Forum:S:C - Tweaks

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > S:C - Tweaks
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 16 May 2012 by Sacre Fi.

Yet another s:c topic, I know, but hopefully it proves useful.

Proposal 1

The addition of a Chat/Reports page. This essentially functions as the CVU does, allowing users of chat to report rulebreakers in s:c when there is no chat moderator present, or those present are non-responsive. I for one often do other tasks and whilst I am easily called back through ping or Joey's badword script, other moderators are not in possession of these extra tools. A mock-up of the page can be seen [[w:c:camtest:Chat/Reports|here]]. I visualise a template similar to the one found for documenting bans with a similar format of the table. A list of moderators is included, although the current one found listing Chat Moderators does not include any Admins who actively use s:c which should probably be included for this page. An altered header for the chat can be seen in use [[w:c:camtest:Special:Chat|here]]. None of the links are functional.

The header has been redesigned to include links to s:c stats and logs, should the stats be adopted.

Proposal 2

Adoption of the chat stats. They exist, most experienced users of the chat know how to access them, and as far as I can tell, they don't show any of the issues Forum:Wiki Chat stats raised concerns about.

Proposal 3

Extra functions for User:RSChatBot. Some of the ideas raised here have merit, but Sactage is unwilling to implement some of them without Yew Grove consensus. Any extra ideas could be added in whilst this is forum is open.


Discuss. cqm talk 17:56, April 24, 2012 (UTC)


Skeptical - I'm skeptical of the usefulness of Proposal 1. Although I don't sit in Special:Chat a lot, I have rarely witnessed instances of rule-breaking, and even if it did occur frequently, we have enough chat moderators that it'd be quicker to poke one in the chat (or find a sysop in the IRC) than to go through a request page. Furthermore, speaking from IRC experience, bans are very very rarely used. I can't imagine Special:Chat having that many more rule abusers than the IRC.

I don't really care about proposals 2 or 3. Chat statistics would be more for fun than any practical use. Additional functions for the chat bot would be nice, if it can do everything that RuneScript in the IRC can do. --LiquidTalk 22:17, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Bans are used fairly often. 22:56, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
For RSChatBot to do everything that Runescript can do is a little far away right now, although it's certainly a point to aim for. And as Ansela pointed out, s:c has far more bans given out than I've come across in the IRC. I guess that's a side effect of it being obviously displayed on every page. cqm talk 01:37, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1; neutral-ish 2, 3 - While I'm not sure how often a Chat/Reports page would be used, since most people who would know of its existence would likely be able to kick, or someone in the chat would be able to. But in those circumstances otherwise, I don't see how it would hurt. Though I do wonder if chat moderators would even see the page then. Most chat mods (and admins who frequent the chat), when online, are in the chat, and edits to pages like this are something I generally notice in RC, which means I'd have to be online anyway. So thus, I'm uncertain how well the page would actually work out, but don't see how it would hurt.

On proposal two, I'm a bit worried about some parts of the stats that strike me as a touch immature to use on an "official" wiki page. Things like "Is Pickme42 stupid or just asking too many questions? 44.8% lines contained a question!" and "Tua_Scoot has quite a potty mouth. 1.5% words were foul language." don't particularly make me want to see the stats on a wiki page. However, if the "big numbers" and "other interesting numbers" sections were to be removed, I'd support. I do like the interface of the active times and editors.

On proposal 3, I don't really care to see people asking RSChatBot questions or making it tell their lines for them, although a remind function could be useful, provided it's not overused or abused. Hofmic Talk 01:14, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Several of those stat lines may be hidden, I just need to change the generation program to do so.
  1. REDIRECT User:Kerri Amber/s.js 02:42, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Support part of the new ideas The new ideas !remind and !safelink are pretty good, but the other things are useless, just got to IRC if you want those. like Hofmic said, as long as it isn't abused -- Dragon longsword.png Cire04 TalkAttack.png 01:25, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Safelink may be a tiny bit hard to implement - I'd need to somehow find common HTML/JavaScript code that I could search for to detect possible phishing pages.
  1. REDIRECT User:Kerri Amber/s.js 02:49, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for #1, support 2 and 3 - (edit conflict) There is a problem with number 1 that I can see occurring, if we were to implement it. Here is how I see it right now: A non-chat mod enters a user who they think should be watched/banned with a reason attached. Then it will be submitted and put through, and seen on the page. Well, if this were on the page.. the user would be able to see it and could be offended and could cause more trouble, which feeds the trolls. If it were possible for any user to submit, but chatmods and admins were the only ones able to see the list (even in edit mode), then I'll give my full support. Otherwise, I'm neutral as it is. Regarding the other ideas, I have no problem with. Hair 01:32, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

