Forum:Clan Chat Consistency

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Clan Chat Consistency
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 7 April 2009 by Bonziiznob.


Notice of Intent - The following changes will be implemented unless a strong opposition occurs, on April. 7th, 2009 06:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Clan Chat Consistency

Alright, I am slowly getting tired with how some ranks are automatically attained with random in-game voting, and that we need to beg for users to be banned from the Clan Chat. There is at present no consistency with the Clan Chat and how it is run, and the way we are currently trying to create a foundation is bias in itself and unorganized. So, lets get this developed now, and make it more consistent and on page so that the community can easily decide. Regardless of all other proposals, I move to archive them a start fresh, on a clean slate, so we can better get organized and clear our opinions on a few new issues.

Bonziiznob Talk

20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Clan Chat Ranking

As of now, the Clan Chat ranking system is based directly from Wiki positions in regards to Forum Admins, Sysops, and Crats. The position of bias occurs presently where non-admins are trying to/or attaining ranks. At present, and I will quote C Teng on this only not in exact words, that he randomly distributes ranks based on trust. There needs to be more consistency on this as this POV is completely bias and unfare to other users.

Proposal - I propose that we create a separate subpage of RuneScape:Clan Chat where users can request a corp ranking and the community can create a consensus. This way it is not tying up the Admin sections of the community portal, and is not bias with a individiaul random ranking, and is not determined by users only present in the clan chat at a specific time. From a corp ranking, a user may then request a Srg. Ranking with the understanding that they have not abused their present rank, and have not made bias kicks or removals' from chat.

Bonziiznob Talk

20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per proposer

Bonziiznob Talk

20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


Support - We do need a clear ranking system. Ryan PM 20:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per Bonzi--Quest point hood.png Bigm2793Talk Quest point cape.png 20:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  20:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Horsehead Talk 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - per bonzi Zaros tally.PNGBladeQuick chat button.png# 21:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - I think the clan chat rankings are important enough to be thoroughly discussed by every interested member on the community, over perhaps one or two weeks of time, not just 10 min of time in the clan chat with just the people who happen to be there at that moment. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 21:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - See also Forum:RfC and RfI. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - From hearing some of the discussions in the CC and from others perspective, I fully and completely agree to this.

Support - I really think we need some consistency here. This is definitly a good way to get that going. I also agree that the CC ratings are important enough to be right up there with RfA's and such. That way community members are aware that these decisions are being made, and the process is open to everyone, not just a few people that happen to be in the chat. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 05:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

support - Yes, I think this is a good system in makeing choises as to who will get ranked. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Let's face it, making a decision in ten minutes from whoever is in the CC (just an example, not saying C Teng has done this) doesn't give the general CC community a fair chance at deciding who has the boots.

I'd also like to propose that all users currently ranked as trusted users, if such a process is implement, would be subject to an immediate go through this process. --Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 14:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Support - Go Bonzi! --

King soro1

01:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Banned Wiki User in Chat

Proposal - The Clan Chat is not exactly owned by the wiki therefore Banned Wiki users do not directly deserve a ban from the chat when they are removed from the wiki. They should still be treated as normal users, however as banned from the wiki for specific reasons, are not entitled to a rank, or a means to attain one.

Bonziiznob Talk

20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - As proposer

Bonziiznob Talk

20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


Support - Per Bonzi. Ryan PM 20:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per Bonzi--Quest point hood.png Bigm2793Talk Quest point cape.png 20:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  20:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per bonzi Zaros tally.PNGBladeQuick chat button.png# 21:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - As long as they are civil about it, blocked wikians should be welcome in clan chat. Obviously, if they are trolling then that is a different matter entirely, and shouldn't conflict with this proposal. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 21:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - See also Forum:User block policy. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Support per Bonzi. Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 02:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - If someone is banned in the wiki they are no longer a trusted user and should not be allowed rank in the cc. Also I compare ability to use the CC like the ability to use your own talk page. Both of these abilities should remain even though a ban has occurred. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 05:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Reject - depending on the offence, if they have been banned for being crule to other members of the community, why let them stay around us? If a user has done nothing but attack and attack members time and time again, they need to get out of the cc and out of our hands. --Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Support per Tollerach. --Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 14:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Opposey change thing If they have been blocked for any reason in the past, wouldn't that mean they are not trusted so no rank, like tollerach.Joe Click Here for Awesomeness15:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Support and oppose - Seriously, two issues in one topic here make it hard to support or oppose the entire thing. I'd like to make clear that banned users should not access the clan chat, as all it has created in the past is more flaming from them. It is not like keeping their talk page usable at all, that is a horrible comparison, simply because people can ignore a user's talk page if the issue doesn't concern them. I'd rather not be stuck in a debate about the recent block of X User because I decide to use the chat channel. If they want to discuss a wiki block, they should do it on the wiki, not the clan chat. Ever.

