Forum:IRC Voicing Policy

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > IRC Voicing Policy
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 20 August 2012 by Sentra246.

Haven't done one of these in a while O_o

So, in a recent forum the issue of voiced users on IRC was brought up. This is a very minor issue, but some people think it is worth discussion. I personally think that nobody should be voiced except for RuneScript, but I don't really care either way. Please discuss. ajr 21:51, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

ok as nominator. Or something like that. ajr 21:51, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I honestly don't think there should be a policy on this. Voice does absolutely nothing. No harm in allowing people to do whatever they want with it. bad_fetustalk 21:54, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Clarification - For those of you unfamiliar with IRC, voice is, for the most part, cosmetic. While it allows people to speak if the channel is moderated (also called muted), this happens so rarely that it's not worth considering. The current unofficial voice policy is that RuneScript is always voiced, and that random people are sometimes voiced at the discretion of individual ops; however, some people disagree with the latter half of that unofficial policy, hence this thread. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:56, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Clarification clarification - basically, as it stands, voices are given and taken away by individual ops, and there are some ops that will often devoice people, and other ops that will go beyond that, and vehemently oppose the idea that anyone should be voiced. At the same time, there are plenty of ops that will give voices out, too -- it's a matter of each op's personal choice. Michagogo (talk) 22:05, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support RuneScript and bots as only voices. Voice distinguishes nicknames and if we don't want to treat some users as more special or important than others then no editor should be voiced. It confuses new users who see the nicks separated in their clients and they may associate it with rank like in the cc (see my full explanation here). Doing this would mean that if any user-owned bots share cloaks with their owners at present, the owner would be required to separate out those cloaks. Just an aside. Christine (talk) 22:35, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support As per Christine Top hat (blue).pngLashaziortalkBlack cane.png 22:59, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
There are some issues with equating bots to ranks; while there's a distinction between IRC bots and RuneScape bots, RuneScape bots (and botters to some extent) would be banned in the Clan Chat, but IRC bots are allowed on IRC. Giving them a special rank is not needed, because they may need to be muted if they're spamming a lot, and having +v on the access list for the bots would be counter-productive: you'd need ops who know that -qv need to be done together in that case. (stance changed below)
spling said in #rswiki that RuneScript needs no access or modes to function, but also admitted that some channels give it access anyway so it can stay even when an op sets channel flags to keep some users out due to abuse.
My understanding of things is that RuneScript is more stable/more controllable if spam occurs (with !set) than Evilbot, and that bullbot is used only for wiki-linking. There's also a page on RuneScript linked from RuneScape:Off-site/IRC, in which users could learn about RuneScript. Most of the time, though, either a user doesn't care about stat bots, or s/he won't use them, or s/he will know RuneScript from elsewhere, like SwiftKit's IRC network.
Therefore I oppose the voice policy.  a proofreader ▸  23:13, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
Uh. What is the relevance of making any mention of game bots? Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 23:40, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
Answering the point about users equating IRC ranks to CC ranks.  a proofreader ▸  22:53, July 23, 2012 (UTC) Was a weak argument anyway, I'll keep the other part of my comment and another part below.  a proofreader ▸  02:03, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Support - this is common sense. Leaving it up to the discretion of ops is a recipe for disaster when people disagree on who should have a voice. Having only a useful bot voiced is a sensible move. Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 23:40, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'd prefer to continue to be allowed to voice users on a whim as a bit of light fun. However since [I]t's a pointless flag that's prone to abuse by the users who tend to get it, I suppose I can agree to this voice policy. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:21, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if it's pointless, how is it prone to abuse? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 00:22, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I forgot to use my sarcasm character. :P svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:26, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
So are you supporting or opposing? Ronan Talk 14:22, July 24, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, clearly. bad_fetustalk 18:17, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a bit of harmless fun. Cursed Pyres (talk) 00:39, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Voice on IRC is harmless fun. It cannot and should not be compared to being given additional rights on the wiki, or significant ranks in the clan chat. I've never seen anyone who has complained that someone has had voice, or sensed anyone being intimidated by a voiced user. I do support a clarification however, to prevent any further abuses of power and/or arguments in relation to voicing. I suggest that someone along the lines of this be appended to the IRC policy - Voicing arbitrary users is allowed at the discretion of the operator. De-voicing users is allowed at the same or other operator's discretion. Voice/de-voice spamming is disallowed per the anti-spamming rules of the channel. 222 talk 06:55, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per brains. It's only when voicing is done and then undone repeatedly that it becomes spamming and hurts the channel. That would also extend to +b/-b and +o/-o wars and so on. +v without -v doesn't hurt; -v (after +v) without another +v doesn't hurt. I also keep the RuneScript part of my earlier comment.  a proofreader ▸  02:03, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Completely unnecessary. All +v has done recently is cause trouble and arguments. It will annoy operators who support voice when operators who don't devoice users with it, and vice versa, if it's allowed to continue, and we really don't need more arguments like those that have taken place, especially not between operators. We have enough issues to be getting on with as it is without having to deal with these additional petty complications. I never saw how voicing a user was considered "fun" in the first place. All it can do is imply some kind of superiority. If it's so pointless, then I don't see why it's such a big deal for operators to just stop distributing it. Just leave it alone. Ronan Talk 12:44, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

