Forum:Overzealous chat moderation

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Overzealous chat moderation
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 14 September 2011 by Degenret01.

I have just witnessed a user being banned from chat after admitting that they share accounts to do quests for people. This in itself is a problem, but what makes it worse is that they explained it after being specifically asked about it by an administrator.

Ciphrius Kane
Have you lost the ability to use ordinary prayer pots?

5:41
Jadmaster5
well considering i do quests for ppl yes it does

5:41
Cook Me Plox
This seems to me like a harmless addition to the game. At worst it lowers the cost of prayer potions.
You do quests for people?

5:41
Milo limo
can you got band on this wikia

5:41
Jadmaster5
yah?
wb it

5:41
Cook Me Plox
Explain
Milo, yes. Stop spamming please.

5:41
Milo limo
who mee
what is spaming

5:42
Cook Me Plox
jad, what do you mean you do quests for people?

5:42
Jadmaster5
i do quests for ppl

5:42
Touhou FTW
unecessary chat that has no constructive use

5:42
Jadmaster5
unless its anon.

Cook Me Plox
Jad, like on their accounts?

5:43
Milo limo
lol

5:43
Trollgazer
*unsheathes banhammer*

5:43
Jadmaster5
on noob accs

5:43
Trollgazer
BLAMMO! 

5:43
Touhou FTW
you sheath your hammer?

5:43
Jadmaster5
lol

5:44
Ciphrius Kane
Jad, care to explain how you do it step by step?

5:44
Jadmaster5
well first i go on there account using a temporary pass they give me, i do quest, and leave
wb it

5:44
Ciphrius Kane
....#

5:44
Touhou FTW
^

5:44
Cook Me Plox
jad, bye

5:44
Ciphrius Kane
That breaches the rules

5:44
Jadmaster5
im not advertising it here

5:44
Trollgazer
*falcawn pawwwwwnch!*

5:44
Cook Me Plox
you're discussing it

5:44
Milo limo
sooo

5:44
Ciphrius Kane
Do it cookie!

5:45
Cook Me Plox
See you tomorrow. Don't talk about that stuff.

5:45
Milo limo
do you guys like fist of guthix

Jadmaster5 was kickbanned.

So a few things things:

  1. Why are we policing the chat to the point of banning people in this circumstance? I interpret the rules to mean that users shouldn't be advertising or promoting illegal things, not answering questions that admins specifically put to them.
  2. Are people honestly this enthused to kick people?
  3. Why was the user not politely warned and directed to the rule page for the chat of this wiki?

So, I'd like a better worded policy and admins/chatmods that aren't so excited by banning people. The truly ironic part of this is that there was an actual troll there during this. Anyways, please discuss. ajr 23:05, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

  • Also, for the chatmods who defend this, his exact first words are "well considering i do quests for ppl yes it does". That could have been a typo, he could have meant something else... what amazing bad faith on your part. Unbelievable. ajr 23:07, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[edit source]

We clearly did not assume bad faith, because we asked about it. If we had kicked him for that alone, you would have done this anyway on the basis of "moderators assuming bad faith". Since we did ask about it, now apparently it's entrapment. While it may have been best to give a warning first, that user has been in the chat many times that I am aware of, and I assumed that he knew the rules (or at the very least realized that we didn't tolerate the breaking of in-game rules), and I think I was perfectly within my rights to kick this user (keep in mind it's only for a day).

That being said, I would like it if we could force people to read the rules before entering the chat, whether it's through an entry page, through transclusion on a MediaWiki page, or some sort of bot that sends the rules to every new user. ʞooɔ 23:18, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Why would we do that, when we could just go around banning every non-troll who doesn't know the rules by heart? But what you suggest is actually possibly by elongating the welcome message on the chat. And yes, that certainly is entrapment if you try to get him to break a rule he doesn't know about. ajr 23:21, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
There's a difference between assuming good faith and assuming idiocy. If someone does not realize that they cannot share accounts or discuss them, both here and in-game, then we have a very different problem. I feel like this thread is completely unnecessary when a private discussion could have sufficed. ʞooɔ 23:31, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
I feel that your actions are completely unwarranted and wrong, and I'd like to ensure that they aren't repeated by you or anyone else. Oh, also, can we remove the ban and replace it with a warning and apology? Also, why would they assume that they can't reply to an admin's question about them sharing accounts on the wiki chat? ajr 23:35, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
I did not ask him "Hey jad, do you break any RuneScape rules?" No, I didn't. He stated something on his own that was borderline-illegal in terms of game rules, and I wasn't going to let that continue. I wanted to find out what he was talking about. If it will get you off of my back and stop telling me about my sick abuse of my tools, sure. You can remove his ban. Anyone who creates an account on RuneScape has to read the rules, even if they just skip them. It's incredibly common-sense to expect that in a popular, supported fansite that they would not be allowed to discuss things of such a nature. ʞooɔ 23:39, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

