Forum:Diminishing Clan Chat Spaces

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Diminishing Clan Chat Spaces
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 9 November 2011 by Thebrains222.


  • The wiki's main Clan details can be found here.
  • Details on Clan members can be found here.

The wiki's Clan Chat has recently crossed over the 400 member milestone, begging the question of what we can do when we reach the 500 member cap. Multiple half-hearted suggestions have been voiced, but thus far, we have no concrete proposal or course of action planned for when we reach this number. Here, we chose to adopt what can only be called a procrastinative attitude, ending the thread with vague comments about a "bunch of strategies" that we could implement. I don't think any of us expected the clan to harbour 411 (and steadily rising) members within the space of a mere five months. Broadly speaking, that gives us only one more month before we run out of space. We've been discussing many possible solutions to this problem, but our main source of uncertainty would be the tsunami of controversy, anger and bitterness that would arise from either refusing to recruit any new players, or, possibly even worse, starting to remove old, inactive members of the chat to make room for new ones. After conferring with some of our most loyal members, we've come up with the following ideas. There's quite a text wall below, but I ask you to please bear with me, and try your best to make sense of the below proposals. All of them require will require a large amount of pruning and fine-tuning, but here they are.

1. Creating a secondary CC - Starting a whole new Clan Chat to hold another 500 members. This, of course, is riddled with problems and controversies, but should be given consideration all the same. Some of the main issues that would arise are a lack of willing ranks to monitor and patrol the chat, although we could simply open a new batch of RfRs and select some members willing to participate in the new CC. The thing that would really peeve people though, would be complaints of being considered "second-rate", etc., which are not at all as easily dealt with.

2. Removing inactive members - A quite straightforward proposal.We currently have 35 inactive (inactive being deemed as earning less than 10K experience since joining, following a yet to be decided period of time. See above link) members, which would open up another 35 free spaces for enthusiastic prospective members. Our problem here would be people manipulating the experience quota, but I would hope we could use common sense in these instances. Certainly one of our easier ways forward.

3. Halt recruitment altogether when capacity is reached - One of our not-so-preferable ideas for implementation, but notheless one to keep in mind. Once we reach 500 members, in approximately one month, we simply stop recruitment with an apology and a wave bye bye. As we all know, this would cause a huge amount of anger, but we have to keep open minded. This however, brings me on to our most promising proposal.

4. Waiting list - A simple, straightforward, yet effective idea. Either by creating an official clan thread, or by creating another RS:CC subpage, we form a list for players to write their wiki and RuneScape name in, and when a free space opens up, due to inactivity or departure, we can recruit that player. Again, this will need to be elaborated and fine-tuned, but some form of solution must be implemented, and must be implemented soon.

And there you have it. All of the above are, of course, completely open to improvements and suggestion. Also, feel free to put forward an idea of your own. It's been quite refreshing to try on Cook's shoes and come out with a doomsday thread, but some action is urgently required, before it's too late. Credit goes to Gaz for most of the ideas. So, that's it. Discuss. Ronan Talk 22:02, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[edit source]

Support 2 & 4 - 1 is no, two is yes (limit of 6 months, then byebye!), three is NO WTF, and four is YES, if needed. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 22:05, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 - Let's go with two, only if there is a good way to measure activity. ajr 22:13, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 - Make that one less from the total. Take "Vulpes Twigy" from the list. I never really play anymore. Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 22:30, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 & 4 - I'd say once the cc becomes full, make the requirements for not being kicked from it as strict as necessary. I know there is opposition to kicking players based on activity (determined by xp gain), but that's what happens when you have less spots than those that want them. The waiting list can function as a simple queue for those that would like to be invited as soon as another voluntarily leaves or is deemed generally unactive and is kicked. Red partyhat detail.png Pen Draig Talk King Black Dragon.png 22:47, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose 2 & Strong Support 4- I like the idea of a waiting list. That way people can feel they will soon be with the clan they desire. I oppose the idea number two because it is very unfair. Runescape is only a game and if you kick people from inactivness, it is rude. Say, you went on a 6 month long mission to help people. Then you come back and get on Runescape finding yourself banned for no good reason but of inactivness. My idea for number two-The only appropriate thing in that case would make a seperate thread for a list of people of inactivness. They can add them selves to the list stating they won't be active for a certain period of time. Once added, a countdown (similar to "RuneScape:Featured images/cd") will be added giving them a certain amount of time till they will be kicked from the chat. A user reporting inactivness and a user not coming on without any notice is very different. Many reasons could be the cause of this, big or small. Hair 23:15, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

