Forum:Complaint on Unjustness

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Complaint on Unjustness
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 30 June 2010 by Chicken7.


In this thread I would like to see, just how many people believe that the moderators are unjust. With my previous post, I was blown off, but also told I could make this thread and it would NOT be closed.


Forum:Unjust kick from Clan Chat#Discussion

You can check that link if you want proof, and it also shows most of my concerns. For the rest of this thread I will just allow other users to post their thoughts on unjustfulness shown by the moderators. And if at all possible to share their experiences, and unjust kicks.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crono Blades (talk).

Discussion

You misunderstood my point. It was that I will not close it quickly, unless it turns into nothing more than a bitchfest. All threads are closed eventually, none are perpetual. LDTASBucket detail.pngrwojy 03:01, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I don't want to happen. If you have a problem, discuss it calmly, not whining and complaining and flaming others. Anyone doing so in this thread will receive a 4 hour block, no exceptions. YRSNIJBucket detail.pngrwojy 03:08, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
For once I agree, because everyone has already been warned 222 talk 03:25, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Add another <big> tag. That way we'll get it for sure. (wszx) 03:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


Comment - Might as well just quote myself from the linked thread.


"Oh, come off it. Be reasonable. In clan chat ranks just go on and on about "OH NO NOT ANOTHER KICK COMPLAINT LOL" and come here and start acting all elitist and superior and try telling me to get up and make my own thread. We all know that there's no AEAE here, there's no democracy here, and if I made my own thread with these shots it'd be closed quicker than this one will. Anyway. Here are some examples of the attitude that the clan chat is apparently insignifigant; one twoAnd we have examples of some ranks who are completely abrasive in personality, taking absolutely no care for how wiki looks when they act like this in CC. three So while you guys are just letting things like that go on, I can't make friendly jokes with Raging Bull without getting a kick. in an example such as the following; four Yes I am expecting this to get completely ignored or brushed off as irrelevant, but seeing as how it seems there's no screenshot of the conversation this thread complains about I might as well make a point while I'm here. Ranks are simply enjoying their power a little too much at the moment, and frankly, it's ridiculous. Get this clan chat operating properly, ASAP! I am not vot, I am Melon! 02:59, June 27, 2010 (UTC)"


Yes, it's still in the last thread where it can still be seen but it was not given the oppourtunity to be discussed properly. I am not vot, I am Melon! 03:06, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - You got a little kick and came back an hour later, that's it, tlul put you on his ignore list (which he can do) and that's the end of it. Just go back to having fun. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:09, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Two things. One, that would be an appropriate response to my OTHER thread. This has nothing to do with that now. Two, you weren't there so you just got like 6 things wrong, try not to put your two-cents in just because you want to suck up to the admins to become one. I am quite honestly sick of it, because I experience it in lots of places, including teamspeak, whereas you still are uptight and post on people's talk pages about events happening there. This has nothing to do with teamspeak though, so I'm sorry, I'll go back on topic. Cabbage.pngCrono BladesDragon pickaxe.png 03:16, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The wrongful mutes going around especially when the rules set in place for the moderators are not followed needs to stop. It is clearly stated in RuneScape:Clan_Chat. Do not try to deny that nor say that it has been decided that a warning is not needed, because if that is the case, it would need to be specified in the rules. The CC is a extension of the wiki and is considered an official wiki thing, just like TeamSpeak or the IRC. That means that the RuneScape wiki rules and guidelines also apply to the CC. This brings RS:AEAE into the picture. If user A is being as bad as user B then since they are equal and favoritism should not come into play by the mod then both user A and B should be kicked. I am a Server Admin on the TeamSpeak server that falls under the same exact guidelines and rules as the CC would be under. Last week I warned, kicked, banned and banned again a user that is a regular on the in-game CC for breaking the rules, and I followed the specific guidelines that are on the TeamSpeak Moderation page. It's not that hard to follow rules on how to do right click a name and kick. Let the game begin. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 03:14, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Provide specific examples, because I have been working with many of our sysops for quite a while, and I don't agree with everything they do, but in my experience they are some of the most trustworthy, helpful, and friendly people around here. Don't complain because they take a no nonsense policy. The simplest way to do it is to let it go and move on. Don't break the rules and you have nothing to worry about. HaloTalk 03:23, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the four screenshots I quoted myself posting. They're earlier in this thread. I am not vot, I am Melon! 03:25, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - (edit conflict with Haloolah123)Since the previous discussion was closed, but it's obvious that this is just an attempt to continue it, I'll post the screenshots I have of the tail end of the trolling, including the kick, and the follow-up discussion in the cc.

trolling1.png trolling2.png I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 03:24, June 27, 2010 (UTC) 


How many times must I specify, this IS NOT ABOUT THAT ONE TIME. Please LEARN TO READ. This is ridiculous. Plus, if you are going to post screenshots POST THE WHOLE DAMN THING, not just part of it to make yourself look good. Cabbage.pngCrono BladesDragon pickaxe.png 03:29, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Assume good faith. That may be all the screenshots he has of it. Some evidence is better than none. Please calm down as well, it isn't helping anyone. HaloTalk 03:31, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
I have already requested that you calm down on your talk, please do so 222 talk 03:34, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
There is about 7-10 minutes of talk before this... xScoobsx Talk Contribs 03:34, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Also, how can he get the whole thing when you got nothing? Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:35, June 27, 2010 (UTC)\
Why do I need anything? If he is going to provide shots of his "defense" then they need to be of the whole thing. When someone shots another guy in defense of another person or himself they don't just cancel out that the guy broke in his house, and see that he shot and killed someone, they look at the entire happening. (For an analogy.) xScoobsx Talk Contribs 03:47, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Halo, 222, Scoobs, Evil, wszx below)Two points. One, the first discussion is obviously still part of this discussion, since it is one of the supposed unjust situations. Second, I screenshotted everything I had left in my chat history when it looked like this might become a Yew Grove discussion. I posted every word of it here. I will not attempt to make myself look good, I will attempt to show what actually happened, whether or not I may have been at fault. If there's something I did wrong, I will accept the consequences of that.
While we're on the subject of making oneself look good or bad, I'd recommend trying to make Yew Grove postings sound a little bit calmer. People generally don't like being yelled at. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 03:39, June 27, 2010 (UTC) 
Two things, TLUL, you clearly lied when arguing with Harlequin. Look, you said "They are on my ignore list now", yet, you only ignored us after you said that, seeing as you were talking to us before. If you weren't ignoring us there, that means tou never ignored us, still lying. So either way, you clearly were lying to achieve the main goal of getting me kicked. Also, as you can see UFeelNoPain clearly stated that "he is not liked by the ranks" reffering to me. That shows that it is unjust, and biased on kicking. Cabbage.pngCrono BladesDragon pickaxe.png 03:41, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
You were kicked well before I said I ignored you, so how could I have been talking to you? I ignored you the first time it says "Changes to your clan...", well before making that comment to Harlequin. Please explain why I would lie just to get you kicked. Also, let's assume I did do that, which I didn't. You are doing the exact same thing now, trying to get me banned from the CC.
As for "he is not liked by the ranks", is one user saying that definitive proof that it is true? Of course not. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:28, June 27, 2010 (UTC) 

I think the real issue is kicking procedures, rather than this particular kick (though I was there, and thought nothing from anyone was kick-worthy). The conversation went on for quite a while, and then without any comments whatsoever from any ranks, two players were kicked (notably two who were on the same "side" of the conversation). I asked several times about the kick, and none of the ranks would even say who did the kicking, much less why. Then the conversation about the propriety of the kick was stifled by another rank. Maybe it's just me, but star chambers don't seem like a good way to moderate a CC. Ranks should indicate if behavior is inappropriate before kicking if the behavior not outrageously and flagrantly inappropriate (and it was not so in this case). They should also be able to be held to account for actions done qua rank. And legitimate discourse shouldn't be stifled by wagon-circling fellow ranks. (wszx) 03:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the behaviour before I managed to screenshot was quite inappropriate and hurtful. Maybe these users should have been warned, but the kicks were, in my opinion, entirely deserved. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 03:41, June 27, 2010 (UTC) 
Whoops, somehow managed to delete other comments below me. Why didn't I get an edit conflict? Thank you for restoring it, Rwojy. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:00, June 27, 2010 (UTC) 