For your point number 1 I would like to quote "Users may not talk about and do anything illegal in nature, and must follow all of [http://www.runescape.com/kbase/guid/rules_of_conduct RuneScape's rules]." Account sharing is indeed against the rules. Point aside, I do believe we should warn people at least once and link them to the rules page before banning them. Touhou FTW 23:20, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I know the rules. I also believe that there is just a slight chance that not all users in chat have read the rules, and perhaps warning them would be more appropriate than banning them (after intentionally trying to get them to admit to something) ajr 23:22, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
As I said before, I agree in that I think we need to give people at least one warning and a link to the rules before banning. Touhou FTW 23:24, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with ajr. Even the worst vandals, page blankers and spammers on articles get at least one warning before being blocked for their vandalism. And I also agree everyone should get a warning before being blocked/banned. There was absolutely no reason not to warn this user first, and if he would continue, ban him. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:46, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Trolls shouldn't. And neither should those who break Jagex rules (like this guy). He should be perm banned. HaloTalk 12:17, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - It seems to me that you are the one assuming bad faith Ajr. You are assuming that we were out to get him, when we were not. As cook said, he had been in many times so we assumed he knew the rules. Also, you kept on insisting on putting on the ban log that he was specifically asked about account sharing when he was not. That to me just strikes of you assuming bad faith about cook's actions What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 23:25, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the logs, or are we talking about two different incidences here? Also see my comments above. ajr 23:26, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
I have done both, and I still stand by my comment What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 23:27, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
Righty then, I'll break it down even more so you understand better.
  • Banning someone without warning is bad enough.
  • Banning someone who is there in good faith is even worse, even if they are breaking a rule that they don't know about (RS:UCS). For example, would you block a new non-troll user on the wiki if they closed a YG thread and weren't an admin?
  • Banning someone after they elaborated over a vague statement at the request of the ban-er just pushes it right past for me. An appropriate move would have been to say "yea, don't talk about that" afterwords - or even better, before. Plus, there's also the part where you go to saying that I have bad faith rather than talk about the issue at hand. ajr 23:31, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
Not meaning to get into a slagging match, but this whole thread stinks of bad faith on your part. Making out as if we cornered him, calling us overzealous. Also, I don't see exactly where it states you can go around telling us we're assuming bad faith but we cannot do the same of you. And as for your other concern, what Fergie and Coel are saying sound good What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 23:47, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
I see... so someone makes a passing reference to doing quests for people (what does that mean?). So, out of pure curiosity you ask them to clarify. They reveal that they are in fact sharing accounts. You ban them without a warning. Instead of saying that I have bad faith for assuming that this is anything short of misuse of the tools, why don't we focus on what I'm actually trying to get at here?
The bad faith comes in after the first part, mainly because there is another very obvious thing that could have been done. The user could have been warned! But this is such a small point, and is entirely a guess on my part - I assume that it was caused by bad faith because to me good faith would have been the warning. I could very well be wrong. But again, the comment about bad faith isn't why I made this forum, so stop playing around this part and actually provide some evidence to show that banning a user who didn't know the rules without any warning is right, or stop posting. Thanks. ajr 23:54, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
Ciph: the best thing to do here would probably apologise for the mistake, and not accuse others of things you did wrong yourself. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:46, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Stop trying to crucify the two of them (Cook and Ciph), when they didn't do jack wrong. HaloTalk 12:17, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
They did very well do something wrong. That user they just chased away could as well want to become an active editor here, but got chased away. They gave him no warning for this at all. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:27, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Did you ever stop to think maybe I was asking him to explain further to decriminalise himself? I did not assume, as Ajr is soo keen to point out, that he was account sharing. I assumed he was guiding them, and I asked him to explain so that we could clear it up, NOT because I believed he was rulebreaking. The only reason I accused Ajr of assuming bad faith was cause he accused me of doing so when he didn't bother getting the full facts What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 19:02, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Why do I even bother talking with you? How many times do I need to say that THE POINT OF THIS THREAD IS NOT TO ACCUSE ANYONE OF BAD FAITH, BUT RATHER TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE KICK WAS JUST (FROM ANYONE, NOT CALLING NAMES), AND WHAT WE SHOULD DO ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF CLARIFYING OF POLICY AND ADDING A NEW RULE WHICH STATES THAT A WARNING IS REQUIRED EXCEPT WHEN COMMON SENSE PERMITS. If you can't understand it even when I bold it and put it in caps then there is really no point to my responding. ajr 22:10, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - This page is moving so fast so I'm just going to slip my comment in here. I agree with Ajr. We have to link to the rules first, it is NOT common sense to follow the RuneScape rules in there. I'm sorry but it's just not for the random people we get. We HAVE to warn and link to the rules first. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:34, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say you have to warn? Do you warn trolls? If you do, you don't deserve that star. I don't warn people who break Jagex rules, because whether they know ours or not, they should know those. HaloTalk 12:17, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
RS:CVU says you have to warn before blocking. This is the same principle. You should always warn before doing anything like blocking, kicking, banning or whatever. The only exception would be spammers like password steal site advertisers, high speed spammers with very obvious bad faith, like the koalas, etc. Especially for such a minor thing such as this, there should be at least one warning. (even page blanks get at least one warning) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:27, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal - As per above, we could remove the S:C link from mainspace pages, although this would heavily hit the users who use it. otherwise, why not put a link to the page with the rules (where users may join the chat) instead of a link directly to the chat on the mainspace pages? Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 23:42, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

