Forum:Establishing a Watercooler-style forum

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Establishing a Watercooler-style forum
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 13 May 2012 by Urbancowgurl777.

I'm proposing that we create a Watercooler forum where any discussions that would otherwise be removed from the Yew Grove and pertaining to RuneScape can be started. I'm suggesting this in order to remove topics like this, this, this, and this from the Yew Grove. It will also be a sort of replacement for the now removed forums as I suggested in Forum:Enforcing Wiki Forum Rules where it received a few nods of support. I think it would be a good idea to create a new (previously existing?) medium of discussion that is not form of instant messaging i.e. IRC and Chat.

If implemented, a new category titled Watercooler threads for active threads and a subcategory of Forum archives be created for archived ones.

Discuss, 222 talk 01:37, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Elaborations

Quoting from the discussion

As stated in the proposal, the intention of this new forum is to give users a medium of discussion that is not form of instant messaging. This would give users, all users, not just anons a place to discuss. For example, in quieter timezones, very often there is little or no discussion going on in IRC and not a single active person in the Chat, Forum:Watercooler would allow such users to engage in discussion. In regards to anons, Special:Chat is not accessible to them, and IRC may be a confusing medium to access at times.

The reason the previous forums were abandoned and vandalised is because they were not visible on the wiki, whereas an on-site forum will be visible in Recent Changes, and would thus come under the control of the Special:AbuseFilter which will block most general spamming, swearing. It will also be clearly visible to the community and thus any vandalism which bypasses the filters will be swiftly dealt with by the counter-vandalism team. 222 talk 02:55, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - As nominator. 222 talk 01:37, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Question - Can you explain to me how these will work in relation to the YG forums? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:38, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

They would most likely work in a separate section. say Forum:Watercooler rather than Forum:Yew Grove. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:40, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It'll exist alongside similar to the previously functioning Clan Chat forum. i.e. threads will exist in the forum namespace but categorised and archived separately. 222 talk 01:42, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
I see. We should make another page that has both links so people can choose where their thread will go then. Also, why call it watercooler?... sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:45, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
That's the default name of them on all new Wikia wikis. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:47, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I've been wanting to propose this for a while, but never got around to it. <3 svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:40, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Can we not have it called Watercooler please? Something a bit more RS based like.... Varrock Town Square or Draynor Market. Not my best suggestions ever, but something that reflects the more relaxed nature of this forum type. cqm talk 01:46, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

How about just "Town Square" or "Campfire"? svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:47, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
I like Campfire cqm talk 02:00, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - (a lot of edit conflicts) There are a few reasons why I'd oppose this. First off, I think if a user has a question, they should go to one of our on/off site communication services. This could be the [[Special:Chat|on-site chat]], the RSW clan chat, our skype channel or... dare I say... the IRC (you're welcome Kevin). Many user, including myself, would be glad to answer miscellaneous questions about runescape or the wiki. Second, over time, I could see some error occurring with this. This could be, users mixing up the two different forums (however it'd be set up?) or abusing the "watercooler" by asking ridiculous questions. Lastly, seeing the current threads we have, responses wouldn't quickly come onto the page. Then, the thread would come near absurd to keep. If the user asked in a "live" chat, the question could be answered in a snap. So, instead of establishing a watercooler type forum, we should make sure to include, on Forum:Yew Grove, to ask questions that don't relate to our wiki policies on one of our chats. Hair 02:07, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