Comment - Mmm, take a look at the last message on the left side by UFeelNoPain, shows that more than a couple of us thing that favoritism is around. RS:AEAE xScoobsx Talk Contribs 03:42, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical situation. You are a high school student, walking through the halls of your school, and you see several other students insulting somebody. That person is hurt, and becomes defensive. The students continue to insult that person, and a teacher notices and steps in to stop it. Do you take the side of the bullies, and protest against the teacher, because the student being bullied was rude in response? I think this situation is a pretty good comparison to what happened in the CC. Yes, all editors are equal. But that's completely irrelevant, since I was not trolling Soda and Cabbages back. I was somewhat rude with them, which I think is understandable. But I was not being a troll, and I was not violating RS:UTP, unlike Soda and Cabbages. This difference makes the kick of only those two users perfectly understandable. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 03:52, June 27, 2010 (UTC) 
Do not take out the posts I put, that did not go unnoticed. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 03:57, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Merely an edit conflict, most likely. I've already had like 10, sheesh. HBGYMBucket detail.pngrwojy 03:59, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - RS:AEAE is not as effective as it should be. It is quoted often, yes. But often not used when it should be, such as here. I think we should stop bickering over a singular occurence and focus on the bigger picture these users are suggesting. Occasional favouritism adds up, as well as the brick wall being put up by admins in the previous discussion and accusations of whinging. I am not taking sides, simply trying to help keep this thread calm. 222 talk 03:46, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we got the next Wikian Counselor... (On a light note.) None of this should be pushed under the rug, I am equal to any other sysop on here, and you (sysops) have no more power than I do to decide to close this YG thread, if we are following the rules, RS:AEAE. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 03:50, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
No one but admins may close a thread, and abusiveness, flaming, whingine, etc, are all perfectly acceptable reasons to close a thread. If I feel it is out of control, I may close it on my own pregogrative, as RS:UCS overrides everything, and Don't be a dick is the second most important policy, too, which was also being violated. UYXXXBucket detail.pngrwojy 03:55, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Just as a point of note, blocking/warning offending editors is a much better course of action that closing an entire thread because of unseemly conduct. (wszx) 04:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Well then you better close this since you were just abusive towards me. "Don't be a dick is the second most important policy, too, which was also being violated." xScoobsx Talk Contribs 04:01, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
I wa talking about the previos forum. So far, no one has said anything really infalmmatory yet, and I hope it stays that way. By the way, I think our policy is a bit different, but I don't remember it, Like RS:NOOB or something. HTFEBucket detail.pngrwojy 04:04, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - This is going nowhere and just making people frustrated and mad. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 04:06, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

All a closure will do is start another thread, unless someelse besides me closes it. AZHORBucket detail.pngrwojy 04:06, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Wtf? Oppose. Since when can we come in and close this now? xScoobsx Talk Contribs 04:08, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Unless someone says I kicked them and says why we can't do anything. So it's just a place for everyone to bitch. HaloTalk 05:28, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose- needs discussion 05:45, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I've been kicked for t'rolling when no-one asked me to stop, no one warned me...this really does need fixing

Runecrafting MythbustermaTalk   HSCabbage.png<= BRASSICA PRIME

05:45, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Don't troll or get kicked. How simple can that be? It's not like when you murder someone they tell you not to murder people, they chuck you in the clinker. Is a little responsibility in following the rules too much to be asked? HaloTalk 05:47, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
In others eyes I could look as though I was trolling, or in my own eyes I am just acting myself, and have no idea that people are taking offense. How am I supposed to know? If I get warned I know that I need to go back and see what I need to fix. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 06:29, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
The answer, of course, is that murder is a bright-line rule. Trolling is not; determination of trolling is subjective. One man's trolling is another man's amusing banter. Kicking without warning for something like that, when there's no universal characterization is a problem. (wszx) 05:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. Stuff like mandatory warnings have been proposed before but are almost always unanimously rejected. Why? Because it has been deemed unnecessary and a burden. You shouldn't always have to warn some one, or for that matter, you shouldn't ever have to warn someone. If people read the rules like they should, then no one would ever have an excuse. And don't forget, ignorance of the law is no excuse. GBSCEMBucket detail.pngrwojy 06:29, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Within the CC rules are rules themselves. (Sounds confusing.) I quote... Rule 4, "It is very easy for these kinds of discussions to quickly evolve into heated arguments. Should this happen, users will be given 1 warning to calm down. Should they continue, please refer to Rule 2. In short, please respect the wishes of others in the Clan Chat when discussing controversial topics." Rule 2, "Anyone who personally attacks another user is to be warned once, and then kicked." If I have to follow the rules then so should the mods, which include the warnings written in the rules!! xScoobsx Talk Contribs 06:43, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty darn obvious when you cross the line from banter to trolling. HaloTalk 06:28, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
No it ain't. Some ppl are more sensitive than others 222 talk 06:30, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Ditto to 222, but still the rules are the rules and they are not being followed. There is no excuse for it. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 06:34, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
I don't find it hard. I've never once been kicked, but I've never trolled either. It's pretty simple to follow the rules here. Follow them, and you won't get kicked, problem solved. HaloTalk 06:32, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Why can you not get this through your head? I have not been kicked either, but yet I am arguing this point, so that argument is not valid. There are rules, they are not being followed, simple as that. And they need to be. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 06:35, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
What rules are not being followed? HaloTalk 06:38, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Look a couple above after Rwojy's. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 06:42, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Those are guidelines. People may be kicked at sysops discretion. HaloTalk 06:44, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Is this another hidden rule? And those are rules. They were created as a consensus and no where does it say that they are guidelines. So where are you getting that? Those are listed under the rules section of the CC, don't deny it. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 06:52, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
It's never been talked about as a rule, and never followed as one either. Multiple times people have kicked without giving a warning, and sometimes people complain, but the kicker is usually on the side of consensus, althought there have been a few cases in the past that this wasn't true. KCVKBucket detail.pngrwojy 06:56, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I don't know how else to say this, I feel as though I am talking to a wall... I don't care if it has never been talked about as a rule or followed, it is in the rules under the CC. So what you are saying is that the admins have been not kicking correctly per the official RULES of the CC. That I have to follow that include the warnings!!!!!! If you are not following the warning rules then I do not have to follow the rules either! xScoobsx Talk Contribs 07:07, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
RS:UCS. HaloTalk 07:14, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Anymore excuses? xScoobsx Talk Contribs 08:52, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I got one:
Don't break rules and you won't get kicked.

