Forum:Removing inactive ranks

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Removing inactive ranks
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 4 January 2011 by Stelercus.

I was clicking around the wiki, looking for something to read, and found the list of CC ranks. A few weeks ago, Gaz joked in the IRC that we needed more ranks, and then noted that we actually had far too many. Or something to that effect... That, combined with my first look at the list, made me realise that out of our 61 ranked users, I've only seen about 25 in the CC at all, and only 15-20 of those appear to use the CC whatsoever.

In addition, I've been seeing fewer ranks in the CC at about 17:00 (UK time, can't remember how to do UTC) and even several instances of a rankless CC. Therefore, I'm proposing that any users that haven't used the CC for around 2 months have their rank removed, but can have it returned at their request. This would enable us to run RfRs again, rank new users, and make sure the CC stays ranked. Real Mad 09:51, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - Om nom nom. Real Mad 09:51, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - 61/200 Friend spots used. If the users can request the rank back, there is no point in this. The second piece is that there is nothing wrong with superfluous ranks, even if they are not online all of the time. Ryan PM 10:13, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

There is if people look at the list and think "OMG WE GOT TOO MANY RANKS", then keep the RfRs closed. As a result, the CC ends up empty of ranks, and any abusers, trolls, or spammers will run rampant. Real Mad 10:19, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - We had this discussion before and we removed about 45 inactive ranks and the discussion was at Forum:What is taking so long with the newest CC ranks?. The 3 requirements for de-ranking were:

  1. You may only have one ranked account per person, all secondary accounts of ranked users are to be deranked.
  2. If you have been inactive in the clan chat for a period of six months or more (if proven by being unseen by other users or admitting to being inactive), you are to be deranked, though you may request your rank back should you become active again without discussion.
  3. If you have expressed lack of interest in continuing to use the clan chat, you are to be deranked.

So if any of the accounts meet these requirements they can be de-ranked. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:53, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

In that case, a user can get ranked, stay offline for 5 months, and then come back suddenly, keeping their rank. The proposal from that thread makes sense, but apply some common sense to the matter, and it becomes obvious that inactive ranks like Wowbagger or Frede don't use their rank, or the CC. Why should they get to have a rank, and not use it, while trusted users that frequent the chat like Mookie Jello (Can't remember his wikiname), oOLordFireOo or even yourself can't? Real Mad 12:00, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
So really you are just asking for RFR's to be reopened? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 12:03, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
Sort of, I'm suggesting a way to reopen them without annoying the "GAWD DERE'S TO MANY RANKS!!111!!" people. Real Mad 12:51, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Gaz uses that joke a bit too often often >_> Then again, so do i =P - [Pharos] 12:54, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose removing ranks, Support re-opening RfR - I don't think its necessary to remove inactive ranks from the list. But as Glentra said, consensus was reached in the forum he mentioned. I wouldn't mind RfRs being re-opened but we've already discussed this and there's no chance in hell. Btw, we don't keep RfRs closed due to how many people are ranked, but due to how many ranks are active in the chat. - [Pharos] 12:54, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Keep removing ranks as is, support re-opening rfr - We are still lacking ranks in this time zone, currently there are about 15-20 people and no ranks. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 13:14, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Reopen RfR's - No amount of arguing or filibustering will be enough to defeat the obvious: some time zones need more ranks and the only way to fix this problem is to reopen the Requests for rank page. It just so happens I live in one of the time zones needing more. 222 talk 00:34, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The reason rank requests aren't open isn't that "We have too many ranks;" it's that "We don't need any more ranks," and, in almost all cases, this is true. Personally, however, I don't have too much trouble with the concept of opening ranks just for the people in the Australian timezone; it was proposed, and it gained some support before it got bureaucracy'd to death with AEAE and whatnot. It's obvious that we don't need more ranks in peak times, which is when most successsfully requested ranks would be online, but sometimes I wish the red tape would thin out... Leftiness 00:47, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

The correct term would be bureaucratised Wink 222 talk 00:50, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm a Brit, and the CCs I've been in have had zero ranks at some points. If there's a need for moar ranks anywhere in the world, why not open them up? We can easily get some ranks for those areas, plus some new ones for everywhere else. Half the time, the only rank I can see is Swizz...what happens if he goes on holiday/has internet problems/ragequits? We'd have no ranks whatsoever, besides the odd person that's been on all day/night. That's too much of a reliance on a few people, when we could get several more to back them up if necessary. Real Mad 10:09, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Reopening RfR - As is the current consensus, inactive ranks should be removed. The current rules regarding when a user should be deranked are fine as is (though I will admit that I'm bias, in that I wrote them), but we need to make sure Teng is actively enforcing them. As for reopening RfRs, I don't think that's a good idea. There's generally more than one rank in the CC at any given time, and that's really all we need. Because the RfR page is generally closed, the process becomes chaotic and painful whenever it's opened back up. Given the situation, I don't think we need to open requests for the time being. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:02, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Well, other than maybe a small flood of requests, what harm can reopening the RfRs do? As I mentioned above, I've noticed that during the times I'm online, Swizz is the only rank in the CC, and I feel that we're relying on him to stay online. If he isn't, and a troll/spammer attacks, we'd need someone to go to the IRC and ask for a sysop/rank to kick, and then that person is under pressure to make sure the CC stays clean. It may be slightly chaotic, but it'd do more good than harm in the long run. Real Mad 23:07, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
I know it's a bit unorthodox, but I would prefer somebody picked a few users they think should be ranked, then propose they be ranked on a thread like this. That way, a few people are ranked, and we don't have to plunge into RfR-hell. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:11, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
I see your point there, and I'd Support that, although it doesn't give users a chance to self-nominate - there are plenty of cheerful people in the CC who tend to go unnoticed, and would use a rank well. Still, could be better than dealing with millions of IPs asking "CAN MY ACC BE RANKED PLAWKS", and someone could ask for a nom... Real Mad 23:18, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
We have to go with the lesser of the two evils here, which I believe is the proposal-rout. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:29, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
Added as new section. Real Mad 23:40, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Alternate Nominations for Ranks