That's the most obvious solution, but I have to imagine that that would thin out the number of new people that show up. ʞooɔ 23:43, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
Then why not have the S:C window leave a message telling about a few rules or providing a link to them when users enter, in a similar fashion to the IRC? Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 23:45, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
There's apparently no way to do that without making the link display whenever someone joins, to everyone. It just doesn't have the same functionality as IRC. ʞooɔ 23:46, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
We can't edit the js of the chat, so that is currently impossible. I've left my concerns on wikialabs already so hopefully something will be changed in the future. Cook is right, we can link it when people join but yeah... sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:47, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
There is a way to redirect them to RS:CHAT if they don't access the page through there. I could do that later. Suppa chuppa Talk 23:49, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
Let's not do that. It would just be annoying for people who already know the rules and don't want to go through the rule page. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:19, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
What about redirecting based on user rights and/or account age? Suppa chuppa Talk 21:00, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's the way to go either. We should assume they know the rules of Chat, and if they do violate one warn them and link them to the page. The other stuff is just annoying for newer people. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 21:31, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, some people love to exercise their power to kick, while others might have taken the time to explain to the guy why he can;t talk about rule breaking. This happens in all of our chat features, we get over zealous people who can't think for themselves and simply act because they can. Police state wiki.--Degenret01 00:13, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Because the fact that he was breaking Jagex rules and supporting RWT is okay with us? Degen, stop being so cynical, and just acknowledge that this isn't a guy we want around. HaloTalk 12:17, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
We aren't Jagex and when some of us going around being their lapdogs it is just sad. And really, he does quests for people. No RWT there. I'd rather have a guy like that around than some Jagex ass kissers. But hey, that's me.--Degenret01 12:29, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be a laptop, but I'm not going to protect someone who has a high probability of being a RWT. There are certain rules that I will look the other way on (seriously offensive language), but RWT/botting are damaging the game (for me), whereas seriously offensive language is not. I will not try and harbor someone who is likely involved in one of those. HaloTalk 20:40, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Like I said often enough already, assume good faith. There is NO reason to think this user would RWT, so PLEASE stop bringing that up. Assuming good faith, which you are obviously not doing, would make me think it is just helping a friend, which has nothing to do with RWT. I myself have helped friends with quests, yes, indeed, sharing accounts, but did not get one cent of real world money. You are now accusing anyone who helps friends of a rule they did indeed break, but also of RWT. I am sure there are MANY users who do help friends, but do not earn any irl money. The same probably applies to this user too. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 07:39, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Cool it with the boldcaps, bro. ʞooɔ 18:08, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