Ta-da! Simple as that my friends. HaloTalk 16:32, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

There is no fine line of when you are or are not breaking the rules. That is why warnings need to be given. I feel like I'm talking to two year olds here. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 16:55, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a pretty fine line. The problem is people use warnings like get out of jail free cards. Then when they get kicked they start complaining and bitching and blaming the rank for them being a moron. You should be able to tell when you are spamming, trolling, or insulting other people. If you don't have that ability, a short 1 hour break might help you gain some insight over it. HaloTalk 17:06, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Where on earth is this thread going? 222 talk 06:25, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - CC Admins should learn something from this today: Warn "trollers" before kicking. Otherwise it leads to bitterness and hatred such as this. Well said wszx 222 talk 06:28, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Not going to happen, read my 3x conflicted above comment. JQRRBucket detail.pngrwojy 06:30, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
There's blatantly obvious trolling that needs no warning. But if there's any doubt, such as right now, you should warn them. No need for a rule. 222 talk 06:42, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'd also like to apologize if at one time I was offense in this discussion or in the previous discussion, it was nice to cool off and take a trip to Barrows with cabbage. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 06:29, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I hate edit conflicts - I lost about 10 lines of deep thought Frown Thats 2 in a row! 222 talk 06:39, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Just look at the bottom when you get the edit conflict. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 06:38, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
What you just typed conflicted again Smile 222 talk 06:41, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

We may as well close this. As expected, it has devolved into the application of the patronizing attitude that there is no real problem, that you just have to toe the line—which is totally undefined and subjective—and anyone who says there is a problem is just "bitching" because they got kicked. It's unfortunate, because what happened today was a problem on a lot of levels. But people are right; this is going nowhere fast. (wszx) 08:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Should I mention that this thread is not for bitching. But proper discussion about the rules regarding kicking as well as the possibility of admins misusing their kicking abilities. 222 talk 08:17, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Yes we know?... I agree with wszx, no matter how much we harp about this it will always be just pushed under the rug and none of the admins care one bit because they are in the wrong. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 08:52, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Noo, I meant should I mention it, which I have, see the shiny template thingy at the top 222 talk 09:04, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Time to step in.

1st I'd like to let the discussioners look at the right side pictures, Line 14 from the top. Here, Dark states that he was "quite offended by his and soda's comments."

Now look at Line 29,32 from the top. "They are on my ignore list, At least now they are" Ok, so you had bountiful oppertunities to ignore us previously, stated you had ignored us before but then apparently decided to un-ignore us (gee I wonder why?) and then are now saying your feelings are hurt. I hope you realize you did not once step into the conversation and say "Stop," or "Drop the conversation," and while I may not have screenshots of this because I honestly didn't think that the conversation would lead up to this, I know and many others present could vouch that you never once told us to stop. I would love to hear your explenation as to why it was better to have us keep commenting than to attempt to get us to stop. You're a big boy now, you can try handling your own problems without calling mommy mod.

2nd I hope you realize, Dark, that everybody present at the conversation is currently against you and says that you should have been just as kicked as we were, you can see this (sort of) at the bottom of the left pictures, where as everyone defending you now, only includes yourself from the convo, food for thought. The witnesses are against you, the blind men are here to protect you.

3rd I sadly do not have screenshots of the chat previously before what he posted, however I will tell you that if we had chat logs, this arguement would have been done with because of what had done. First of all, the topic "So the hottest chick in the class asked me for a homework question, what should I have done?" So of course, the topic is , in its self, a troll. You honestly don't ask something like this over an internet chat room, the RS CC is no exception. Second, I hope Dark realizes that he ended up getting legitimate answers at first, where people were just telling him "She was just asking for homework," but you ended up pushing on, and eventually we just ended up trolling you because most members of the cc realized how sad this question in its self was.

@CC Rules

At least make it so the person has been kicked has been notified of who kicked them, so we don't have to take out an arguement vs Dark so we don't hurt his feelings more, and we can at least know specifically what went over the border, as I call it, in the discussion.


Final Comments: I feel as though cc has no rules what so ever. This is, I believe, my (3rd?) kick from the cc, the previous 2 were 1 day bans and this 1 was 1 hour ban. I would like to say my first kick from the cc was in my first 2 hours of even finding out about the clan chat and I got 1 day banned for calling someone dumb. My 2nd 1 day ban was telling someone "you suck," and when I had figured out what mod had kicked me I had asked him why I was kicked and he said "The person you said to 'you suck,' said it hurt his feelings.

There is no stabability, what so ever. I am banned for 1 day, consecutively, for writing 2 words that I can't even believe someone found hurtful (fun fact, the person that I got my first kick from, I found out he/she was over 20 years old, gg) And then banned for 1 hour when I could probably make an arguement that I was more trolled than Dark. Girls never talk to me in my life, ever, and here he comes on clan chat and gloats about it like he gets girls asking him for homework answers all the time. This really hurts my self influence because now I think that I'll never get a girl to talk to me. /sarcasm


GG Splitisoda 13:03, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Tien and Leftiness below)I'll reply to point 1 first. I did, in fact, ask you to stop because you were misinterpreting what I had said in the first place. I don't appreciate your implying that I'm unable to handle my problems, and feel the need to talk to "mommy mod" for every problem. I honestly didn't care whether or not you were kicked, but I can see how the kick you received was deserved.
As for the second point, there are three people who seemed to disagree with the kick: UFeelNoPain, Harlequin, and Scoobs. Only Harlequin and Scoobs actually seemed to think that I should be kicked, and both of those users had been participating in the insults, so it's fairly obvious that they were already against me.
In reply to #3, I was not asking what I should have done, I was explaining something in relation to something else that I had mentioned earlier, which you weren't in the chat for. Honestly, why would I ask what I should have done? I'll decide my own actions, thank you very much. Unrelated to the fact that it was even a girl speaking, I asked what might be a good response to someone calling him/herself dumb, and then several people started saying that "it was just a homework question", as if I thought asking for homework help was hitting on me or something. At that point, I said "Well no **** sherlock", which may have been slightly rude, but it should be fairly clear at that point that I understand it's just a homework question. I pointed out that this was unrelated, and dropped the topic entirely without asking anything about it again. I had only ever mentioned it once, but several people continued to troll me. In fact, shortly before I had screenshots, one of them said "Why is it so much fun to troll Dark?", which demonstrates an obvious knowledge of the fact that it was trolling.
As for what you have said about the CC rules, I completely agree that it should be required to state who kicked someone. I agree that you should probably have been given a warning first, but it was not necessary, and I'm pretty sure you knew it was kickable. As mentioned in the discussion below, warnings should not be get out of jail free cards, and in my opinion, neither should not being asked to stop (and I did ask you to stop) when you know you're trolling.
At the last paragraph, although I know it's sarcastic, I have to wonder why multiple people are under the impression that my having mentioned the fact that I talked to a girl was "bragging". I saw the same feeling in the CC, and frankly, I don't understand it. I never attempted to "brag" about talking to a girl, I simply mentioned, once, a conversation I had had.
About the kicks you describe, they sound quite unfair, but, sadly, a user giving his or her side of the story is never going to be as good as screenshots. From what I can tell, the situation of several days ago was caused by miscommunication and misunderstandings. If we had screenshots of the entire thing, we could look at it, and see where everything went wrong and where people were misunderstanding things. This is the problem with talking in the CC, and the problem with the majority of online communication. Words are often misinterpreted, and messages are confused. Unfortunately, the only way to look over what happened and try to prevent it next time is to have screenshots, but when I once mentioned the idea of screenshotting things more frequently, it made some users quite angry. I don't think communication in the CC can ever be perfect, but I would like to think that everyone can try to be civil, give others the benefit of the doubt, and hopefully be mature enough to accept their mistakes afterwards. Nobody is perfect, but we can try to do our best. When we make mistakes, we acknowledge them, try to fix them, and move on. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 00:00, June 28, 2010 (UTC) 

anti-saving-lag new section

Okay. Here's my opinion. All I can see is a small handful of people arguing over something as concrete as UCS. Seriously.

The problem isn't (just) the occasional unwarned kick. Its just as much a lack of respect for ranks. Multiple times there's been a situation where some users are in an argument and I've asked them to take it elsewhere, and been ignored, then given warnings and been ignored again. Last time it happened the participants shut up after the final warning, but more to do with the argument being over than the warning, luckily for them.

