014 (UTC)
I actually went to Runespan on w39, it's why I had to dismiss the avatar in the first place. 5-x Talk 23:54, December 10, 2014 (UTC)
No, you went back to 32. I remember pointing out that W39 is the official Runespan world after you hopped back. MolMan 23:56, December 10, 2014 (UTC)
I did, because someone on w32 wanted something from me. I also remember you telling me that w39 is the Runespan world, to which I replied that I know. I didn't dismiss the avatar for no reason and I intended to go straight to Runespan on w39. 5-x Talk 00:04, December 11, 2014 (UTC)
This is a seperate discussion, please take it elsewhere. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 00:05, December 11, 2014 (UTC)
Hopping to world 39 with the full intention of dismissing the avatar was a massive dick move that, combined with the grumblings over the past few weeks (about your use of the avatar) and my personal concerns about your attitude, resulted in the removal of your warden - and also contributed to the creation of this thread. Regardless, per Oli, this thread is not about 5-x. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:06, December 11, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Looks like a sensible idea to me. Ceejay1967 19:12, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Should be common sense but that is passed over on some, little upset there isn't a joke to be made though. Sly Fawkes (talk) 19:14, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Sounds fine. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 19:35, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Sounds basically fine. It just shouldn't be a big deal-and I really don't know why this has to keep coming up. I get that some people have lag and stuff. But hopefully everybody wants to help out clannies. Hopefully this is clear enough that we can be done with it. HaloTalk 20:23, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Sensible and should reduce or remove the squabbles that have happened yesterday and earlier today. Ryan PM 20:42, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral - I am maxed, and have plenty of xp already. But I guess this would make all the plebs happier. MolMan 20:44, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Makes sense - Korasi's sword.png Archmage Elune  TalkHS Void knight deflector.png fetus is my son and I love him. 21:22, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't really see the need for the change in policy. I thought that the existing "bullet point 2" covered everything. To me both the existing paragraph and the proposed have the same underlying meaning: have avatar on 39 if possible, if not then people are welcome to change worlds to be on the same as the avatar. Furthermore I believe that 5-x should get his warden rights back. Although I acknowledge that this may not be relevant to this particular thread. Raglough (talk) 23:36, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Support Per all 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 23:40, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Support Any additional clarification can only be a good thing Zaros symbol.png KDanger Talk 01:40, December 9, 2014 (UTC)

Support - per all Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 01:45, December 9, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Per all -- Megadog14Talk 04:07, December 9, 2014 (UTC)

Support - with one possible add-on; only have to dismiss in favor of w39/citadel if another warden is or will be on those servers. Narfblat (talk) 05:14, December 10, 2014 (UTC)