How about we honor some rights? - For example, don't force someone to testify. That wasn't forcing, but the questions asked were clearly prying. At least notify someone that he or she can remain silent before continuing with the interrogation. --LiquidTalk 03:50, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Wow, me and Liquid do seem to share some values O_o - but you spelt "honour" wrong btw ajr 04:11, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Pretty sure Honor is correct for US and Honour is correct for UK/EU (Or everywhere else, hehe.) . Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 04:19, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Ignore him, Powers. Ajrabbitz and I have an eternal struggle over spelling. I, for example, would say that his "spelt" is spelled incorrectly. --LiquidTalk 04:32, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
There are no rights on the wiki. HaloTalk 12:17, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I have to agree with ajr. While this wasn't blatant interrogation, the questions asked would have provided this response anyway. He really should have been given a warning as well. 222 talk 06:54, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I have to agree, you can't kick someone for truthfully answering your questions. If they are advertising that they do that, or something like that, then it is fine to kick them, but if they inadvertently mention it, then there is nothing wrong with it, especially if they don't realise they aren't allowed to talk about it. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 09:08, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

What are you on? If you're in an interrogation room and someone says "Yes, I murdered them", you're supposed to let them go? Fail logic. HaloTalk 12:17, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Since you turn this into a real life scenario, I now have you pinned. In real life, before anyone talks to the policy they must first be read their rights. They have already been notified of their supposed crime at that point. They are then allowed legal council and access to the laws that govern both what they did wrong and how policy interrogations work. If they deliver a testimony without this (which did not happen in this case), then it cannot be entered as evidence at a court of law. Cook did not tell him what policy he could be breaking, and did not tell him that he could be banned for talking about it. Per your logic, what he said could not be admitted into evidence. ajr 14:59, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Bullshitcrap - Sorry Ajr, but you're being a dumbass fool right now. I would of kicked both of them long before Cook kicked the first one. A 24 hour temp-kick is way different from a block, so don't make it a big deal. The point is, it's against Jagex rules. Whether it's against our rules or not is irrelevant. Stop pretending like he's some kind of victim. He's probably doing quests for noobs for money-ie RWT. So back off Cook. If I had my way he'd get longer bans and I'd report his IP to Jagex. No support for bullshitcrap harboring of Jagex rulebreakers because they might not know our rules. HaloTalk 12:06, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