Its just a pain trying to enforce the rules via warnings when the warnings are ignored, but you know if if kick there's going to be yet another unjust kick thread. Its irritating and tiring. If you have a problem with how any of our ranked users conduct themselves then bring it up and we can deal with them individually, on a case-by-case. Otherwise let them get on with the job the wiki community trusted them to do. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:24, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

We tried to bring it up as a specific case but it got quickly shut down no less then 30 min and nothing was done, and we were told to make this... xScoobsx Talk Contribs 16:36, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Problem is that most of the time you don't know what ranked user kicks you. As I said before, and has been said throughout this discussion, almost no mod will ever actually tell you that they, themselves, kicked you. In my case where I talked to the mod that kicked me for saying "you suck," it took me about half an hour JUST to find out the mod that had done it, and that is only because I had went on an alt account where I was able to hear in clan chat about the mod kicking me. I'm telling you, if you warn me, I will stop. I have not been warned once throughout my 3 kicks, all 3 of which I feel were unjust. The people in this clan chat, I'm sorry to say, have to grow up. If you're uncomfortable with someone saying "you suck," I suggest you move to a single-player game. You will hear those words forever, even if you're the uber imba god that never loses in a fight. People will still say it to you, and you have to accept these words.Splitisoda 17:45, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
You still need to be sensible and ask yourself, "Am I going too far?" when you're saying something questionable. This is not just about Dark and the fact that he should have told you to stop; it's about you as well. You can't just continue to insult someone until someone tells you to stop. Why even think about turning someone's simple question into a fully fledged tease-fest about an elementary school topic?
Also, if a person tells you that you suck, do you really just agree with the person? I will ignore it, yes, but there is no way I will accept it.  Tien  18:08, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
By a specific case I mean something like at least 2 weeks of constant un-rank-like behaviour from one rank, with plenty of images as proof. A single kick which may or may not have been justified is nothing, just get over it and move on, its just an hour.
The ranks are under no obligation to say if they kick someone, and unless Jagex changes the clan chat system its unlikely to be concrete who did it without an admission. If you manage to find out who kicked you, and its three different users, then I'd lean towards the kicked being at fault, rather than the kickers.
Following from what Tien said: telling someone that they suck is against the user treatment policy so a kick is not unwarranted. Maybe a warning should've been given, but still - insulting other users is never justifiable to me. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 18:26, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
"Following from what Tien said: telling someone that they suck is against the user treatment policy so a kick is not unwarranted. Maybe a warning should've been given, but still - insulting other users is never justifiable to me." Are you serious? It wasn't even a "You're bad at this game, you suck." I was asking if someone would help me out with something and then the person asked me what it was, I told him, he said no and then all I said was "Aw, you suck :(" This isn't even insulting, if I had said something like "you can't pvp for your life," then I would understand, but this was pretty much a joke and I get kicked anyway. If I told someone they got a math question wrong when they said 5*7 is 28, will I get kicked as well? The thing is, nearly everybody puts the :"User Treatment," into the extremist you can get. I wanna see, actually, what the least meanest comment will get me kicked. Im curious to see if I was pvping someone and then in clan chat told them that they hit a 0 with a spell if I could get kicked, because at this point your borderline for being mean seems to take up the whole world. The worst part with all the rules in this is how immature some people are. I know, maybe you might get hurt if I yell "you suck at this game," or something, but I at the least expect you to be mature enough to handle it that you don't go crying to a mod saying that I threw one word at you and you wont ever be able to look at the internet again. At this point I am thinking that criminals stuck in prison for the rest of their lives have more morality than some of the people in cc, if you can't handle the occassional 1 trillionth of a percentage of insult I suggest you just turn off chat entirely because you won't last an hour in this game.24.151.16.160 20:19, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I suppose using "suck" like that isn't an insult, but Gaz still has a point.  Tien  23:25, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
I never said I disagree with Gaz, in fact I fully agree with him, you cant base most things off of one instance, this being one of them. However my point (sort of) still stands. You need to make some sort of line where you can tell if you're actually "hurting someones feelings." As I just showed you in that instance where I got a 1 day ban for saying "Aw, you suck :(" which not only wasn't even mean, it was 100% joke someone still takes it uber serious and gets me kicked. I want the mods, maybe this doesn't have to be a rule for players, but at least for mods, to tell if a kick is deserved or not. For gods sake, let the mod use some common sense when kicking.24.151.16.160 00:42, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
Response -Number one, the kick was one hour, not a day. It was a kick, not a ban.
Number two, I apologized to you for that kick. Get over it already. It was between three and six weeks ago. Let it go. And that is all I have to say on this thread.--Degenret01 02:00, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
I can still reference to the kick. Whether or not it was 1 day ago, or 1 year ago I may still reference to it as validation / evidence for my case. Whether you apoligized for the kick or not, I really don't care. For an analogy, If I said sorry for killing your whole family in front of you, would you feel better? Like I said, I can still reference to it. I am over the kick itself, however I am not over the unjust reason. You saying sorry after me being kicked for a day, I don't really care. It still shows you acted before you put rational thought into the given circumstances.Splitisoda 12:34, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In disputing any kicks, evidence should prevail while personal recollections should be left out both for the sake of efficiency and for RS:UTP. To be clear, any instance like Cabbage and Soda's should not be given an opportunity to dispute the kick.

The ranks aren't corrupt; they're people. We've entrusted them to keep the peace, and they do a good job. If any of the people whom I've seen complain about corruption were ranks, I expect they'd be trolling back and it would be a flame-fest. We have good ranks, and, honestly, no rank should be afraid that he'll lose his rank by keeping the peace and kicking a troll; that's what's happening.

If any rank actually did something wrong and kicked someone who didn't deserve it, the thread would be over in a heartbeat. The person who got kicked would show his evidence, and the good and honest people of this community would decide immediately, but that's not how these work. The thread goes on and on, and people hate each other, but even the people who are complaining about corruption know they're in the wrong; it's obvious. I'd venture to say that anybody who gets kicked deserved it, barring those who get accidentally kicked when, for example, a troll is hopping in and out. Blatantly kick-able offenses like the above deserve a quick boot; a warning might be given if the rank is feeling nice. Kicks are not permanent; they may even be considered warnings.

In RuneScape:Clan_Chat#Handling_Rule_Breakers, it says two things of note to this thread. First, "Generally players will be given one or more warnings, but this is not always the case." Second, "Note: Do NOT use warnings as your get out of jail free cards. (Meaning just messing around, spamming, and trolling until you are warned, because you could very well be kicked.) This is gaming the system and is more likely to get you a kick." It's difficult to put RS:GTS and RS:UCS into words, but these policies effectively end just about any disputed kick thread I've seen. You don't need to ask pretty please in situations like this. They know they're in the wrong. RS:GTS and RS:UCS apply. Leftiness 19:17, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