Support - HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 19:50, December 10, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose first half, support second - Comparing Oil's proposed statement with the current [[RS:CC/A]] statement, I think (and have seen already from a few wardens) that the proposal as written is going to be used as free license to do whatever you want with the avatar. Right now the page says: "If possible, keep an avatar with the skill boost buff active on world 39 as often as possible - As world 39 is the member's wiki world, it is the ideal world to keep an avatar (with the skill boost buff) active on it for the benefit of the clan. If you are the only admin with an avatar on at the time, please use world 39 unless it really is unplayable for you." We have the wiki homeworld for the social aspect of seeing clanmates on it and I think a lot of people enjoy that. The new proposal allows wardens to take the avatar out on any world without even considering taking it out on 39 first, meaning a majority of the clan can't reap the XP reward. The existing verbiage strongly encourages wardens to use 39. I've seen a few people so far use this thread as an excuse not to put the avatar on 39, despite it being playable for them. I do support the second half of Oil's proposal that states the avatar must be dismissed if there isn't one available in the citadel or on world 39 to prevent arguments occurring again in the future about this issue. tldr; There's a big difference in saying "you may use any world you want" versus "if you're the only admin with an avatar, please use 39 unless you absolutely can't." Christine 05:05, December 13, 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if you'd be singing the same song if you hadn't happened to be living close to world 39 Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 10:44, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
Really, though, in today's age of high speed internet is any world /really/ unplayable? --LiquidTalk 01:29, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
Define "unplayable"? But yes, some worlds are. Frame rates are lower and waiting two or three seconds (sometimes even more) for something to happen after you click just isn't enjoyable. Raglough (talk) 03:12, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
100 Mbps download speed (fiber) and still often have trouble on w39, so yes. I play on w39 whenever possible, but sometimes you just can't. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:55, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
Would you support designating a second unofficial world, perhaps based somewhere in Europe, for the avatar to be on? Then the hierarchy can be 39, new world, citadel (not necessarily in that order) above any other worlds? Give a second, more-playable, option to the other half of the clan while still creating a gathering world that ensures more than just a single clan member gains benefits from the avatar. I think that's fair. Hell, make it w32 for all I care (assuming that's in Europe, I don't know that it is). I say unofficial only because actual clan settings in RS would prevent us from setting more than one homeworld, but we can add the second world to the policy along with the "if you have it out and it's needed somewhere else, you must dismiss" part. Christine 03:19, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
Good lord, why is any of that necessary? The things you outlined in your first post cover all over that - 39 unless not possible. End. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 03:21, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
W139. Brit world, and it has 39 in it. MolMan 03:24, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
What about for australia, asia or south america? A hierarchy isn't worth the effort. cqm 00:11, 15 Dec 2014 (UTC) (UTC)
Those countries don't count. MolMan 00:13, December 15, 2014 (UTC)

Slight oppose - The arguments above are compelling, but I feel that it may still be slightly unfair to those who use the official clan world in that it requires all avatars be out before requiring a dismissal. In ideal conditions, that would perhaps be optimal, but I think that taking into account the bugs that occur pertaining to avatars, the only way to ensure that there will always be an avatar in reserve for the citadel or official clan world be in the following manner: allow only one avatar to be neither at the official world nor citadel. This will have similar results to what is proposed, namely that clan-shared spaces have priority while still allowing avatar use if those locations are inaccessible. What is gained, however, is that such avatars would not be spread in a manner that either the official world nor the citadel would have to hope for a prompt dismissal of an avatar already in use. For example, Warden Alpha summons Avatar A on World 1, Warden Beta summons Avatar B on World 2, and Warden Delta summons Avatar C on World 3. Suddenly, all three wardens must dismiss avatar. If only one avatar is allowed, then at least one world can benefit from the avatar bonus, and there is still an avatar each for the official clan world and citadel. --Wafflebb (talk) 22:56, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, I think as long as there's an avatar available, people should be free to use it - as long as there's one on 39 already. Christine 23:01, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Reasonable enough. I find that in my case and for most others, w39 is typically already a priority, so it shouldn't be a particularly hard rule to enforce.--Cheers, Off-hand ascension crossbow.pngYodaAscension crossbow.png 00:21, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

Note - Should Forum:More RSW home worlds pass, "world 39" would be replaced with "the clan homeworlds." Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 00:23, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose first bit, suggestion for second bit - The current verbiage is more than adequate and, I believe, more clear than the proposed changes. However, I would support the addition of a slightly re-worded second half of your proposed change, "if all three avatars are out, but none are on w39 and/or the clan citadel, you must dismiss yours if there is another warden available to take it out on w39." Farming-icon.png Ms ZuZu Talk Quest icon fixed.png 07:14, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that.Sly Fawkes (talk) 22:18, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
Re:second part - that kind of speaks for itself, but if you want to add that, sure. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:42, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious to us, yes. But eventually someone will come along who doesn't see things as clearly, and then we'll have another silly YG thread. Let's just save ourselves the bother and spell it out.--Farming-icon.png Ms ZuZu Talk Quest icon fixed.png 03:33, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I slightly changed the proposal, as per Zuzu's and others' comments. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 10:40, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Closed - A line will be added to the avatar policy to compel wardens to dismiss their avatars if all three are out on non-clan worlds, if a warden is willing and able to take an avatar on a clan world. --LiquidTalk 06:43, December 25, 2014 (UTC)