So, put the reports themselves on a separate page entirely? I'm not convinced there is option to hide such a page from non-chatmods/admins, but if no one here knows, I can contact staff to see if it's a possible feature. cqm talk 14:02, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Support all - Don't see why not, reminders should be able to be removed if they are inappropriate, and the link detector should automatically update the logs and censor the link if possible. --Cake detail.pngCaek iz ossumChocolate cake detail.png talk om nom 02:46, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to the combination of safelink and !updatelogs, then it's very much dependant on the possibility to implement safelink first. For transparency, although it's a longer process, updating the logs and altering them to remove non-safe links is easier to refer back to with regards to chat bans. We can see that we updated the logs, removed the link, and revdel'd the relevant edit with the current process, rather than have the bot do it for us and not necessarily get it right 100% of the time. I think it would be better to do it manually, just so we know it's been done correctly. Not to say Sactage's programming skills aren't up to the job Wink cqm talk 12:15, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - No comment about #1 at this time. I support #2. #3 will depend on the extra features - I epically-strong-oppose !tell and (ask questions); safe links doesn't seem possible but meh, whatever; support !remind, !stats, and recording chat bans. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:40, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

!tell can easily be replaced with a message on someone's talk page. They'll probably pick it up before entering chat anyway, so it makes little difference. cqm talk 12:15, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I meant to say I support !tell. Lol. Went through a 4-hour internet/cable outage while typing my stupid comment. Anyway, yeah it can be replaced with talk page edits but it's ease of access for small bits of information that make it useful. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 13:29, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
So... you just oppose questions? I'd go with that to make sure the bot is practical rather than containing useless easter eggs that just clutter the logs. cqm talk 13:55, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
Basically I oppose any stupid scripts like Fishbot and Evilbot have (games, mimicking, on-text responses...) sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:05, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - does anyone have any opinions on whether non-Chat Mods shaould be able to use any of the proposed commands? !tell and !remind should be publicly usable in my opinion, but I think !logs is also available to all, something I'm not sure is entirely necessary. cqm talk 13:55, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

We implemented logs due to consensus that they would be useful for referencing kickbans, regarding RfCMs, etc. As such I don't think they should be available to everyone, as they all do for the people not looking for them is spam the chat with two more unnecessary lines. Ronan Talk 07:27, April 30, 2012 (UTC)
Who says non-mods don't access the logs? And besides, two extra lines. Not two extra [email protected] Matt (t) 04:14, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Altered proposal - I've changed the layout of the header to include the stats and logs, and condensed it down a bit to make it more functional. It can be seen [[w:c:camtest:Special:Chat|here]], as before. cqm talk 23:24, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Remove the vertical bars on either side and change the middle ones to • instead - looks neater. I don't think there's any need to have a "Chat" prefix for every link, they should be removed as well. Also, "Report a user" is simpler and more correct than "Report a rule-breaker". Looks good though. Ronan Talk 07:27, April 30, 2012 (UTC)
Those changes have been implemented. cqm talk 09:26, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Comment -