On top of this, I agree that people with CC status should lose their rank if they've proven they can't be trusted with the simple ability to edit the wiki. The reason they were given those rights in the first place was because they had proven themselves trustworthy. If they do something bad enough for the community to agree that they're untrustworthy, it means they've also proven themselves incapable of having similar powers on the CC. -Byte_Master bytesig2.png bytesig3.png 21:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocking Users

Proposal - As myself, I much believe in second chances, so I propose we allow the three strikes and your out. If a user comes into chat and begins to spam, assault users, etc... they will receive 1 warning, and then be kicked if it continues. If this occurs again later, they shall receive another warning, and if it continues will be kicked. Shall it occur a third time, they will be kicked without warning and will be added to the ignore list.

Now, your saying, well this user kicked him, but I don't know that. That is right, so like all other blocks in the wiki, all kicks need to be documented. I also proposed a new subpage, "RuneScape:Clan Chat/Kicks" where all kicks must be documented. This will provide a back up to ensure a user is not spamming constantly, will provide a support for the kickers should they receive critisism for the kick, etc... It will allow us to enforce the above, and will overall provide a log for all kicks to which can be used for reference.

It would be set-up as follows:

User name: Example was removed from the clan chat April 1st, 2009 for Assaulting a User. This is their 1st offense.

Bonziiznob Talk

20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Support - As proposer

Bonziiznob Talk

20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


Support - While we need this, how are we to log who did the kick? Ryan PM 20:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The user who kicked will be obligated to post it. 20:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Bonzii makes a good point. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  20:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per Bonzi--Quest point hood.png Bigm2793Talk Quest point cape.png 20:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - I believe in second chances like bonzi, however I kinda think that the second punishment should be more severe than the first, after all the user did break the rules four times with plenty of warning. I think the second kick should include a temporary ban from the cc. Zaros tally.PNGBladeQuick chat button.png# 21:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - You guys are blowing the whole kicking thing out of proportion. Kicking is not the same as giving a block on the Wiki. Kicking in the Clan Chat is the same as kicking in the IRC. If someone is causing trouble, violating the rules or policies, they get kicked, and we move on. They can come back later if they'll behave better.

For example, if someone came in the chat and started spamming ("@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@"), if they were a random person that no one knows, they would be kicked just like that. If D4K came in and started spamming (just an example :)), we'd probably say "Why are you spamming?", and then kick if he persists.

It's all situational. If someone said "I don't like the Muslim religion" while just trying to be honest without trying to offend, would we give them a "strike" for that? If someone said "All Muslims are terrorists and they should die!", then they would obviously be acting in bad faith and get consulted before a possible kick is dealt.

Blocks on the Wiki are dealt out at the slightest whim of a sysop without any warnings, and for longer periods of time than two hours, so why should there be a whole strike and log system for something this simple? Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 21:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC) (Edit conflict)

Slight Oppose - per Chia's ideology. I think kicks/bans should be based on the how bad the situation is, not on a "three-strike" guide. Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 02:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Support logging all kicks, oppose 3 strikes - I absolutely think that people should take ownership of their kicks. This helps prevent abuse and overuse. As for the three strike rule, I don't think that is as cut and dry. For example, I would hope that a racial slur would earn an immediate and unilateral kick, while spamming, stirring the pot, or other less offensive things would earn a warning. When deciding to kick someone you have to use good judgement, and you can't write a policy that covers that. I do think that it should be stressed that warnings should be issued in most cases but if something is extremely offensive (like threats, f-bomb, n-bomb, slurs, etc), just kick ASAP. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 06:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Support logging all kicks, oppose 3 strikes - As reasoned by Tollerach. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 07:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

total suport - logging will help us keep track of offences if somebody is getting far to out of hand. I also suport the 3 chances rule, 3 is a good system in witch this kind of thing can be done. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support logging kicks, oppose 3 strikes - I have one problem with logging kicks; if we have several ranks in the CC, and no one owns up to the kick, then how do we know who did it? Other than that, I'm happy with logging kicks; it'll help identify trouble users, and sniff out power abuse. If you can give me an answer for my concern, I'd gladly full out support it.