I've pulled six month to year deployments and couldn't get on. Most of the time if you tell the clan leadership what is going on they make exceptions. This would target those that just up and disappear. Quest.png Darrik Ash US serv.svg HS ALDarklight detail.png 00:15, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Comment They are not being banned, just having their rank removed. Attack Ancient Fofo Slayer 23:22, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 + 4 The cc to me is just a place to chat, ask questions and relax. I don't need a rank to do that. So if certain users just want to chat and would be willing to give up their rank then we could free up some space. I would go with the waitlist option out of those given though. It feels like that the waitlist option will work to me so I guess the only thing to do would be to make up a list of rules for it. Attack Ancient Fofo Slayer 23:22, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 and 4 The only thing about 2 is that I wish Jagex could give us better tools to monitor activity levels in the clan, especially the Citedal. Everyone wants to see the Citedal progress but only a minority are actively puting in the effort. If you don't want to help your more than welcome to visit but lets make room for those that will. Waiting list is the lesser of evils for those that want to join. Nothing says they can't visit the clan channel and those willing to hang around will be deserving of getting there invite. Quest.png Darrik Ash US serv.svg HS ALDarklight detail.png 00:15, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 & 4 - 1 does make logical sense, while 4 also would be a good idea. Most friends chats that are hugely popular like w60 pengs has like 3 seperate chats, for the huge amount of players. Jnacci 16:27, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Remember this is about a clan chat, not a friends chat. You can be ranked in multiple friends chats, but only one clan chat. Thus setting up an additional clan chat would mean getting some ranks into it, either by asking some active people to move from the current clan chat, or by making new ranks. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 15:07, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 and 4 - They will cause the least disruption out of all the proposals. Per all. Also, to be honest, I did not even fathom that we might reach 500 clan members. And anyone with sufficient powers can feel free to remove me from the clan right now, I don't play RuneScape no more. 222 talk 02:09, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Someone can remove me as well. Suppa chuppa Talk 15:15, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

is this the WIKI cc or the CITADEL cc? Some people are active in the chat yet do not care about the citadel. The cc is supposed to be about the WIKI. If we make it about the citadel, then all references to it on this wiki MUST be eliminated, and a new Wiki cc formed. --Degenret01 15:40, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, good sir. The citadel wouldn't exist without the wiki. The level of hyperbole in your comment is almost comical. Almost. In answer to your question, though, it's the CC of both, and we would have no reason to consider otherwise. Creating an entirely new clan would cause a ridiculously and unnecessarily large amount of hassle and arguments. The CC is about the wiki, it's the foundation of everything we've built there, but by extension, the citadel has an integral role as well. No one has ever proposed forcing our members to contribute in any way to the citadel's upkeep, and it has never been an issue. This thread is about recruit spaces, not a Wiki Vs Citadel rant, and that's the way it should stay. Ronan Talk 16:06, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
What, exactly, in his statement was hyperbolic? Also, creating a new CC would hardly be a hassle. The various notices on the wiki are obviously an effective way to communicate with people, which is why we have 400 members. All we would have to do is make a new CC and tell everybody that they've split. (wszx) 22:14, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
"If we make it about the citadel, then all references to it on this wiki MUST be eliminated," - it's not the Cold War, for God's sake. You make creating a new CC sound like it's a five-minute job, just found it and be done. I actually find myself quoting dear Jeff below, in that our fundamental issue would be members of the second clan considering themselves second-rate, and in all honesty, who could blame them. It would be a hassle, and a continuous, irritating hassle at that. Ronan Talk 21:07, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
I should point out that I have always said the CC is about the wiki first and foremost, with the option to take part in our citadel if you so desire. Also this is as good a place as any to reference RS:CC/C, where I hope to have made that clear. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 15:07, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Is xp gain a sure way to check activity? I know several people who go on rs simply to chat and do not train any skills. 76.199.162.22 18:19, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