So give less options to suit less people's fancy? svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:09, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
Give no options, if someone would rather have a late answer instead an immediate answer... which is strange, then they should ask elsewhere. Hair 02:17, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
Also note that water cooler also is just an area to chat, not just about questions. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:21, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
I know a couple real places that we can live chat, so.. I don't see why we need to add another (non-live) one. Hair 02:28, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it could tie in with Forum:Community building? cqm talk 02:29, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
Even if we were to bring the forums back, it's most likely that they will turn into our old forums... you know, the ones that were abandoned? Trolls? These will be seen on our wiki though. Hair 02:36, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
As stated in the proposal, the intention of this new forum is to give users a medium of discussion that is not form of instant messaging. This would give users, all users, not just anons a place to discuss. For example, in quieter timezones, very often there is little or no discussion going on in IRC and not a single active person in the Chat, Forum:Watercooler would allow such users to engage in discussion. In regards to anons, Special:Chat is not accessible to them, and IRC may be a confusing medium to access at times.
The reason the previous forums were abandoned and vandalised is because they were not visible on the wiki, whereas an on-site forum will be visible in Recent Changes, and would thus come under the control of the Special:AbuseFilter which will block most general spamming, swearing. It will also be clearly visible to the community and thus any vandalism which bypasses the filters will be swiftly dealt with by the counter-vandalism team. 222 talk 02:55, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
How would we handle archiving? Would we do it like community central and assume something is archived after there is no discussion or what.. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 03:19, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
Same as we've always done it. If the discussion winds up because the question is resolved, someone requests closure, etc. 222 talk 03:40, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
I think that with a forum system like this, it might be best to just let the threads auto archive based on the last time they were edited. That could be done by some special code in Template:Forumheader that I know not of. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 14:33, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Sounds like a good idea and seeing what Brains said about handling vandalism and whatnot on it strengthens my support. --Touhou FTW Zaros symbol.png 03:07, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Changed to Oppose - After reading the below oppositions, I withdraw my support and oppose this. --Touhou FTW Zaros symbol.png 23:28, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per opposition Support - Sounds interesting. Maybe this will be helping the nail in the coffin to whether or not this wiki has a community in the eyes of the player base. Going with the above, I see nothing wrong with such a forum as long as it goes by a more suitable name. Campfire reminds me of the skin that was a pet project of a Wikia engineer that never saw the light of day.

Anyway, we cannot bring the old forums back, Wikia has had them archived somewhere and Wikia is more likely to build their own forum extension based off of Message Wall (I shudder at the thought of it) rather than maintain or even start up the defunct code of the buggy phpBB extension they have. Ryan PM 04:56, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Changed to oppose as we would be better off with something developed by Wikia or phpBB/IPB and leaving discussion for the talk namespaces as they were meant to be used. Ryan PM 14:20, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - The first time this came around, I believe I supported it, but now I must lean towards oppose. While I understand the argument that it could be used as an alternative to [[Special:Chat]] for slower timezones, I don't think that anyone would find a faster reply in this water cooler than in the IRC (it is a slower timezone, after all). The threads that you posted as examples in the proposal are lousy threads, and could be easily posted on the talk pages instead. Speaking of talk pages, some questions (etc) posted on them never even get replies. This tells me that nobody actually even cares enough to discuss the content of the page.

To be blunt, I'm just having a hard time imagining this forum going well. What I'm seeing in my head is an image of a number of useless threads dominated by a few newbies who don't actually care about the wiki, but just want to spam random junk which can mostly be solved on our pages anyway. We don't need a billion threads for RuneScape not loading correctly, or asking everyone's favorite skill, or wanting to know if anyone else thinks the queen black dragon is the coolest thing ever. While community is good, I don't think what this proposal would result in will best reflect the wiki.

Thus, I stand by that the [[Special:Chat|chat]] and IRC are more than enough. The timezones don't really make a difference, and I don't see the point of collecting your opinions on slayer over a three week period. I also think that if the water cooler became popular enough, it'd just end up being spammy and difficult to manage.