The above shows the ignorance that I'm complaining about. You're implying that warnings exist purely so that people can act bad until told not to. This is not what we are asking for. I've said before that the warning shouldn't be given after the trolling / bad behavior is outright and excessive, but I believe as soon as it starts, the warning should be unquestionably given, and then after the rule is broken post-warning is when the kick should happen. The warning is necessary. Without it, you have people just suddenly seeing "You have been kicked from the channel." with no idea why, and an hour long wait until they can even begin to find out, often something they didn't catch within the rules, or didn't understand may have been against them. When you're saying that GTS and UCS cover disputed kicks, you're not assuming good faith. Additionally, these people are calling into question the behaviour of ranks themselves. As I know the specific shots I've used were completely ignored, probably not even viewed, I'd like to show you again, the kind of behaviour we see from ranks such as Degenret01, being completely outright ageist as seen here. Also I fail at signing, once again. T_T I am not vot, I am Melon! 19:58, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
You can always pm a sysop and ask them. Many of them have chat on often. GTS can't be done in good faith. GTS is intentional. And...show Degen a little respect. (Also, ageism is targeting old people-"discrimination against middle-aged and elderly people".) Respect your elders eh? I don't see anything wrong in the screen shot you showed. HaloTalk 20:47, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Your suggestions and comments are becoming ridiculous. Just stop now, you're not helping your case. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 21:03, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Tien above, Leftiness below)Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 00:00, June 28, 2010 (UTC) 
Halo... I'm wondering if you're even reading what I am saying. I am not saying that somebody who is CLEARLY gaming the system can be doing it in good faith, but you don't seem to understand that at some point someone with authority is given the decision to determine whether someone is gaming the system or not. Do you see that someone who might really have misunderstood a rule or thought they weren't doing anything out of hand could be accused of gaming the system? throwing that policy around so lightly is not assuming good faith! Additionally, the article here says that Adultism is a predisposition towards adults, which is seen as biased against children, youth, and all young people who are not addressed or viewed as adults, and refers to it as a subsidary form of Ageism. In its simplest form, ageism is "discrimination on the basis of age" which doesn't account for what age the discrimination is against, cause it can vary.
(edit conflict with Tien above, Leftiness below)@Melon, I did look at your screenshots above. The first and second ones have absolutely nothing wrong as far as I can see. The only thing somebody might have a problem with is Stelercus saying he would not count the opinions of the people who don't use the CC, but this was in the context of discussions purely about CC matters. As for the third, I think that Degen was about as rude to you as you were to Raging Bull in the fourth. I agree, the kick in the fourth picture was ridiculous, especially without a warning, but these things happen. It's too bad there's no accountability in the CC, but I don't know how we can fix that. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 00:00, June 28, 2010 (UTC) 
Uh, what? I wasn't rude at all to Raging Bull in the fourth. Check the PMs in that screenshot. Both he and I were totally bewildered as to why I was kicked at that time, he and I are good friends, and it should have been clear to anyone that we were joking around... although I suppose your post here shows at least someone else has some degree of doubt... About the first two screenshots, what I'm trying to make clear is that the ranked people in this community don't take the clan chat seriously even though it's the wiki's only stable representation of itself in the game, and should therefore be more important. I wasn't saying that anybody was breaking rules in the first two screenshots I posted. I am not vot, I am Melon! 18:36, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment @ Melon - First, please be more civil in your comments, Melon. I don't appreciate being called ignorant in your first sentence.

Honestly, I'm of the belief that, in most cases, people know when they're doing something wrong, and, personally, I'd argue that being kicked is warning enough. If you get kicked, and if you stop and think about what you were doing, you know what you did wrong. I think our ranks are especially nice because they give warnings in blatantly kick-able cases; they let people get away with things they shouldn't be doing all the time.

If a warning were given as soon as someone decided that the discussion may turn into something kick-able, the warning would be laughed off - forgotten. Nobody would pay attention to it. "We're just having fun," and things like that. On top of that, there's not much wrong with the discussion as soon as it starts going in the wrong direction. Teasing someone, for example, isn't a problem as soon as it starts happening. Nobody cares, and a warning would be laughed off.

Actually, I wonder if there there would be more threads about unjust kicking if we warned immediately. If we warned them once right when it started, they would probably laugh it off and do it again. When we kick them for doing it again, they'd get mad about it because they laughed off the warning.

The people who don't understand the rules are the first time offenders. They're the people who just came into the chat for the first time. They get warnings. The people who complain about unjust kicking aren't first timers. They know the rules. They've been around for a while. There are rules in Runescape:Clan_chat about chronic offenders; I'd argue that the spirit of that policy would support my opinion that those who have experience in the chat know the rules and don't need a warning. Regardless, insisting on giving them a warning is RS:GTS.