"He's probably doing quests for noobs for money-ie RWT." could you please show one single word following RS:AGF there? I am fairly sure he does quests for friends who don't want to do the quests themselves, and just does it to help. Please assume good faith. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:27, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
I think I've answered this argument already... "Whether it's against our rules or not is irrelevant." - seriously? So, as a wiki our rules don't matter at all, we just need to follow Jagex's? Give me a break. We are a wiki, and we in fact have a nice little paragraph in multiple places stating that we have no connection to Jagex. Why the heck are we kicking people from our chat for breaking their rules? ajr 14:55, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, also, now would be a good time for me to say that I've shared an account at some point in my life! You'd better permaban me too! And suppa, he said that he has as well! What business is it of ours to enforce Jagex's rules? And also, thanks for calling myself and (by extension) everyone who agress with me a dumbass. Also, if you did kick long before Cook did then this would be a desysop thread, not a request for clearer rules and a mandatory warning. ajr 15:00, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Is that supposed to scare me (@ desysop thread)? Either way Joey, it's still against the rules. And that is not what the purpose of AGF is. I'm assuming reality. It should be obvious we don't harbor people who break Jagex rules here. If you can't figure that out, you probably can't type on a keyboard either. You are all being dumbasses fools. You're asking to protect someone who knowingly broke Jagex rules. You know how retarded that sounds? Why warn someone who took action to get rid of a rule-breaker? Seriously, if that's what you believe, you are a dumbass fool, and that applies to anyone. HaloTalk 20:37, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I should add, I think your response is way more overzealous than what Cook even did. HaloTalk 20:40, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
And one more thing-you said it could have been a typo and that Cook was assuming bad faith. Cook was spot on about what he was doing. So I think that you're being a bit naive. HaloTalk 20:44, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
RS:UTP pls Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 20:42, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I apologize. HaloTalk 20:48, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Halo, you "would of kicked both of them"? To clarify, who is the other person you would have kicked? Anyway, wtf are you smoking? We don't, and nor have we ever, ban(ned) people on-the-spot for mentioning breaking Jagex's rules. We only kick or ban without a warning if there is obvious foul intent from the user. This includes things like posting pornography, linking to malicious/shock sites, and extremely offensive content. He didn't do any of those things. If what he did is not deserving of at least a warning, then I don't know what is. Oh, and that quip about not being able to type on a keyboard was rather low for someone who had a few typographical/grammatical errors in his own post. Suppa chuppa Talk 21:00, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
I would have kicked the troll. I would say doing quests for other people is obvious foul intent. Especially if there is money involved. Being able to type is quite different than doing it with no errors. I say 24 hours is justified, any runescape player should know better. The warning can go on his talk so he knows not to do it again. HaloTalk 01:44, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal - Add a rule for the Special:Chat that before kicking, at least one warning should be given (using common sense for extreme cases). JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:27, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - I am unsure why this thread is becoming a battleground falling into depravity, but I am sure that kick wasn't justified. It's on-wiki and the user didn't state about receiving compensation for time spent on another's account. All other is just hearsay and nothing more. As Ajr said earlier in the thread, there should have been a warning for the individual to discontinue the conversation if it was deemed wrong.

I am not endorsing the breakage of the Rules of RuneScape, but I do not see every mention of border-lining them or breaking them to be without warning. As with Liquid and Ajr, don't kick someone for faithfully answering any questions. Just warn them not to continue it. I do not wish to be further involved in this discombobulating discussion. Ryan PM 15:16, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I personally believe that the kick was wrong. The guy has good intentions and helps people with quests, whether or not he knew this is a rulebreak is another issue. You can't milk and milk and milk and milk what someone says just to find a reason to kick them like that without any sort of warning. That's the equivalent of me entering the clan chat and telling someone that I scammed someone once, and getting jumped on by an admin until they kick me. Nothing more than an apology should come out of this Yew Grove thread, so there's no need to bash each other into the seventh ring of hell calling each other 'Dumbasses'. I'm with both sides of the argument, Cook should of known better, but yet, this shouldn't be milked dry to get Cook into trouble. People make mistakes, get with it RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 15:25, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