Too long, didn't read: Leave the idle banter to the [[Special:Chat|chat]], the IRC, and the RuneScape official forums. The watercooler is not the solution for enhancing the community. Hofmic Talk 06:57, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and to mention anons, as they'll likely come up, you'll have to forgive me, but I don't entirely think highly of anons. Either make an account or sit out on the discussion. Anons, however, can edit talk pages. I don't particularly think most anons would even know a "watercooler" exists. As well, it's very rare for anons to even comment on yew grove threads, showing low interest there. Finally, anons make for terrible discussion, judging from our talk pages, as they have a tendency to not sign comments, break pages (accidentally, but still broken), and otherwise make discussion even harder to follow (assuming that the everyday average anon knows about the watercooler and decides to edit it). So yes, I stand by the fact that anons wouldn't really benefit from the addition of a watercooler either. Hofmic Talk 07:07, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure talk pages don't get discussion because nobody cares about the discussion, or just that talk pages (excluding user talk) aren't a good way to communicate and receive low traffic because of it? The Yew Grove is a terrible comparison to this proposal for reasons that should be obvious. And I think your comments are just a little bit of a generalisation. Just a little bit. Matt (t) 07:54, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
I'd guess the majority of talk page questions that don't get answered is due to the people in the know not knowing about them. Unless someone's watching Special:RecentChanges when the question is posed, chances are it'll go unnoticed. This isn't central where the only real traffic is the help forums and message wall posts, so it's not surprising this is the situation. cqm talk 10:05, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Support - It'll work. Most of the above reasons for opposition are very weak; we'll see how much activity this forum receives - if it's permanently full of threads and questions and whatnot, I think we could easily consider the re-introduction of forum moderators, just on a much less important scale, to close and guide discussions without hassle. Other than that, the idea is sound, and well done to Aaron for finally proposing an idea I'm sure we've all thought of at some stage but were too lazy to do anything about. I'm not sure what we should call it, though; "Watercooler" or "Town Hall" just don't sound right to me, but we'll get to that later. Ronan Talk 07:26, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Changed to oppose per the most recent reasons for opposition, which are valid and sensible. I withdraw my initial comment. Ronan Talk 19:50, May 4, 2012 (UTC)


Support - While I mainly use the RSOF as forums and the chat/IRC for direct aid/idle banter, people have been asking for a good and lively RSW forum for quite a while. It is indeed a good way to please people from different time zones, as well as a host for civilised forum games (it doesn't work in the chat, trust me) or proposals that would get a "just-be-bold-and-do-it-consensus" here in Da Grove, but the creator of which wishes to get at least some sort of criticism. All in all, if we are able to keep this running (we certainly should be), these forums are to work out well. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 11:58, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Question - What would become of threads that exist to troll or do not fulfil what the forum is set out to achieve? Would we wave RS:DDD in cases like this (I believe we already do for talk pages that are essentially spam)? cqm talk 14:28, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Those can already be removed per DDD. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 14:37, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose new forum index, support thread for questions - I would support a thread, which would have a format like RS:UH where people can ask miscellaneous questions. An entire forum index would quickly fill up the Forum namespace, would be quite unclear (it would be an entire page per question, so hard to see if you can answer the question or not). One thread would be great, and I do think it would help the community. We do have to set some rules though, like that they shouldn't ask for money making tips or skilling tips, and that the questions should be specific, so that people won't ask "I am stuck in Monkey Madness and the guide is unclear about it", but that they have to explain where they're stuck, etc. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:13, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

How would that be in any way improved over using talk pages, besides the fact that the vast majority of viewers won't know the thread exists? Hofmic Talk 23:32, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
True. Changed to oppose JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:57, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - This would work out really badly for a variety of reasons, most of which have already been stated by the others opposed. A "watercooler" subofurm as you call it would fragment our community even further and divert our time from more useful projects. There is something to be said for full phpBB/IPB forums, but this would just be one embarrassing half-assed forum that's unintuitive and useless. Count me out. ʞooɔ 18:44, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I highly doubt that this can be properly executed, and if it could be properly executed, as Cook stated it would fragment people even more than the current IRC/Chat split. --LiquidTalk 17:40, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Simply impractical considering the systems and methods we currently have... --クールネシトーク 00:24, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - duplicates the current chats already in existence. Andrew talk 01:21, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to create a Watercooler-style forum. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 06:21, May 13, 2012 (UTC)