No one is squabbling over it anymore, so my support is rendered largely invalid. If it's used sensibly as it is at the moment, there should be no problems. Ronan Talk 20:19, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Seeing voicing issues in ##wikia, I know for a fact that what Flaysian said about it causing trouble is true. I don't feel it's right for me to vote, but I'd at least like to add a little tidbit of a comment in the fact that the only time something should be voiced are bots, and if the operators are op'd the whole time, that's good as it'll let people know who's who. So... yeah... Jazzi  13:24, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

In a channel as small as ours where nearly everyone knows everyone else, is that really going to be a problem? I don't think so. ʞooɔ 23:08, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Voice really doesn't matter -- the only reason it's "causing trouble" as Flaysian says is because Christine and a couple other people have made it their mission to shut it down without apparent cause. Keep the IRC free (enough) of stupid conflict and just leave things as they are. ʞooɔ 23:08, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - the two main arguments for only allowing bots (or just RuneScript) to have voice seem to be (1) helping new users distinguish between who is and isn't a bot, and (2) to prevent fighting over who gets voice. With respect to the first issue, I don't think new users are going to have any idea what IRC bots are in the first place, how to use them, or what the symbols next to peoples' names mean. Plus, every bot we use has -bot or -Script in its nick, which seems like a far better indicator for people new to our channel who do know what a bot is. Maybe it's better to have them all grouped together (assuming the new person has nicks listed by flags instead of alphabetically), but it doesn't seem worth putting a bots-only voice policy in place so the one person in a hundred doesn't get confused about who is and isn't a bot. Even then, it would take less than 30 seconds to explain any confusion away. I'm not opposed to voicing bots, but allowing only bots to be voiced is silly. As for the second issue, the only real "fighting" that's happened over voicing is due to this bot rule. Voicing and de-voicing might lead to spamming the channel, but we're not children and we should know when to stop. The people who can grant or remove voice are generally expected to handle matters maturely (myself excluded), and if two or more of them are willing to argue over a totally meaningless flag, we have bigger issues than the current debate. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 06:02, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Voicing/De-voicing at an op's discretion opens up this debate again of who should/should not be voiced. To save further confusion, it would be much easier just to say only bots can be voiced. Also, for the argument that it takes but 30 seconds to ask, I could join the channel, see the topic that includes information about Runescript and easily identify it with the +v seeing as the op list in generally rather short. On the other hand, we could leave it to op discretion and someone entering could see the various +v's given out and wonder what they needed to do to qualify for such a symbol. In truth it seems to be given out to those an op might favour over another, which opens the possibility of people vying for something which really is so menial. So for simplicities sake, just have the bots voiced and leave the rest of the channel untouched. cqm 16:28,25/7/2012 (UTC) (UTC)