I looked at your pictures. In One and Two, Chicken was upset about all the yew grove threads about unjust kicking. In Three, you over-reacted at Degen. In Four, you logged into an account with "Trol" in the name, and started rambling about thunder storms. It looks like you were spamming, honestly, because your comments are so close together. You lightly insulted Raging, and you were kicked. You have Trol in your name; expect a kick, especially if you were spamming. Leftiness 23:49, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Saying you are ignorant of what's going on is not incivil, and stop with the civility police. Second, this isn't even about Melon, so you clearly are ignorant of what we're talking about. The problem is not that they don't know the rules, it's that not everybody agrees what violates the rules. (wszx) 00:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment - It's a thread about people (whose wiki names and their runescape usernames I'm losing track of) making an unjust kicking thread that was closed because the kicking was obviously just; those kicked admitted to being in the wrong, and they wanted TLUL in trouble. Now they're upset that TLUL didn't get in trouble, so they're making a big deal about corrupt ranks and corrupt administrators, per Cronos Blade's last post in the closed thread referenced at the top of this thread.
As I said, ranks are people. If you're rude, some of them are rude back; others keep quiet; others warn you, but, in the end, if you take it too far, you're kicked. When someone is kicked, they did something wrong, and they don't need a warning to know that. Nobody has come up with a case of a rank doing anything seriously wrong, anyway; we use evidence here. Leftiness 00:23, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
That's the problem. They don't always do something wrong, or at least they don't think they did. And how are they supposed to know someone else thinks it's a problem if nobody tells them? (wszx) 00:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Can you come up with a case where someone didn't know they were doing something kick-able? Honestly, our chat rules are very straightforward; anybody who has read them knows if they're doing something wrong, and, if they haven't read them, our rules basically involve being a nice person. If they're not being nice, they know they're not being nice. On top of that, I believe Gaz when he says people ignore his warnings; why should we force a warning? Leftiness 03:07, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
"As I just showed you in that instance where I got a 1 day ban for saying "Aw, you suck :(" which not only wasn't even mean, it was 100% joke someone still takes it uber serious and gets me kicked." I will bring this kick up again and again. I told Degenret01 that I don't really care much about it anymore, however I'm still permitted to use it as evidence. The kick is a ridiculous happening, and I highly doubt you'll find any evidentual proof against me that saying "Aw, you suck :(" can actually be hurtful. The maturity rate of this cc is appalling, not only are some of the conversations started ridiculous,. but then people that throw troll bait then act like we hurt their feelings when they were pretty much wagging their tails at us.In the most recent instance, I don't really care that I was kicked, seeing as I get kicked just about every other week for something. I'm not saying that I want TLUL in trouble. Nor am I upset that he's not in trouble, however I still feel as though this whole thing started because of a stupid question he had to post was the highest grade troll bait you can find. And no one still admits it.He said in another part of this thread "it was a legitimate question," which I call bs because I certainly have never heard in about 5 years of online gaming anyone ever walk in and answer a question remotely like that. I've played on video game servers that used to have everyone from 4chan play on them and the maturity level there is starting to seem higher than the one in this cc. I said earlier that I'm gonna try to see how people can get kicked. The next time someone insults me in the slightest I'll just go straight to a mod and tell them it was insulting to me. If they kick them, it shows that the behavior rule is bloody stupid. If they don't, I can just screenshot it, call it admin bias and then get the mod ridiculed by everyone. I'm certainly positive most people that read this know its true, that I could pull it off. The only mods that wouldn't kick would be mods that haven't been notified of what I just said / read this thread.Splitisoda 12:30, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I like pictures. Pictures make nice evidence.
Degen made a bad decision in kicking you for saying "Aw, you suck," if that's all that happened; the only evidence I have here is Degen's apology, but there are rules about kicking repeat offenders. Judging by the fact that you're kicked often, you've obviously made it so that you get kicked whenever you start to go in the wrong direction. Personally, I suggest laying low for a while; let people forget your abundant past actions so that smaller actions won't be taken so seriously.
TLUL asked a stupid question. It happens. It's a chat. Stupid questions are allowed. Judging by his pictures, which are evidence, the amount of trolling he received was over the top, and his admittedly rude responses are explained and understood. Calling it a legitimate question was his attempt at a defense. Really, there's no reason for him to have to defend himself. He's the victim; you got kicked for trolling. Judging by the tone that you write with, I'd say, if you were in his shoes, you would be trolling back. It would be a flame-fest. He told mom, and you're upset about getting in trouble; stop.
Now, that bit at the end of your comment. The part about mod bias and trying to get people kicked. That's why we've been having so many unjust kick threads in the first place. That's why everybody just wants you to shut up and be happy. That's the thought process of too many people. Trying to get people kicked makes people hate each other. Calling it mod bias scares ranks into kicking anybody whenever it starts going in the wrong direction, and the kicked people try to get the other guy kicked. It's a cycle, and, if you and others keep pushing it, I can't see it ending without our CC closing. That's BS. You're going to complain about the maturity level, then go around pushing that cycle? Seriously?
Normally I try to write in a much happier tone - or sarcastic at worst. I'm not going to re-write my above comments because I think they illustrate the atmosphere of the situation. Understand that it's not mod bias or corruption. It's the cycle I talked about. The kickers and kicked are hating each other, the ranks are caught in the middle, and the rest just want people to stop arguing about it and be happy. Someone needs to step up, be the bigger person, accept their kick, and move on. Others need to stop holding grudges against people. Others need to stop attacking the ranks.
Honestly, I think that if the corruption complaints would stop, ranks would be able to do their job. If they kick someone, it's called unjust; if they don't kick, it's bias; if they ignore the chat, they should have been paying attention; if they're inactive, they shouldn't be. What are they supposed to do? They can't make everybody happy; someone has to be kicked. If the corruption complaints would stop, if people would accept that they did something wrong and move on, then the peace would be kept. People wouldn't hate each other. Ranks wouldn't be afraid of corruption threads being started. Everybody would be happy... All these threads do is make the cycle worse. Leftiness 15:13, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
"Saying you are ignorant of what's going on is not incivil, and stop with the civility police. Second, this isn't even about Melon, so you clearly are ignorant of what we're talking about. The problem is not that they don't know the rules, it's that not everybody agrees what violates the rules." What wszx is what I'm trying to bring across more in my arguement. I was trying to sort-of explain it throughout the head however even I wasn't able to say it clear enough. What I quoted was what wszx had said a while back and is something I agree with. I understand, I guess, that I violated the rules. I really honestly don't care that I was kicked for an hour, seeing as I just come back an hour later, + I just join another cc for the times being until I can re-join the Wiki chat. I want at least a standard, of some sort, that says what EXACTLY violates the rules. I want the border to be a wall, not an invisible line that you can't see until the police are handcuffing you. I can more understand why I got kicked for my 3rd time, I realized I was crossing the line a while back, however a mod had not decided to stop me so I had decided to "Go till I die." My 1st and 2nd kicks however, I know my 2nd was apoligized by Degen, as you said, evidentual by his apology. However, I want it so the "harassing," has at least some reason, so to speak. I honestly feel strongly against the notion of being kicked just for saying 1 word that while may be offensive to someone, it shouldn't be so distrumental that a person gets kicked for saying it. If its continual harassment sure, kick him, but if its 1 word and that was it than I don't see a reasonable reason why I should be kicked. 24.151.16.160 16:55, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
The rules are very clear cut. It says no flaming. The problem is that the ranks let people get away with minor instances of flaming. They let it go for a little while, and they step in when they think it's a problem. Really, I don't think there's a way to draw a line exactly where they think it's a problem, especially since different ranks have different levels of tolerance. The ranks could kick immediately for the first instance of flaming; the ranks could warn immediately, then kick when the warning is laughed off and the action is inevitably repeated. Right now, the ranks use their best judgment in determining when to step in, and that's the best that can be done. Another issue with drawing a line, if we could draw a line, would be gaming the system: "I only called him an idiot twice, not three times, so you can't kick me." Personally, I expect it would be a problem, and then we'd have more unjust kick threads. Maybe it would be better; at least we could throw the book at them and get it over with, but I still think it would be best if everyone would just accept their kick and stop doing whatever they did wrong... Leftiness 17:26, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I was thinking along the lines of instead of making it flaming, more like excessive flaming. It can be up to the moderators judgement whether the person excessively flames or not, however I feel also as though all the moderators should share the same toleration, and not have it where I have to write down every single mod's name that KoS when they see one insult used in the cc. It shouldn't really be where a person has to yell "Oh no guys, xxxx moderator is on don't say an offensive word or he'll kick you!" While I know it might be difficult combining all of the moderators into one mind set, it would be a lot "nicer," for the community. In the case of the 1 hour kick that I got, we had moderators watching the convo for a while (I believe there were 5? online at the time) and none of them really stepped in, and then another mod came on and then we get the kicks. Maybe you could have a vote or something with the mods that are online, at least see if ALL the moderators believe in the people getting kicked. It seems sorta stupid when you can have like 6 moderators online and out of those 6 only 1 really wants to kick you, the other 5 really don't care. I don't know though, this is what I think.Splitisoda 19:46, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I've read a majority of this discussion, and although I can see the serious issue at hand in a broad point of view, I just find this incredibly sad. I barely joined a little more than a year or two ago, and there never was anything like this, or many other kinds of threads, on the Grove until a few minor incidents. Regardless, in the case of this situation, I see both parties being at fault here, but I can firmly say Tlul knows what to do most of the time. He's been a cc rank longer than I have by many months. We all have our moments, and I've seen practically every rank, including myself, have times where it was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of thing. There should have been no initial trolling of Tlul in the first place, and after the incident it would've been best to douse the flames with some cool Ignore listing. In my opinion, and pardon my language, shit happens. It was one hour where you couldn't be in our cc, such is life. Make amends, move on like civil people and not like kindergartners (not to call anyone immature, but I'm around children of that age a lot and this seems very similar). Although I'm a sysop, I can remember being a non-rank not too long ago and if a situation like this happened I saw people actually talk it out civilly and we could move on. If you think you're oppressed, don't come on here and just b'awww about it. Try to use his talk page (I think that's his wiki name, someone correct it if it's wrong) and do it like adults. If you think that was bad, you'dve hated it when I was new here, oh boy...

tl;dr talk it out, move on, and let's all grow up and stop trying to rally against ranks. You had a chance to voice your opinions in rfr's/rfa's/rfb's. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 01:19, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Erm... I'm not a rank/sysop. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:51, June 30, 2010 (UTC) 

Comment - Can we just change the name of the Yew Grove to "Whining Troll Grove"? You guys are Gaming the system and trying to use the fact that you didn't get a warning as reason why "the corrupt mods are against you" et cetera. You guys should be smart enough to know when you're crossing a line. Don't be a dick. It's not that hard. Some of you guys are complaining that you got kicked for trolling. I've got an idea; don't troll! Those who do the trolling seem to be a small number of people who bitch about the ranks, who are only trying to do their jobs. They're human. They make mistakes. But you guys should also be able to tell when you're being offensive. Stop using "not getting a warning" as an excuse and grow up. ʞooɔ 19:01, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

