Forum:No More new Clan Chats
I am getting tired of seeing the "lets all change to the one i made1" things all over the YG. People have been giving the most insignificant reasons for changing it. Well, here's what I have to say - Our Clan Chat works. It brings the community together, helps us whenever we need help, and is a lot of fun. Everyone now seems to be trying to get some fame n' glory by copying C Teng. It is becoming very annoying.
Now, I know that per RS:CONSENSUS this won't stand for long, but I believe we need to stop people from trying to grab power without actually trying to help the Wiki. This will, even it even passes, be void if C Teng officially becomes inactive, or for any other equally great a reason. And, NO, The name is no reason whatsoever.
100% agree What is so fatally wrong with the current chat that warrants such an inconveinient change? Looking through the YG, there are so many flaws with the proposals. The whole wikia vs. wiki thing is a very minor technicality. As for changing the chat EVERY time somebody goes missing, it is basically impossible. That would impmly that the new chat host would have to clear over 60 names from their friends list to rank all the appropriate users. Also an issue would be that each user has their own set of principles and ground rules applicable to their personal CC's. Hypothetically, if D4K wanted to host the chat, he may allow users to speak any language they want, but in the event he becomes inactive and I become the new host, I may only want users to speak English. Sudden rule changes like that would be hard to keep up with. If that was not complicated enough, you would have to seek out who the new chat host is, making things even more confusing. And the whole "password sharing" fiasco is completely out of the question. Seriously, has nobody heard of Special:EmailUser? -.- I need to let out a little stress. Have you guys ever been to the vandalism wiki? cflm (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - I've said this on all the new cc forums, the proposals are the essentially the same thing so making lots of discussions on it is just forum shopping --Serenity1137 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Fleurgh? Every time I'm annoyed by anything - and that's all this is; an annoyance - I'm told to ignore it. I take it this doesn't apply to you? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 18:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Were not here to "get sick of it" and make rules saying you cant do it, we are here per our policies to accept and reject as many retarded proposals as people keep offering. In your own words d4k, get over it. TEbuddy 19:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Yes, I agree, these clan chat discussions are annoying, but per Tebuddy and RS:CONSENSUS#Not permanent, we can't ban discussion. It would be a policy violation to do otherwise. Butterman62 (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - If you read my proposal you would see that it was FA from being a power grab, infact it was the complete opposite. And I happen to find the wiki/wikia issue very important. Wikia is a registered trademark and we should not be using it. -- Mercifull (Talk) 20:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
@ TEBuddy, we may be here to reject each new proposal, but starting new threads on this with effectively the same proposal as others is forum shopping which isnt allowed, @mercifull, I can pretty much garuntee that no-one cares that we are using wikia in our cc name, in fact, all we are doing is advertising the website. Its not copyright breach at all, in the same way that having the word runescape in our wikis name isnt a breach of copyright. --Serenity1137 00:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Link to a definition of "forum shopping" pls? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 13:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to me that what Serenity said isn't the same as Forum shopping... Oil4 Talk 13:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Validity is, in this case, a matter of opinion. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 21:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - Anyone proposing a new cc is looking for a power trip. End the madness now.22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ahem... Butterman62 (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - As with what Vimes said, validity is a matter of opinion in this case. I think that we can reject any bad idea as it comes along without trying to stop it before it happens. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 23:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)