For those interested, when I say I scammed someone, that was back on the release of construction, I found out that you could trick people into placing their items onto the table in the house, and dismissing them and locking they house so they can't enter again. I did it twice and made a profit of a dragon longsword and a dragon battle-axe, go ahead and flame me :P I don't do anything like that anymore. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 15:25, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I thought this thread was to be for all Chat Moderators, not just two. Personally, I see this as a rather minor issue that seems to be getting quite an amount of aggressive debate. That said, I don't see any harm that could come from adding the above rule, to prevent something like this occurring again in future. Ronan Talk 15:29, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Opposed - First I'm on no ones side of this because there shouldn't be a side. Now, this sounds like a isolated incident that really is between two or three individuals. The guy shouldn't have been kicked but this should have also never made it's way here at least not in its current form. There is too much postering by both sides of this and really, my opinion is that this entire thing should be closed and restarted once everyone has cooled off a bit. Quest.png Darrik Ash US serv.svg HS ALDarklight detail.png 16:26, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling that you have no idea what this forum is about. The actual proposal here was to make it easier to understand the rules and to give warnings before kicking, and it came from this incident. The fact that there is an oppose at the start of your comment. What are you opposing? From what you are saying it seems like you accidentally misspelt "support", since you are saying that the guy shouldn't have been kicked. Again, the entire point here is not to desysop cook, but rather the two things mentioned above. ajr 16:31, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
If you’re trying to be funny it’s lost in the transition to printed text. I have a very good idea what this forum is for but it seems that this thread has degraded into a pissing contest. There is more discussion about the incident in question rather than the rule in general. If you wanted it to be about the rule you should have written it that way without bringing up the details of the incident in question or the parties involved. You named Cook as offender and Cook, regardless of what Halo may believe about rights on the Wiki, has the right to defend himself just like Jadmaster5 had the right to not incriminate himself.(it's called the right to remain silent not the right not to be questioned) Even the title is inflamatory and very aggressive towards chat moderators and not about the rule. To me it would be better to close this, wait a day or two for attitudes to cool off and then go at the rule itself without targeting Cook. You can say till the cows come home that you weren’t targeting him but that’s how it reads.
As for the rule in question I still mean Oppose. While I might not agree with the actions of Cook leading up to the event, those actions have nothing to do with the rule in question. The question being should we mend the chat rule to give everyone a warning before kicking, and my feeling is no. Serious rule breaking, even if the perpetrator is unaware that it’s a violation (Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law) should not be given warnings. If you want to discuss what exactly consitutes serious rule breaking fine, lets start a list. Quest.png Darrik Ash US serv.svg HS ALDarklight detail.png 17:50, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
I think we should UCS and not apply the rule to obvious offenders, like someone who jumps in and spams phishing links 10 times, so the definition of the rule, if it were to be added, should include stuff like that. Maybe say it doesn't apply for serious vandals or something. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:54, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Support the kick; Oppose Joey's Rule - We have always upholded RuneScape's rules. You don't see pages about how to bot here, do you? Account sharing is a violation of RuneScape's rules. The way I see it, the entire reason that the admin in particular asked for more information was to prevent miskicking. Once cook was certain that the victim was indeed committing account sharing, he kicked. Rule number two in the chat rules clearly states "Users may not talk about and do anything illegal in nature, and must follow all of RuneScape's rules.". The keyword is "follow all of RuneScape's rules". Clearly, our kicked player did not. Justice is served. We're kidding ourselves if we think that people should be allowed to stick around when they clearly know that it is against the rules of the chat (if they don't know that, they failed to read that rules page very well). Do you think that they'd get off without consequences in-game if they broke the rules (by account sharing)? Likely not. Yes, we aren't RuneScape itself, but hey, rules are rules. If nobody follows them, what good are they? Hofmic Talk 21:56, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I support forcing users in some way to view the rules, though how exactly that should be done remains to be seen. Hofmic Talk 22:11, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - How about we just go with the idea of the kick may not of been the best move, but however we've never really set down a precedent before on Chat on what how we kick. No where in our Rule page does it say we have to warn them before they get kicked, but then again it never says we shouldn't warn them. Using common sense would seem wise, however we seem to be having an issue with a conflicting views of common sense. We trust our moderators to make good decisions, admins by believing they are capable of handling vandals and giving them access to the block button; CMs because they passed a RfCM. We could just follow our rules to the letter and be mindless users who are unable to think for ourselves, or we could use our common sense. We know users do not read our Chat Rules before they join, and that cannot be helped without hindering their Chat experience. We should be willing to help people into the community, not pushing them away. We don't block people for vandalizing a page one time, we warn them first. We should bring that mindset over to Chat to help remain a friendly community in Chat that continues to grow. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:39, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - After reading the information, I agree with what ajr said. I kinda feel that peer-pressure happens a lot to kick somebody (not just this case). A warning should have been given to the user who didn't have the intention of trolling. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 05:21, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't trolling, we're aware the user didn't troll, but still broke our chat rules, which distinctly say all runescape rules must be upheld. If a player that was a known botter came into the chat, would you want them there? Rules are rules may sound a little harsh, but you have to understand how easily upset the community is by those who cheat. Botting is the most universally hated, though account sharing, people benefiting on their account without doing any work, is pretty high on the list too. Hofmic Talk 05:45, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Can we stay on topic please? This discussion is falling into jumbled and garbled jibes at each other, and I now have to search the page's history just to decipher the location of people's comments. I think we're all in agreement that the user should have been warned before being kicked, and that is why the above rule is being proposed. It would be far more constructive if we could focus our opinions on that. Ronan Talk 10:45, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Let's end this[edit source]

This thread is getting out of hand. We've got people flaming sysops, sysops flaming people, and we're getting nowhere. Let's put aside all of the nonsense about the unjustness of the ban, and let's figure out what we're going to do on the terms of installing a new policy to prevent this from happening in the future and World war 3 kicking off on the yew grove as a result of it.