To be honest, I honestly don't think a newcomer will think 'omg how do I get this sign' because they'll see it as a plus, not some shiny banana like in the cc. Therefore, they have no reason to assume it signifies anything as it's simply a character. (honestly, they could get confused by people changing their names to "_<nickname>" if that gets them confused.) bad_fetustalk 22:10, July 25, 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with that if voices weren't grouped together at the top of chat like +o. I guess it's a rather small thing but, as none of us are exactly new, I'd prefer we give it the benefit of the doubt. cqm 22:20,25/7/2012 (UTC) (UTC)
That's irrelevant because the example I gave applies to that too. "_<nickname>" would get grouped together at the top of the chat due to userlist being listed alphabetically. bad_fetustalk 22:26, July 25, 2012 (UTC)
As would [, {, `, etc. but +v/+o overrides that order. Either way, there is a still an aesthetic difference between statuses and it's up to newcomers to attach any significance to that. cqm 09:05,26/7/2012 (UTC) (UTC)
This "opportunity" to vie with others for +v hasn't been taken since we started giving randoms temporary voice. Seems like a trivial non-issue here. 222 talk 09:23, July 26, 2012 (UTC)
"Either way, there is a still an aesthetic difference between statuses and it's up to newcomers to attach any significance to that." Exactly why your argument is not valid. If we are going to disallow voicing people because newcomers can get confused by it, we might as well disallow people having names that start with those characters as it will do the exact same thing. bad_fetustalk 14:27, July 26, 2012 (UTC)
I like my underscores. It ensures I dominate over everyone else and shows new users why I am superior to the other green circles. </sarcasm> 222 talk 06:06, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

(reset indent)Just in case anyone's got confused here, my points were that op discretion has been shown not to work, per the existence of this forum, and that +v is a flag that can confuse newcomers for no real reason. cqm 23:32,27/7/2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Actually, it has been working. Every other operator except a couple knows how to operate peacefully, causing unnecessary disruption by taking advantage of the fact that no official policy meant they were technically not breaking any rules. No one has ever been confused about a yellow circle. 222 talk 11:30, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Everyone goes anal over anything that will cosmetically distinguish anyone from others as it's unfair... Why shouldn't this apply to that? RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 15:23, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

...because it's a bad idea in the first place to be anal about little things that don't matter? ʞooɔ 17:31, July 26, 2012 (UTC)
What other things do we go "anal" over? 222 talk 06:06, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a pointless flag for an irc channel for a wiki that's about a video game, not something that needs to be worked up about. Use your +v for anything you please. Hair 15:33, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

What Brains said (oppose). Voice is too irrelevant for us to bother creating and enforcing a set of rules for it. Voice and devoice if you like, but don't spam the channel with +v and -v warring. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 07:56, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

If +v is really as pointless as everyone keeps saying it is, there should be no opposition to nobody being allowed to have it. The fact that there are people who do not like when it is granted, the fact that at least two forums relating to this flag have been created, and, most tellingly, the fact that people are so vehement about being allowed to give it out prove that it is, in fact, not pointless. I don't care about this flag, but I just wanted to point out that most opposers here are full of shit. (wszx) 17:25, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

So if I got mad at you for having parentheses in your name and created a yg thread about it, would it mean that having/not having parentheses in your name does matter?bad_fetustalk 18:24, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
Any user can add parentheses to their name. If he were only ever able to have parentheses in his name because his friend with parentheses rights gave it to him then it might be a valid comparison. --Henneyj 18:50, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
It is a valid comparison because I was comparing the pointlessness of the actions, in which case any user being able to do that or not is irrelevant. I never suggested that the two situations are the same otherwise. bad_fetustalk 19:18, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
It is relevant because if you start to distinguish between users in that manner then it does matter. --Henneyj 16:26, August 10, 2012 (UTC)
How does it matter in any way when it does nothing? It clearly does not. bad_fetustalk 20:39, August 10, 2012 (UTC)
RS:UTP. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 19:44, August 9, 2012 (UTC)


This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for IRC Voicing Policy. Request complete. The reason given was: I'm too biased to close this, perhaps someone with a neutral standpoint on this issue should close it as discussion has clearly concluded.

222 talk 10:13, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus for a voicing policy for the IRC channel to be created. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 11:01, August 20, 2012 (UTC)