But how do you know this is really the case? I didn't get said kick that the two who made the thread did and I've quite clearly stated I still agree that there are some problems with the mods. Again see the screenshots I posted, especially the fourth one where I was joking with a fellow member who knew I was joking, and I got kicked. That screenshot shows from login to kick, there is nothing missing from it. All I've seen from people opposing this thread is "You are trying to game the system!" Just listen for a moment. More than just the people who started the tread have came in and agreed with them. Many of the people opposing this thread are saying things like "Oh come on, haven't we had enough of these threads?" Clearly, we haven't. If this is something occurring so frequently that some people are considering it a nuisance have you considered the fact that there might actually be something wrong? You're being so fiercely accusatory with the whole GTS thing, that at this point it's gone so far it's not assuming good faith anymore. Like I said, view the fourth screenshot I posted. No reason why I can't complain about the ranks for doing that, there's no reason that me complaining is gaming the system, and there's no reason they shouldn't have assumed good faith and there's no reason why they shouldn't be right now. You can't just keep closing these threads because no problems are being resolved. You need to find out why this is such a common complaint and figure out what to do about it. This thread should be a discussion of that, not simply a bunch of ranks trying to use whatever policy or loophole they can find to try to shut us up! I am not vot, I am Melon! 19:18, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
I'm done arguing about this case. You guys know you're in the wrong, and you should be mature enough not to troll. ʞooɔ 19:51, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're accusing me of trolling. I haven't been kicked in a few weeks, I'm not here to complain about one specific issue. I'm not trolling you. Trolling is acting a certain way to provoke a negative reaction. I'm acting simply according to what I believe on the subject. I'm being honest with you. I am not vot, I am Melon! 20:01, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Ditto, I have never been kicked from the CC, yet I am arguing the point. So no, it is not people here that are trolling and getting kicked that are complaining, there are other people too. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 19:27, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Is it really that difficult to comprehend that if you are misbehaving in the CC, you will be kicked? This is getting ridiculous. Honestly, what needs to happen is that a lot of people need to grow up. Sorry for being so harsh, but it's true. ajr 19:20, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry? But I believe I am probably in the top ten of maturity in this clan, make that five. And you are right, people need to grow up, not take words so negatively, and realize it is someone across the world talking to them. Like really, if you are taking offense to words in game you need to just quit, because that is quite pathetic. (Not aiming this at you Ajr, just to the people that cry to the mods.) xScoobsx Talk Contribs 19:27, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if somebody is breaking rules, the should be kicked. But, do you understand that it's not infrequent in this CC to be kicked when you're not breaking a rule at all? As I've said a tiring amount of times in this discussion, see my fourth screenshot. In fact, you've pretty much said the same thing as Cook Me Plox, so I'll ask you to read what I said to him. (I am having some serious issues remembering to sign my comments... gah) I am not vot, I am Melon! 19:34, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Scoobs, your comments actually sound quite immature. You belittle anybody who doesn't get kicked for "cry[ing] to the mods" when I find it highly unlikely that most have done anything of the sort, and if they have, they've probably been justified. Mature people don't need to belittle others in order to get their point across. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:51, June 30, 2010 (UTC) 

Proposal

I've pointed out a couple of times now that people keep trying to "have the last word" by simply stating their opinion like it's law ("grow up" & etc.) and trying to otherwise end this discussion but there are still issues that remain unresolved. I would like to say at the least that we should clear up this line from Runescape:Clan_Chat

"Generally players will be given one or more warnings, but this is not always the case."

It's clear, but it's not clear enough. Both "Generally" and "but this is not always the case." in the same sentence has a sort of redundancy, and the whole statement is pretty much vague, especially with "one or more" warnings. Perhaps it should be something more like the following:

"Players breaking rules may get a warning first, at the discretion of the ranked user handling the situation."

But this might raise the question on what criteria ranks should base their decisions on, so it might be equally vague... Does anyone have any better suggestions? I am not vot, I am Melon! 19:33, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Second Proposal - I believe the easiest way to solve this issue is to simply make a set of simple guidelines the moderators have to follow. Listed below...

1. Warn the user/s at the first time of the rule breaking. If it is a spammer/bot a automatic kick can be warranted.
2. Kick the user/s.
2.1. If anyone asks what the kick is for, simply state the rule breaking.

Are we really asking that much for that? This is similar to the [[RuneScape:Off-site/TeamSpeak/Moderation]] rules and my moderators and admins have no problems using that system. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 19:43, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

How about leave it up to the discretion of the rank? When people request adminship/forum adminship/a rank, usually we put the trust in their hands that they are responsible enough to know how to handle rule-breaking. ʞooɔ 19:46, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
In my proposal it is left in their discretion. It is in their discretion if the users are or are not breaking the rules. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 19:53, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
The second proposal looks solid but I can see situations arising just like this where people complain that there was no warning before their kick. I think the problem might be better avoided if step one is flexible, considering there are multiple ranks who keep track of multiple users and don't know who has had a warning yet, between them. It should allow for discretion on whether or not a warning is given. The reason for the kick should always be given on request. I am not vot, I am Melon! 19:49, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Sure, whatever - But there will be situations where myself and/or other ranks will use common sense and not warn, just kick. I believe this should be made explicit. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:08, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

That is understandable. In situations were someone is obviously abusing a player (**** you, you **** **** * ** * **). xScoobsx Talk Contribs 20:13, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking more the cc-hop-spammers, especially users with names similar to our regulars who then spam/troll in the hopes of getting the actual users in trouble, but that would work too. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:18, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Ranks do not have to warn however. That would cause problems, because people would refer to it and say "oh, you have to warn." HaloTalk 20:15, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I clearly stated in mine anyway, and in my comment on the second one that warning or not should be by the choice of the rank. Specifically to avoid this problem in the future. I am not vot, I am Melon! 20:26, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This thread should have been phrased as a policy reform from the beginning. The word corruption shouldn't have been used. The people who aren't trolls shouldn't have been siding with trolls. The trolls that were sided with were obviously trying to game the system. It wasn't that things were being pushed under a rug; it's that we don't want to deal with another troll trying to game the system. A lot of trouble could have been avoided if you had phrased this as a policy reform in the first place.

Now that those of you who would reform the policy have put your actual opinions down, you've agreed with me. Players might get a warning first, depending on common sense. Ranks can use common sense to determine if they should skip the warning. The rank uses common sense to determine if it's rule breaking. That's what I said. In fact, that's what's happening right now. Ranks use common sense to determined when to step in. They use common sense to determine if a warning is necessary or if the rule breaker knows that he's breaking rules.

To be honest, Melon, your case of getting kicked for saying "You suck" is the only instance of someone being kicked for a poor reason. Naming yourself Trol and (it looks like) spamming the chat about thunderstorms is asking for it. Yes, people will be rude when they get over-reacted on. Yes, people will complain when trolls consistently try to game the system. Yes, sometimes people will make stupid decisions, and sometimes people will get kicked for stupid reasons. As Gaz said, "All I can see is a small handful of people arguing over something as concrete as UCS." That's all it is. That's the only way to moderate the chat.

If anything, I can understand (1) making it a rule that the rank who kicks should admit to kicking and state the reason, and (2) ranks should probably take a screenshot for their own defense. I also think (3) it should be a rule that nobody can dispute a kick without screenshots, and I think (4) there should be punishment for disputing a kick when you obviously did something wrong, as is often the case. I also think that (5) accusations of "rank corruption" in the chat should be an offense; the peace should be kept, and chat discussions like that make for nasty situations, as is proven above. Leftiness 23:42, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