As suggested by Steler above, should the consensus to keep the RfRs closed, users can start a thread nominating a user/group of users to be ranked. This would avoid having to deal with a rush of requests, and keep the rank discussions to trusted users nominated by another user. Discuss.

Discussion

Support - Real Mad 23:40, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It would be hypocritical if I didn't. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:49, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - If the fact that Steler's Opposition to reopening RFR's will be a complete block to it ever happening regardless of how many other people support, then this is the next best thing. melonWatermelon slice.png 02:58, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - ajr 03:03, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Really? This is exactly the same thing as RfR, except that it's moved to the Forums instead of the RfR page. The only difference is that users can be grouped together, which I find even worse, considering that each user should be evaluated solely based on his or her individual merit. This will allow users with weaker CC credentials (i.e. not very active) to "piggyback" an active user.

To make my point even more clear, here's a comparison of the two methods:

RfR
  1. Someone nominates an unranked user on the RfR page.
  2. There is a community discussion.
  3. A sysop comes in and finds the consensus.
Proposed method
  1. Someone nominates an unranked user on the forums.
  2. There is a community discussion.
  3. A sysop comes in and finds the consensus.

The only difference between the two is the location of the discussion. The only way I'd support this is if we only allowed one or two users to nominate new ranks (I'd pick Gareth and Stelercus). --LiquidTalk 03:09, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose Liquid's proposal/idea/thought - No thank you, I do not wish to see any ranks being selected by a small (2) group of users. Why don't you see how this goes before proposing an oligarchical method of selecting new ranks. 222 talk 07:00, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about. Liquid did not make a proposal, and it certainly doesn't provide for two people selecting who shall be ranked. (wszx) 07:30, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
His idea then, whatever. 222 talk 07:31, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
Again, please clarify. Liquid has suggested nothing, only having voted against the proposal in this heading. (wszx) 07:39, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
I know he didn't make a proposal, but he did say he would only "support this is if we only allowed one or two users to nominate new ranks (I'd pick Gareth and Stelercus).", which I consider enough for someone else to say, "how about we make a compromise?", thus I am just stating my opinion in advance, in a way. 222 talk 07:50, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
Strongly oppose only allowing 2 users to nominate - To do so strips everyone else of the right to start a discussion. What if those 2 users are on at different times to a model user who has never flamed, trolled, spammed or anything else? That user never gets a rank, although they could have used it very well. Real Mad 11:17, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Bump - It's been 3 days since the last comment. Real Mad 14:30, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • Sigh* Looks like this has died off.
This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Removing inactive ranks. Request complete. The reason given was: complete

Real Mad 16:54, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Four supports isn't enough to close it. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 14:35, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
Much as I would love to see RfRs reopened, it looks like what little discussion we had has gone. Unless someone else comments soon, it's gonna end up as a No Consensus closure Frown Real Mad 21:55, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Errr, can't we already do this? The YG is made for special occourences/requests. And this type of RfR sounds special enough to me, It won't be very often, just when ranks are sorely needed. I don't think anybody would actually oppose you suggesting someone/a group to be ranked in a thread with Oppose - No. It specifically states that you can't request this [email protected]@@@. Seriously, this doesn't need consensus >_>, RS:BB all the way. - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 22:12, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Just some fuel for the fire... I oftentimes find myself on in the early morning as the only ranked user on. This has happened numerous amounts of times, and has sometimes persisted for at least an hour. While nothing happened that would require a "ranked" user to be there, the situation will oftentimes arise when least expected. I see many users who I would consider "trustworthy" on at that hour consistently, and I think it would be greatly beneficial to re-open rfr for maybe just 3 or 4 more ranks. We'll never use all 200 friend slots, but since we aren't even using half of them, I fail to see how this could be in any way harmful to us at all. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 03:18, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

By I fail to see how this could be in any way harmful to us at all., I meant opening requests for ranks, not an alternate proposal. Sorry for any confusion. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 03:19, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Somebody requested to re-open ranks. There are existing guidelines regarding the removal of inactive ranks, and there was no consensus to alter them. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 10:23, January 4, 2011 (UTC)