I don't like the 3 strike rule, because I believe that declipene should vary case by case; if a user comes in and starts, saying, going racist, I believe that should merit a ban right there. If a normally well-behaved user has a bit of a temper tantrum, I don't like the thought of them being banned after 3 instances.

I also have to wonder... would we try to reach some consensus (on Wiki) while considering a ban for the latter? And also, what about if a kicked user comes back in on a sub-account?

Just some things I want to have ironed out. --Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 14:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose - per chia, they can return, right?Joe Click Here for Awesomeness15:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose logging kicks - Gah, this is insane. Like Chia said, logging kicks for things like spammers is just pointless. We all know they deserve to be kicked; it isn't abuse. Also, it's a hell of a lot more work for admins/trusted users to have to log every single kick they make. The only kicks that should be reported are ones that may be controversial (hence why I take screenshots sometimes when I kick, as evidence). If you don't trust someone who has kicking powers, I think you need to take it up with that person, and not base it on what one may or may not have written on the page. Say I have the most kicks on the page? Does that mean I'm abusing my power? Because that's what it will look like, justified or not. Also, I can just imagine the disputes that would come up if people see someone got kicked for a certain thing, or if, god forbid, someone forgot to log a kick. Noooo! Really, I hate this idea. Christine 07:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Clan Chat Owner

I am not proposing anything in any which way that we create a new clan chat as this present time, but I think, as Clan Chat Owner, daily visits and attendance to the clan chat should be aimed for from the chat owner. This will allow the clan chat to be as up to date as possible with blocks needing to be issued, ranks needing to be given, etc. If the present clan chat owner can't do this, I feel it creates an inconsistant clan chat, and bias at that.

To C Teng, if you can't meet the commitment, please let us know, so we can implement a new chat. Personally, I like you as the clan chat owner, but I would like to see more of you in the chat and on the wiki that way the chat is consistent. Please. If this is not possible due to scheduling, etc, please let us know so we can make the change required to have the best function Clan Chat possible.

Bonziiznob Talk

20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the clan chat should be updated daily if possible.--Quest point hood.png Bigm2793Talk Quest point cape.png 20:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do my best to be on the Clan Chat at least once a day. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

how about giving all admins/crats the password for it, or at least some.Joe Click Here for Awesomeness15:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If he gave the password people might make unworthy people able to kick or if someone gets mad they may report r_s_wikia for account sharing or something Player moderator crown.png Poppop24 Skillcape emote icon.png

Discussion

At the moment, CC ranking is quite biased and at some times very unfair. I propose a complete overhaul of CC ranking, with everybody being temporarily demoted and re-promoted. Current, CC ranking isn't really based on wiki status at all - there are lots of non-sysop kickers. I agree with Bonzi in that we need to keep consistency. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  20:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as the ranking for 'crats, forum admins, and sysops go, it is fine the way it is. The corp and sergeant ranks are for trusted users and thats where we need to establish the system. Zaros tally.PNGBladeQuick chat button.png# 21:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only sysops are intended to have kicking powers. Kicking powers are given to sysops and some trusted users (not all trusted users because that would fill up the list really quickly, so only some get the stripe). I don't see anything wrong with that. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 21:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC) (Edit conflict)

I've came up with a couple new ideas for the rankings, and it is shown here. Basically, I think we should have a list. When there's a user that needs to be blocked, the name's added to the list. I'm unsure about how we could make giving kicking powers more organised, but I definately disagree with the idea of "RfCs". Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 22:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of a Request for Clan Chat Rank. Practically everyone who doesn't have a rank wants one, and there would probably be tons of requests from users that are fairly unknown. I don't know if this is the best idea, but I propose creating a list of users who use (or commonly use?) the chat and making a poll under each name that asks "Should this user be given a clan chat rank?", and then the options "Yes" or "No." I think this would be a good way to distinguish the users who are universally trusted.  Tien  16:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

By changing proxies, and by simply not logging on and then logging on, users are able to cast more then 1 vote. 21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, right. How about a simple Support or Oppose?  Tien  17:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Closed - The notice of intent has been implemented. User may request a clan chat rank here.

Bonziiznob Talk

02:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)