  • 1 - I like the idea of having a CVU-style page for the chat, though I have problems with some of the finer details. " I visualise a template similar to the one found for documenting bans with a similar format of the table." Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be more like the CVU? We could have a message like "[[User:Example]] was breaking the rules of the chat at x time on [[link to the log page|x day]].", or something like that, and we could have a {{cvuid}}-style template for it. Also, I really don't see the point of having a list of mods on the page. Isn't the page supposed to be for people who don't know who the mods are they can contact? We don't have a list of admins on the CVU, do we? I really like the chat header, though.
  • 2 - I didn't know we had chat stats, but I'm told that they are in the same format as the IRC stats and are not in-fact the stats discussed in Forum:Wiki Chat stats, so I don't know why you're associating the two, as they are completely different things. In IRC, the stats are okay, because they fit in with the relaxed, easy going nature atmosphere in IRC. They're good for the lols. In Chat however, it's a different story. They don't really provide any useful information, and then there are the informal tidbits down the bottom. Put simply, no thank you.
  • 3 - I support a tell command. I support remind. Safe links, sure. Logs, sure. I'm not such a fan of the bot responding to questions, but I'll let other people oppose that. Matt (t) 03:59, May 2, 2012 (UTC)
It was more to keep the format inline with the other existing chat templates. Also, the CVU input template doesn't show which rule the user think they broke, whereas allowing for an option to say which rule they broke requires people to have knowledge of the rules and cuts down on reports for petty disputes where one user is as bad as the other. The list of mods is just in case the user isn't aware of what the chat-mod symbol means. Again, it's just covering all bases.
I would link you to the stats as they exist, but Sactage is apparently moving servers so that's not possible. Going from memory though they essentially provide a measure of the chat's activity, the most active users of the chat, and some other information that can only be used for humorous purposes as it has no real use in my opinion. Comparing then to what Joey suggested in the original proposal all that's changed is the removal of join/quits and he addition of the extra humour. Sure the format is vastly changed, but when most active users of chat know of them, know where to find them, but we can't use them in any 'official' capacity the stats become a dirty little secret unavailable to inexperienced users. Seeing as they exist and the concerns raised in the forum have not become true, they really don't hurt anyone. cqm talk 13:02, May 2, 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say to use cvuid, I said use a cvuid-style template. Of course modifications would be made. Lol If the purpose of the list is to inform people what the icon means, why can't you just put a sentence saying what it means? Why does it necessitate a full list of mods?
Yes, they are similar. The thing is though, they are actually less informative than Joey's proposal. I'm not sure what you mean by "the concerns raised in the forum". If you mean people spamming, than yes, that hasn't happened. But also, you said yourself that in-experienced users don't know about them or that they have low exposure to them. I'm not saying there would be spamming if in-experienced users did know about them, but do you think that the situation might be different if they had more exposure, because more common users are much less likely to spam? If you mean the concerns that they aren't informative, I beg to differ.
You're logic seems to be that they were made without consensus, so therefore we should give them it, which I really don't get. Matt (t) 07:41, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
The overall point was that the stats exist and have yet to cause any problems. I realise the stats were not created with consensus, but as a by product of us having Sactage host RSChatBot. I believe they just came as part of the package he provides us as he uses the same or very similar script that URL uses in Cod wiki's version of S:C, correct me if I'm wrong. In essence it's just a page that exists, but we can't use for anything other than looking at. I just don't see why we can't make use of them, regardless of what they're used for.
As for your other points, a line explaining would probably suffice. In taking another look at the cvuid template and the overall page, a description of what should and shouldn't be reported would probably be better than the rules themselves. For the template itself perhaps something like Example (talk - ban from chat) ~~~~~ as opposed to the table format? Although I'm unsure if we still manage bans from Special:Userrights now, or it's moved somewhere else. I'm not sure if there are any (dis)advantages with either. cqm talk 10:27, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
"I just don't see why we can't make use of them, regardless of what they're used for." In other words, "I don't see why we can't use them, regardless of what we use them for." Well what do you propose we use them for? And the bannedfromchat user right still seems to exist. That may or may not change though. Matt (t) 10:45, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Use them like the IRC stats are used? To quote Liquid above, "Chat statistics would be more for fun than any practical use". What they could contain is only limited by we can think of adding to them. cqm talk 22:35, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I'll copy what I wrote above. "In IRC, the stats are okay, because they fit in with the relaxed, easy going nature atmosphere in IRC. They're good for the lols. In Chat however, it's a different story. They don't really provide any useful information, and then there are the informal tidbits down the bottom". Well what do you propose we add to them?
Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with the page existing. I just don't think it should be considered official, especially if it's going to be publicised in chat header and such like you said. There's no reason they should be considered official. They really don't add anything of value. Matt (t) 01:26, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
So... you'd be fine with RSChatBot responding to !stats? That's the only other way I can think of us being able to link to them and have them accessible for all. cqm talk 14:44, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
Also, for anyone wondering, the stats are now located here.
  1. REDIRECT User:Kerri Amber/s.js 16:02, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
(No idea how this got all the way down here) I wouldn't add the question responses anyway.
  1. REDIRECT User:Kerri Amber/s.js 19:20, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The list of ban expiry dates can be edited at MediaWiki:Chat-ban-option-list. Maybe it would be good to make the 2 hour one 3 hours, because that is what the common duration of jqj spam bans is (even though I heard jqjspam is obsolete, it's still good to make it possible) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 16:38, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Totally still possible.
  1. REDIRECT User:Kerri Amber/s.js 02:28, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - As no one has opposed adding !tell and !remind, nor has anyone opposed the "safe links" feature, I will add them ASAP if an administrator clears me to do so.

  1. REDIRECT User:Kerri Amber/s.js 22:49, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead. No one was against it. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 00:16, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Request for closure - Consensus has been clear here, and Sactage is already in the middle of implementing these commands. This has been open long enough. Ronan Talk 08:16, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Consensus reached for all of the proposals. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 08:46, May 16, 2012 (UTC)