No, we have not agreed with you. Could you not see my example? I believe that warnings should be skipped in blatant assault of another user. I believe that warnings should be warranted when things are border lined, just so that user knows they are breaking the rules.
Do not tell me who I should of sided with, or who I should not of. You should read your messages, the are quite ignorant. We did not phrase this as a reform policy, so what? It was made to discuss the issues at hand. And your points 3, 4, and 5 are outrageous. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 23:58, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
I find it rather amusing that you think "[t]he trolls that were sided with were obviously trying to game the system" when, as far as I know, you weren't even there to see what happened. Further, Cabbages and Soda weren't actually trolling—they were giving Dark a hard time for his question (which, nobody seems to acknowledge, could very well have been a troll to being with). For once you have said something intelligent, though: (1) should already be the rule, and (2) and (3) seem like very good ideas, particularly (3). (wszx) 02:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I can read the screenshot that TLUL posted. To be perfectly honest, I trust what he said in that screenshot above what others have said here because it's evidence. Since we use evidence here, and since it's obvious that he was being trolled in that picture, they deserved their kicking. Since I read Cronos' unjust kicking thread, particularly his last post, I know that he's trying to game the system and insist on corruption and warnings when he knows he deserved his kick. Leftiness 03:32, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
That screenshot is very little of the conversation that took place. As for trusting Dark, surely you noticed the rather glaring discrepancy in his story. He claims to have been very insulted by what was said, yet not only did not ignore the users (in fact he had put them on ignore, but took them off because he thought "the conversation sounded fun") he was actively engaging with them. Unless Dark is a masochist of the highest order and enjoys actively propagating conversation which distresses him (in which case, gasp, he would have been trolling) he is lying. So why would you trust his characterization of trolling? Since it's so obvious, what was the trolling taking place in the screenshot? (wszx) 03:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Whether that screenshot is the whole discussion doesn't matter because the only evidence we have is that picture and the fact that the beginning of the discussion is verified by both sides: TLUL asked a stupid question. That's allowed. In response, they trolled him. Saying he's never talked to girls and asking how many boyfriends he has are two examples, and I don't think I need to list the rest. Now, TLUL is a person. As a person, I expect him to get angry at people for trolling him. He was rude in response, and that's allowed. As a person, I expect him to have some sort of pride - not the good kind, like pride in your good work. He obviously didn't want to ignore them and walk away, especially after they made fun of him in front of his friends. So he made a few responses like "I've talked to 100,000 girls." He didn't start trolling them; he didn't ask how many boyfriends they have, and he didn't make fun of them in front of their friends. Since Powers started apologizing, I assume Powers kicked them. Since they were kicked, TLUL's sense of pride wasn't being hurt anymore. When they started private messaging him, TLUL added them to his ignore; it didn't hurt his pride to ignore them then. The timing of his ignore checks out with the screenshot. Leftiness 05:11, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
That is not trolling. It was teasing, and it wasn't nice, but it was not trolling. I find it very interesting that you are excusing Dark because he was provoked and his pride was wounded. Maybe I'm old school, but for me provocation is not permission to behave however you wish. It's always more noble to ignore rudeness than respond in kind. (wszx) 05:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
So I sarcastically said I had talked to 100 000 girls. Nobody in their right mind could believe I was actually trying to convince people of that. The lack of seriousness should have been made even clearer by my next two lines, which I thought pretty clearly implied I had to count past 100 000, counting down. And I'm sorry, teasing to that extent is trolling, especially since there was plenty more of it before those screenshots were taken. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:51, June 30, 2010 (UTC) 
Comment - "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response" (Source) Teasing is trolling; it's light trolling, if you ask me. Asking how many boyfriends someone has is not teasing. That's being inflammatory with the intent of provoking an emotional response. They even admitted to trolling. He wasn't behaving out of line. They trolled him, or, for less slang terminology, they insulted his sexuality in front of his friends multiple times. While it would be more noble to ignore the rudeness, their rudeness was over-the-top, and his wasn't. He wasn't nice, he didn't laugh along with them, and he made sarcastic, exaggerated responses like "I've talked to 100,000 girls," but he did not troll them; he did not respond in kind. He did not break any rules. Leftiness 05:47, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Trolling is usually directed toward the entire group and designed to promote disruption in general rather than antagonize a particular person. Seelol ED is blocked as a spam. Oh well. these for more authoritative sources on internet phenomena rather than Wikipedia. It's funny that you use the phrase "light trolling", which is the exact phrase used to describe the kind of behaviour which requires a warning. (wszx) 06:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I also believe warnings should be skipped in blatant assault. In the event of minor offenses, ranks don't kick anyone. When it's borderline, nobody's in trouble. People get in trouble for crossing the line. For example, you don't see police officers going around telling people that they're getting awfully close to disturbing the peace; that warning wouldn't be taken seriously, and neither would a warning that they're almost to the point of too much spamming or flaming. Nobody should have any trouble realizing when it's a minor offense and when, for a recent example, they're saying it's fun to troll and asking how many boyfriends TLUL has.
On the topic of telling you who to side with, all of those points were leading up to my opinion that a lot of trouble would have been saved if this were phrased as a policy reform to begin with. I'm not enforcing which side you must take, and I certainly defend your right to pick a side, but I think a lot of trouble would have been avoided if the trolls were dealt with immediately. Instead, it was phrased as troll protection, and that made everybody mad at each other.
Take this nicely; I'm being honest here: please tell me what part of my commenting is coming off as ignorant, because I do believe I've got just as much understanding of this topic as you and everybody else. I'm being flat-out disagreeable to you; I'm taking the opposite stance on this issue, and I can accept that, but I'm not ignorant.
My third point prevents hearsay; nobody wants to try and piece together these flame-fests. If screenshots were required, the issue would be obvious, and nobody would hate each other. If you didn't read the rules and to know that you have to take screenshots, then you don't need to be disputing your kick. My fourth point may be too strict, but, personally, I'm tired of people trying to game the system. It's coming up a lot, and I wish there were something I could do other than say "Stop!!"
In regards to my fifth point, do you see what happened because rank corruption was discussed? Everybody hated each other. Maybe I could have phrased point five better; in the same way as political and religious discussions are discouraged in the chat, I think discussions of rank corruption should be discouraged. It isn't like I suggested punishment. Honestly, all corruption discussion will do is cause a lot of trouble. This thread is proof. Leftiness 00:47, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Ranks being held accountable has already sorta been opposed in another thread, log kicks or something. How can you gurantee I, or someone else, kicked them if tthe community will not support logging or something? All it takes are two ranks to say I didn't do it, he/she must have. SBMCSFBucket detail.pngrwojy 00:51, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
As a point of note, only three people are saying anything here about corruption, and two if you disregard Cook's completely incorrect use of quotes. One of those is you. The other is me and I only said it in the cc, and my comments there have been misinterpreted (due, I imagine, in part to my inadvertent omission of some key words and typos in my cc comments.) And since I'm not hating anyone, that only leaves you as part of "everybody hating each other". So stop hating, bro. (wszx) 02:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
That's not really true. The thread starter, in the other thread listed at the top, said:

Let's not play this twist my words around BS. I said I may have deserved if IF I got a warning. So please stop manipulating my words in the best way possible to cover up the corruption that lies within the mods you have here.

So, I would say that is someone saying something about corruption, and it's relevant. How is that incorrect? The thread here before hand is a continuation of the previous one. It's been said in the CC multiple times as well, so stop making it seem like no one has said it besides us. By the way, you could get a signature template. ʞooɔ 02:24, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
The last thread is only tangentially related to this one, in that the same incident sparked it. This thread was not about contesting the kick, it would about broader discussion of the kicking behaviour of the ranks (the fact that some have seen fit to hijack it for other purposes is not Crono's fault). So in this context, discussion of rank "corruption" is indeed limited to those whom I detailed. (wszx) 02:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment - My comments about the lack of corruption and the fact that it's about the cycle of hating and accusations are related. I used those comments to defend my opinion that we don't need warning policies in place because we don't randomly kick newcomers to our chat for saying "suck." We kick regulars that, according to Melon, have histories and that like to push limits. Leftiness 03:32, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - This is accomplishing nothing besides arguments. The proposal above is more or less already in effect, if you account for common sense. Everyone's just getting mad at eachother. Just don't be a dick, and you won't get kicked. The kicks that have taken place are mostly centered around a small number of people who go too far. ʞooɔ 03:02, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Agreed. As I've said, a warning policy would lead to gaming the system, and I personally think that there wouldn't be an issue if people would just forget about unjust kicking threads and let old wounds heal. Leftiness 03:32, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Seems like no consensus can be made, and I trully do hate arguing with fellow wikians. I'm sad to look back and see what the discussion came to with heated moments and angered users. I just hope admins can at least consider for themselves, on a personal level, to hand out warnings, when they believe they are needed. Time to let this go, and put this into the past. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 08:38, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Support Closure - This was going no where the moment it started... 222 talk 09:44, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - No changes to be made. All ranks should use common sense and their own discretion when dealing with players who may be disrupting the CC. Official warnings should be issued in normal circumstances, although exceptions exist, such as situations with spammers or bots. Disgruntled CC members should attempt to resolve the issue in the CC before bringing the problem to the wiki. Chicken7 >talk 10:26, June 30, 2010 (UTC)