How about a policy, as stated above numerous times, that declares all chat moderators must first warn a user about breaching chat rules before conducting a kick or ban of any type?

Again, as per above, RS:UCS takes priority over this, for example, if a spam account joins saying "BUY UR R00NSCAPZ0RZ G0LDZ '3R3Z" or anything equally as obvious, an instant kickban will be preferred.

Discussion guys? RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 11:20, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per what I've said above. Ronan Talk 11:32, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Support - A simple "Stop there, please" rarely fails to get the job done. Real Nub 15:23, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Well, explaining why would probably help the user so he knows what he's done wrong, so he knows what not to do in the future Wink JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:52, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I think we need to be more specific in this. UCS is great, but can only go so far (as seen by the fact this discussion exists). I think we need to define just what exactly we warn for and what can be instantly kicked. For example, we are not Jagex, but do users have to follow their rules? If someone mentioned that they were botting in the chat, I would want them gone gone gone. Account sharing? Yes, I would want them gone. Obviously scammers and trolls should be instantly kicked, but where do we draw the line? And since every chat mod is an individual, their "common sense" varies, as seen from the mess of a discussion that went on here. We don't want to over-complicate the "kicking process", but I think we need more specifics. Hofmic Talk 23:05, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

RS:UCS can't be defined by any kind of bounds. Everyone has different levels of common sense as you have said, but arguably, unless it's as blatant as sunlight that the person is in the chat to cause disruption or trouble, the moderator would be in one of those "in doubt" positons, where a warning will suffice regardless. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 21:55, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support - per my comments in this thread JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:52, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Rhys, you forgot to mention that there were sysops flaming sysops. --LiquidTalk 03:49, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I'm not impressed. You are a helmet of liquidation, therefore you're =/= a person... Hang on... I'm opposing my own argument by saying this... WTFISDIS RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 14:57, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
Sysops can be people too! --Henneyj 05:14, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
No of course not... people with hilites can't be people. Look at bots for example http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110531092553/joeytje50/images/thumb/8/8d/Trollface10k.png/45px-Trollface10k.png JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:55, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - After reading through this, I really don' have too much to say, but what I do comes from back when shit didn't hit the fan like this. First off, we don't make the rules that we must follow, Jagex does. In turn, when someone violates any of these rules, we in turn should do what we can to punish them. The guy helps noobs on quests, hooray, but it's still account sharing regardless. If he made money for people, most, if not all, would see him as bad and ask he be kicked, but it's the same damn thing except you gain Quest Points instead of gold.

Secondly, this entire thread and issue could have been solved by at least warning the guy not to talk about it more instead of drilling him about it. I mean, if there was a warning before, then go ahead and ban him since he obviously does not know when to be quiet or he just wants to troll by talking about illegal things. HOWEVER, if there was no warning, that entire drilling was bullcrap. I mean, I'm a rule follower, but making a guy say what crimes he does is wrong anywhere. These kinds of issues are usually more trouble than they are worth, and the easy solution to avoid them is to get your hand off the banhammer and not make people screw themselves. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 16:09, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Except the issue I see, as I mentioned, is what do we warn and what do we just kick right off the bat? A cop won't let you off with a warning if you murdered a random stranger. Which violations are severe enough to kick on sight? Botting, real world trading, account sharing... I'd be joking if I didn't say I loath those who do so, and think they should leave the chat. For quite a while. Hofmic Talk 23:02, September 13, 2011 (UTC)


Closed - For minor char infractions people should be warned/informed of the rules before they are kicked. This includes admitting to breaking Jagex rules. Encouraging others to do so or instructing them how to do so does not require a warning, nor does the other obvious trolling type crap the mods see every day.--Degenret01 01:37, September 14, 2011 (UTC)