It's not a good way to gauge activity. We'd need to find one. ɳex undique 19:24, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
That is pretty much the only way we have of gauging activity. There isn't a way to check last logged in date, or hours played since joined, etc. Having gained some exp has implied activity at some point, but having not gained some exp does not imply inactivity. I agree that XP gain is not a good way to check, but it is the only solid way we have. An alternate system would pretty much be based on word of mouth and memory, which of course isn't that good really (though we have used it before, and we could just adopt that status quo for the clan chat). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 15:07, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 + 4 - 2 seems like the best option,but I don't know how we'd check who's active and inactive. There's really no way to see. I don't like a waiting list because not many people would voluntarily leave (or they can't if they're inactive), and the waiting list would just keep getting bigger and bigger. ɳex undique 19:24, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Question - I am a non-member, do I have to be a member to access the citadel? --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 23:31, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

you could've just looked it up. we're the runescape wiki, you know. --Iiii I I I 23:36, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't answer anything. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 23:41, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
You need to be a member. ɳex undique 23:42, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 23:43, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
you are amazing --Iiii I I I 23:52, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
No I'm not. Bye. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 00:58, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Why 1 - That would require two different citadels, which is not fair, as one may be better than the other... --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 23:46, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose 1 & 3, Support 2, Neutral 4 - Prayer-icon.pngTyiloTalkQuest.png 15:38, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

What's the reason? --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 15:39, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
He doesn't have to give one if others already have. A blank support is taken that the user is supporting per the others above him. On that, "NO WTF" isn't an extremely informative reason for opposition either. Wink Ronan Talk 15:49, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 - Join the chat (and enter the citadel) as a guest if you consider yourself inactive. You won't automatically join the chat every time you log in, you can't have a rank, and you can't participate in the construction of the citadel (?), but none of those are problems if you don't play often in the first place.  Tien  15:54, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support 2 - There are a huge number of people on that list in which I have never seen in the CC. I propose that a group of us get together in an FC and sit down to weed out a lot of the names. Just do it by trust of your Admins/Ranks/Trusted Users. 1 is a terrible idea, that will cause a major not-needed rift. I dislike the idea of stopping growth on the part of 3. Finally, 4, makes it look to me too much like a "real clan". When it comes down we are a place for editors, and friends of the wiki, to hang out and chat. It should NOT be based off of xp gain or citadel activity. Comments like making people work in the citadel to be a member of the clan are what make me never contribute to it.

Phew! Textwall! But all in all. Lets just sit down and eliminate a portion of the members at our own discretion. Firemaking cape.pngQwert Yuiop8 talk Firemaking-icon.png 19:40, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 and 4, and proposal - In addition to rooting out those who don't gain exp, we could get rid of the people who just come in and beg, or otherwise negatively contribute to the clan.--Cheers, Off-hand ascension crossbow.pngYodaAscension crossbow.png 20:12, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Super Duper Oppose to number 1. That is all. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:59, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

The term is "extreme bukkit oppose" tyvm ajr 02:32, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Implementation[edit source]

A clear consensus has been established to remove inactive users. As stated above, we currently have +35 inactive clan members, with certain users requesting to be removed. The next issue to decide on is whether or not to also comply with the above idea of certain trusted clan members conferring and deranking other users that are deemed inactive, disruptive or malicious, to make way for others. The implementation of a waiting list will also be considered if the situation demands. So, in short, our proposals are:

  • Gauge clan activity by the amount of experience gained since joining.
  • Trusted clan users removing inactive, negative or disruptive members, through discussion.
  • Establish a waiting list if necessary.

