Forum:Close RfCM's

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Close RfCM's
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 6 June 2012 by TyA.


I was going to do this earlier, but with Neit's RfCM, I decided to wait.
With the addition of the chat, we opened up the RS:RFCM. The chat has grown and grown and now has 8 active chat moderators and 8 active administrators monitoring the chat (According to RS:C/R). At times, these users can all come together and sometimes make up the whole chat. Personally, I think 2 or 3 chat moderators and easily hold the chat together at busy hours. Although I think this, we continue to add chat moderators to a point where the chat is sometimes > 50% full of chat mods. I see no point to add on to those numbers since the chat is safe as it is.

Proposal/TLDR Version - Close the RuneScape:Requests for chat moderator if the amount of active chat moderators is at 7. If this number drops below 7, then it reopens.

Some users might find this number high, but with our active admins in the chat, it can still withstand.

Discussion

Support - As nominator. Hair 21:53, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Forum:Removal of S:C CM Icons was designed to tackle the idea that there are too many Moderators of the chat. RS:C/R was also designed to test if there was any need for an extra chat mod, or if there were times that we were missing. Granted the reporting system may not have caught on yet and perhaps it never will, but as of now I'm not seeing anything that suggest we have too few chatmods. I haven't read the chat logs in the past week or so, but with chat being so intermittent at the moment, they aren't the most reliable of resources. cqm talk 22:39, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Support - The title of this thread made me go O_o. If we are to close them, it should be on an on-demand basis like RuneScape:Events Team/Requests. Close when unneeded, open when needed. I think we can UCS to determine when it's needed. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:29, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - 50% of people in S:C are chat mods? I don't really think so, the most I've ever seen was 4, but including admins, maybe, but admins are always busy doing admin st00f. There are around 40 active people that go in chat, and I don't think 12 mods is enough. --Cake detail.pngCaek iz ossumChocolate cake detail.png talk om nom 00:19, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose -- Consensus can always be overturned by other consensus (like an RfCM), so anyone doing a successful request would void this rule if it were to pass. Rules like this that prevent discussions from taking place are useless and a waste of time, because people already take the number of moderators into account before they make their vote. ʞooɔ 01:54, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of that here. Obviously consensus can be overturned, but that applies to everything, and we could oppose any proposal on the grounds that it can be made void in future. Ronan Talk 06:27, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
The difference is that in this case we would be disallowing a discussion from taking place that would form consensus on its own. If this rule were to pass, someone looking to do an RfCM would have to go through two discussions -- one to revoke the rule, and another to pass their request. This would be a waste of their time and ours, when just doing an RfCM would have the same effect. Passage of this proposal would place a complete moratorium on RfCMs and create a bureaucratic hassle to undo it. Just keep the requests open, and if you feel there are too many moderators you can just oppose the individual requests. ʞooɔ 09:13, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
The system has worked perfectly over the last few years for RfRs, and continues to do so for RfETs. What's the difference in applying the same criteria here? Ronan Talk 12:28, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
For the records, it did NOT work perfectly for RfRs. The CC went through lots of times with no ranks because that silly thread did not allow nomination. I had opposed closing those too, and I am opposing this per the same reasoning. bad_fetustalk 13:37, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
Well, it worked reasonably well for the CC. The lack of ranks at certain times had more to do with the fact that there were few suitable candidates from certain timezones than anything else.
As for RfETs, I wouldn't use that as an example as the nature of the events team is different from that of a clan chat rank, administrator, or chat moderator, as the ET does specified events at specified times, whereas the others may need to use their tools at any time. --LiquidTalk 13:52, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
Pretty much what Chess said. It didn't work out as well as you're remembering. ʞooɔ 20:50, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all, you also forget to take into account the geographical location of chat moderators. If all 7 moderators lived in Outer Mongolia, that wouldn't be very helpful for the US or UK, would it? Either way, a cap on moderators is a poor idea. 222 talk 05:38, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

I assumed that the figure would only be considered capped when there was a sufficient number of active moderators spaced out throughout the world, not just a set 7. Ronan Talk 06:27, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - To quote myself: "I think we should keep them open to have the people judged on their own ability instead of "sorry, 16 people came ahead of you therefore you suck." " svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 06:22, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Really, even though there's that many people, there has been several instants where I've been on and we've needed to contact a CM, but they are all afk. Also the fact that with the CM, new players don't even know what the Prayer Icon means, and when they find out, it is more often they turn to CM as more reliable. Also, at the time of writing, although there were 7 CM on, AnselaJonla was the only one actually in chat, all the others were off doing stuff, (well technically not at time of writing, at time of when I read this forum) Dragon longsword.png Cire04 TalkAttack.png 10:44, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per everyone. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 12:49, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per my comment above. bad_fetustalk 13:37, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I'd rather shy away from a hard limit. If the chat becomes overrun with moderators then the RfCM comments can be adjusted accordingly. --LiquidTalk 13:52, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Whilst I'd like the reason "we have too many moderators" to become Null and Void, I don't think this is the way to go about it. I'd hope RfCM's are judged on a candidate's suitability, and if they are suitable why make them wait? Whilst there isn't anyone I can immediately think of to nominate for a RfCM, it does seem pointless to deny a quality candidate the tools based on the perception that there are too many. cqm talk 15:59, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - What Cam/Cook/Zam said. Why should a potential chat moderator be denied the chance by bureaucratic paperwork and the number of chatmods? What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 16:10, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I fail to see how "too many moderators/administrators/bureaucrats" arguments help this community one bit. And apparently neither do you, as you never gave a single reason why a large number of chat moderators is a bad thing. Just because they're in the chat doesn't mean they're actually reading the chat at that exact moment too. I'd expect that many of us would also be editing articles at the same time (I can't help but see the chat as supplementary to the encyclopedia of RuneScape that defines us). More chat moderators simply increases the chance that if someone needs to be shown the way out, there's more likely to be someone to do so. Also, you're basing your arguments off peak times. I've had a number of times when I was the only chat moderator, and upon leaving, there would be none. Hofmic Talk 23:07, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Not sure why lots of mods is ever a bad thing tbh. ajr 17:39, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Requests for Chat moderator will remain open. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 04:12, June 6, 2012 (UTC)