Forum:Stop adding CC rules

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Stop adding CC rules
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 22 August 2009 by Azaz129.

Stop adding CC rules and let people be mature

We keep getting requests to change the cc rules and adding more reasons to kick users. Adding more and more rules discourages maturity and reason. People should know what is rite and what is wrong, and should kick when they know something needs to be done. As long as people are being mature, I do not see a need for a long list of rules, but that is not to say that some basic rules are needed for the chat. For example, and this is not part of the proposal, Assume that conversatoin about polotics is allowed. If it is, it should be let alone up untill fealings are hurt in wich case somebody should be kicked. haveing a list of rules that people can resort to is nessisary, but having a extensive list is frivolis and should not be done. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

edit - I see confusion as to people not knowing what this is and what it is not.

this is

  • supporting a short list of basic rules (no curseing at other users, flaming, ect)
  • proposing an honer code
  • allowing people to continue to add cc rules within reason (anything not covered in an honer code)
  • asking that people be mature so that rules are needed rarely.

this is not

  • banning all yew grove threads on new cc rules
  • recomending many new rules for the cc
  • assuming that people can't be mature

The rules should not be needed to keep the cc civil. people should be able to do that themself. if somebody can't, they should not be allowed in the cc.


Oppose - Rules are neccessary to keep the Clan Chat civilized. If new ways to undo that are created, it is only natural to make rules to counter that. Everyone's definition of "common sense" is different, and that itself cannot be a basis point for supervising the Clan Chat. Moreover, Rules are neccessary in written down form in order to be referenced, should the need come. Finally, we must have distinct guidelines, not "do what feels rite". Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 23:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

One rule covers everything. [1]. --Degenret01 23:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that a long list of rules isn't needed because it limits and discourages people from entering the clan chat, but I think a few basic guidelines are necessary.  Tien  23:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

you just proved my point, that is exactly everything I just said but in fewer words. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Yes, I agree, most of the rule proposals popping up are unnecessary. However, we should never put a moratorium on discussion, especially per RS:CONSENSUS#Not_permanent; we never know when we might need more discussion. Imagine if we had put a rule saying "An RfA is enough. Once someone is sysopped, they keep the tools for life, regardless of behavior". Butterman62 (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

this is not to make the cc pure anarchy, just trim down the rules as I feal that an honer code as apposed to a list of rules promotes a more layed back and enjoyable enviornment. and acording to the non-perminate concensus polocy, should this be aproved, it can be un-done. I think we need to reserve that power should the cc begin to be world of flaming and immatureity. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say I thought it would become anarchy. I stated above that my reason was that we should never stifle discussion, per the consensus policy. Butterman62 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral leaning towards support - I think this should be renamed "Stop adding stupid/immature CC rules". Things like the language.. that's so stupid! If two people understand each other better in spanish or something, they should be allowed. Stop posting stupid things on the Grove. It's pointless. We do however need SOME rules, so when they make sense and they are necessary, go ahead and add them. --Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 00:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

again, that is what I am saying. read what is in bold, I stated that we do need a small

list of rules we can resort to if all elce fails. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Slight Oppose, though I see your [stelers] point,and degenerates, I think the rules have to be more specific not only to make it clearer when kicks should happen but clearer when they are in violation of the rules. I'd like to point to jagex's recentish change from 12 rules to 3, it has made it far less clear when you should report, meaning people get reported for dumb stuff such as taking my rocks because that breaches honour. Clear rules draw a line, a line that should be bent if necessary, as degenerates rule is king but its important to have the line there for reference. --Serenity1137 07:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per D4K and Butterman. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  08:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Sure, rules are needed. But a large list of rules leads to the mentality of "Theres no rule saying I can't". Once you have a huge list of rules, people start assuming that everything not explicitly stated as against the rules is allowed, and people are way to creative for that mentality to be healthy. I am going to tell you guys right now that even Jagex has their pmods exercising independant thought when determining how to handle situations, because a human brain can do this better than a list. What the cc needs, are ranked with judgement (I am not in anyway implying that the ranked do not hvae judgement, I have barely even been in the cc, and am merly being thorough), good basic rules, with a little room for interpretation at ranked discretion, and a rock solid rule that says the ranked word is the law, thus no argueing without reason/cause. Refocusing. What we need are rules that define what we wan't in the cc, rather than making a new rule every time we see something we don't like. We could even consider what I am going to call whitelist rules, whicih is the opposite of the normal, blacklist, rules. Aside from looking completly racist, there is a critical difference. A whitelist is a list of allowed things, so a whitlist for rules would be "nothing is allowed unless the rules state that its allowed", as opposed to the current "its allowed unless a rule says otherwise" mentality. If anyoen wants to consider using that rule scheme, we would need a whole new topic because we would need a big yew grove pow wow to descide what we wan't going on in the cc. Still, I think we could eventualy simplify alot of things, and by stating what is allowed, you get infinately more precise with your rules. Randox 18:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Then the kickers can just go from their person opinions? "This guy doesn't think that rares are worth it, I'll kick!" mentality will ensue if we don't have a set of rules. Our rules all come from common sense, and already encompass all existing ways to make the Clan Chat unpleasant. Ergo, new ways = new rules. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 05:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that the fact that they have the rank needed to kick is enough to show that they have sound judgement and will not have such a mentality. C.ChiamTalk 06:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - I agree with caleb. We have a process for determining who gets the ability to enforce the rules, if your dissatisfied with their ability to interpret common sense and respect, then try to modify the process that awards them that power. This way, we don't become nannying socialists, and only people who can maturely and intelligently enforce the rules get the power. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 07:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm changing to Strong oppose, per D4K and Butterman Serenity1137 09:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

comment - something was written here at midnight last night and should be disregarded for now but will likely come back later as it is true this has gone nowhere yet. to the person who I am talking about, I was not expecting the concensus then, just for it to end.

SUPPORT - I agree with Randox.  Panjy16 03:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per Randox. Quest point cape detail.png Brux Talk 06:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This thread was to get permission to start another debate over an honer code. do we need an admin to tell us to start drafting it, or should we start now? note that by drafting it would be another thing to be voted on and would not be directly implimented untill another consencus has been taken. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

An "Honour code"? Now that is a fruitless idea. We already have a set of functioning rules. If it ain't broke, etc. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 03:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm not personally active in the cc, but looking through the yew grove list, a lot has to do with new rules, and some of them are quite honestly ridiculous. New rule requests should probably only be made if something becomes a serious problem within the cc. AttackJdogy15 TalkDragonfire shield 00:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)