Discuss. Ronan Talk 21:32, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per Above, Firemaking cape.pngQwert Yuiop8 talk Firemaking-icon.png 00:33, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Yep. As a response to one of the opposing arguments: Users that log in just to chat or other and don't gain xp can be made aware of the requirements; it wouldn't take that long to simply gain the minimum amount required. In addition, does idling at the G.E. or elsewhere and chatting meet the criteria for "active"? I believe xp gained since joining a fair determination for activity, particularly since there is currently no other gauge available. Red partyhat detail.png Pen Draig Talk King Black Dragon.png 02:41, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Before going any further, who are these "certain trusted clan members"? Also, will the waiting list be on-site or on the official forums? Otherwise, the first and third points sound perfectly good to me. 222 talk 06:25, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

I would be thinking of any willing bureaucrats (with an insane amount of luck), admins, sergeants, or just regular respected and trusted clan members. I feel it would be best to have the actual list on-site, as it's both more reliable and more flexible. We should also consider advertising the list on the forums, should the situation demand, however I would be somewhat wary of Rule 11. Ronan Talk 17:23, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - My main issue with this is that you guys are under an illusion that there are more inactive members than there actually are. Someone mentioned 35 inactive members above, which is under 10% of our total members. Unless you come up with some criteria that allow for the systematic removal of people, I don't think this is going to work. --LiquidTalk 13:58, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

No matter what way you look at it, we're merely delaying the inevitable. Sooner or later, we will reach the capacity of 500 members. We can only logically plan for a temporary solution, and that is what we're trying to do here. Even 35 members will bring us back under the 400 mark. By systematic removal, I assume you mean having some kind of method of frequently weeding out inactive or negative users. The closest we can really come to this is the above proposal of simple discussion and consensus. If this were to be done reasonably regularly, we could hopefully hold off maxing our spaces for quite some time. Ronan Talk 17:23, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Not opposed to 1 - I can't say I think 1 is the best option, but there are some points in support of it that haven't been made. Firstly while I can see where the "second rate cc" concern is coming from, I think players would be understanding when they realise that none of our options are particularly ideal - just as players who can't get into team penguin's main fc are maybe a bit disappointed but don't display a "tsunami of anger".

As for ranks, the only uses of rank I've seen in the current cc are citadel related things and recruiting. The former wouldn't be relevant, and the latter can't really be abused since we recruit anyone who asks. So I don't think it would be hard to find enough people who are trusted enough to recruit.

As Liquid and Flaysian point out, if the current trend continues we will have 500 members who log in regularly. If we followed option 2, we would have to make our definition of "active" stricter; clan members would essentially be competing with each other for their space in the cc, new members would presumably have to demonstrate their activity, "No requirements" removed from our clan page... I don't think any of us want to go in that direction. If we followed option 4, what would be the harm of giving people on this waiting list the option of joining an overflow clan chat?

I think the following question is very relevant to this discussion: why do people want to join the clan? Here are the possible reasons I can think of:

  • To skill in the citadel. A lot of members ask when they can start skilling as soon as they're recruited, so I think this may be a common reason (though I can't fathom why. Also if that enthusiasm lasted more than a week, we'd probably be tier 5 by now...)
  • To use the citadel features. Though I assume that our citadel is set to be as accessible as possible to guests, so this is not a real reason except for minor inconvenience when entering the citadel, and any features which we cannot make public (Are there any? I couldn't tell from skimming this)
  • To discuss wiki editing. Let's face it, this doesn't happen very much, and entering as a guest would be sufficient for when it does.
  • To chat with wikians whom they know.
  • To chat with random people.
  • To be part of a "big clan". I suspect some just want to see a little yellow banana beside their name, so when they hear we'll give them one unconditionally, they come and ask for it.

Note that option 1 would address the last two reasons (assuming the overflow chat were large enough... but we could wait until the waiting list reaches a certain size). As for the first reason, it is clearly not the case that all 400 current clanmembers want to skill in the citadel every week. I'm sure Degen's suggestion above was sarcastic, but if there were two clans it seems sensible to me to encourage players who want to skill in the citadel to join the one with a citadel, and vice versa.

By the way, at some point it was decided that we wanted more members, and various things were done to advertise our clan and recruit (eg "Recruiting: Yes" on our clan page, something in the site notice). Maybe we should stop doing those things. I guess this is like option 3 with some "what they don't know can't hurt them" thrown in.

Apologies for the long comment; I tried to keep it down to points that haven't been already made. Stewbasic 00:35, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Notice of intent - The general consensus seems to be as follows. I will close this thread as such, unless discussion on these or other points starts again.

  • The administrators, organizers, deputy owners, and owner of the clan, with the input of sergeants and lieutenants, as well as the XP gained list on the RuneScape website, will selectively remove inactive members. (This is due to technical limitations, as only administrators and up can actually kick clanmates.)
  • Inform the ranks to exercise some amount of discretion when recruiting.
  • Should the clan reach near capacity (say, 450+ members), then a waitlist will be established for future recruits.

Cheers, --LiquidTalk 01:47, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to request that this be left open for another week or so, to allow the details of each implementation to be fine-tuned. It's all very well to have an established consensus, but I think it would be good to run through the system by which each of the above proposals would work. Ronan Talk 18:28, October 15, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - This hasn't been given much attention in the past few days so may I ask: what specifically needs to be elaborated upon? Shall there be a precise amount of xp for deeming members "active" and a waitlist pre-constructed in preparation? Aside from those, I feel Liquid's summarized consensus is clear. Red partyhat detail.png Pen Draig Talk King Black Dragon.png 03:07, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
  • Removal: What exact requirements should we set to deem inactivity? How often should we investigate and remove our inactive members? Do we need unanimous support for each removal, or will normal consensus suffice?
  • Discretion: Currently by far our vaguest and least detailed proposal. What would we describe as discretion? Again, is discussion required to determine who "isn't allowed" and who is? What kind of people would be deemed inadmissable?
  • Waitlist: Should we advertise this on the RSOF? What if the list reaches an unacceptably long length? If the first few people that sign up go inactive before they can be recruited? Do we create a page in itself for it? Would users have to have a wiki account to sign on? How could we control the list's fluctuation?

All of these points do still require much thought and discussion, especially invoking "discretion". As I've said, there's no point in just having a ghost of a system if/when we need it. If we're doing it, we should do it right. A half-assed job will get us nowhere. Ronan Talk 15:40, October 18, 2011 (UTC)


So how much exp gain is needed to remain active? 100k? 200k? Are there options on checking exp gain, such as exp gained within the last 30 days, 100 days, 180 days etc? I don't think there are since I only saw a huge list with exp gained after joining the clan. I'd say anyone with less than 50k exp gained should be removed depending on when they were recruited. But there is no way to check that either. What do we to do to people who are gone on breaks or vacation without letting anyone know? Moving on, I suggest we discuss removing people on the wiki itself because a user might be in a different time zone and not in the CC when ranks are on. The discussion should be held by ranks only though, unless the person who is being removed wants to add in on why he/she is inactive. Normal consenus should be fine. As for the actual amount, we could make up a list of exp gained on the wiki (yes it will be hard) and after one week or check how much exp is gained by each person and remove people based on that. I'd say 100k exp a week isn't bad start, just a suggestion though if anyone has a more thought out exp number feel free to post. This also leads me to wonder if we should check exp monthly or weekly? It seems to be a lot of work to do it weekly for just a few admins.

The waitlist should be on the wiki however the actual clan is on Runescape so I guess it depends on user preference. I'd like it on the wiki just so people who want to join can take some time out and post here so we wouldn't have people joining who just want a yellow banana since they would have to come and post here. (Its definatly flawed but I'm assuming the people who want a yellow banana are lazy as well). Just a bunch of random thoughts and ideas thrown in there to get the discussion started. I am sure you have a few ideas of your own Flaysian so post away =P ... Attack Ancient Fofo Slayer 02:13, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

I think 100k a week is way too much. I barely have time to make 5k a week, but I still log in and use the chat. ɳex undique 02:32, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
If we wanted to require a certain xp gain per week, the most sensible way would be to have some script crawl through these pages once per week and update some list on the wiki. Once that was set up, keeping track of weekly xp gain wouldn't be so bad. Incidentally, in support of the notion that xp gain is not a good criterion, there are 5 admins who've gained at most 22 xp in the clan's lifetime Lol. Stewbasic 03:43, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah 100k is a lot. So how about a monthly 10k? But as of now the only way (idea) to check activity is from exp gain and maybe provide exceptions for admins? Could we keep track of activity simply by asking users whether or not so and so was online or not, not a good idea in my opinion. Well, we could just let a few ingame ranks decide for themselves who is active or not by simply discussing it amongst themselves. The only problem I see with that is that they would have to be on at the same time and people from different time zones might be left out/removed since they seem inactive. We should probably keep exp monitered. Or we get big enough or the waitlist gets big I think we might have to make another cc for the wiki. Attack Ancient Fofo Slayer 04:48, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - When this proposal was created over a month ago, there were 411 members, according to the proposer. I checked today, and as of 10:37 AM (EDT) November 4, there are currently 410 clanmates. This means that we've already managed to stabilize the inflow and outflow, relatively balancing the rate of users coming in with the rate of users quitting/leaving. If this pattern continues, then we may already have solved the problem, meaning this forum is not really necessary. --LiquidTalk 14:39, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

Update: As of 12:00 AM (EST) November 8, 2011, the number of clanmates fell to 408. I know that there was at least one new clanmate during this time, which means that at least 3 have voluntarily left. If this trend continues, then we do not have anything to worry about in terms of clan capacity. --LiquidTalk 05:03, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how we could have stabilized the problem when we've done absolutely nothing. All I can say is that either the community is trolling us, or some of our members were bots. Squint face emoticon.gif Ronan Talk 18:33, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
You will always have new members as long as RuneScape still has game updates and as long as the wiki keeps going, so that logic doesn't work here, Liquid. This thread is annoying, pick a membership requirement and finish it. ):< sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:35, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
You pick the membership requirement <_< --LiquidTalk 00:47, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
At least 1k experience a month, then, unless the person is regularly in the chat (UCS and BB will have to be applied). Flay suggested 5k instead of 1k - whatever works best. Perhaps at least 5k a month with the knowledge of who regularly joins the chat. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 00:51, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - This thread has been sitting here for far too long, as the others have said. The following new rules will apply to the clan chat:

  • A criteria of at least 5000 experience gained per month and/or regular activity in the clan chat is required otherwise,
  • The clan owner, deputy owners, organisers and administrators will discuss with input from sergeants and lieutenants whether the relevant user should be removed. Users will be given the benefit of the doubt, especially if they play in less populated timezones. Users will be given the opportunity to explain their lack of activity if they wish to do so. Obvious disruptive or malicious users will be removed with no warning. Users may also notify moderators in advance if they will be away for a period of time.
  • This discussion may take place on or off-wiki, there has been no consensus in this discussion to limit it to either.
  • Ranks will exercise some discretion when recruiting by ensuring new recruits have spent a reasonable amount of time participating in the chat. I'm sure our ranks can be trusted to interpret "reasonable amount of time" and make the best decision for the clan.
  • A waitlist will be established on the wiki if the total number of recruits reaches 450 and continues to rise. Potential recruits will be redirected to this page.

Cheers, 222 talk 05:45, November 9, 2011 (UTC)