Forum:Tightening up on clan chat kicking

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Tightening up on clan chat kicking
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.

Yesterday in cc, the following happened, I thought this was bad policy and was told to take it to YG if I wanted to take it any further. This is not a finger pointing, so I have removed names.

This is what happened (As I saw it):

A user was singing through the cc, he was warned to stop and so he did. He said duh a couple of times in conversation and was asked to stop but not in an official way, just asked 'stop saying duh' about 20 minutes he said duh again not randomly, but when someone said something he thought was obvious. He was then kicked. The kicker refused to own up to kicking him for about 30 minutes, and even then his attitude toward it was who cares. I feel essentially that the user was kicked because the user kind of annoyed the kicker. The kicker said things like: '[the user] was a nobody' when asked who was kicked; when asked what rule the user broke the reply was 'I don't do rules'. The kicker eventually said that it was for rudeness, but the user wasn't really rude, no more rude than most players in the chat.

Also, when the user added the kicker to ask who kicked him [the user] he was told by the kicker that he [the kicker] would ask in clan chat. No such thing was done and obviously the kicker knew

I felt that this kicking was unfair, so I took a look at the CC rules. I do not feel that the user broke any of them. I also found a discrepancy with current cc policy which is that the rules do not ban talks on politics or religion. They only state that the if the conversation is asked to stop, then it should be.

Essentially I want to make it so people cannot be kicked without a formal warning, related to the the same problem. (if someone is warned for giving out personal details they should be warned again before being kicked for spamming)

--Serenity1137 07:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


I obviously support this as the author --Serenity1137 07:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

General Oppose - Don't make the kicker mr or mrs anonymous, where you feel the rank kicked in a wrong way you should name them for them to defend themselves. Regardings politics and religeon, if they are told to stop that serves as a warning - continue and you will be removed. Strict rules give way for gaming the system, it should be to each ranked members discretion on how, when or if to issue warning and the same goes for issuing kicks Karis Talk to me 07:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I am quite confused...Can you like tell us the name? We cannot really tell who really is at fault if you kept them anonymous. I also read that we were suppose to give a warning before issuing a kick. So, right now, I think the kicker is at fault for now. Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 07:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Who was the kicker anyway? Lovely torso armourSupirion1Talk Contribs #Summoning.png 07:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The kicker was vimes and the user was fred199810, should i edit the bit at the top to include this? --Serenity1137 08:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, its vimes. He was the one who implemented the "No singing rule" thing. I'll try to find the rule thing.=/ Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 08:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The only implemented rules are on RS:CC, not the talk page. There is no rule on singing, unless they're singing a rude song or disrupting cc Karis Talk to me 08:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
this?Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 08:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
No clear consensus was achieved. If there was, the rules would then have been updated on the main page. Karis Talk to me 08:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I should make a few things clear. I didn't answer for a long time - and I just fobbed Fred off with some not-really-an-answer and turned my private chat to Friend - because I was busy. I came back to the chat some 15 minutes later. I said Fred was A nobody as a quicker version of "Someone who hasn't been in this chat before and so, if you weren't here half an hour ago, you wouldn't know who he was" - I was still in the middle of doing something for half of this argument. I saw no real justification for "duhhhhh" (any of the four of them). A quick scroll through the chat told me Fred had neither contributed to the current conversation nor explained his childish (Yes, I'm going to use that word, it was nothing more than a childish way to make someone feel stupid) comments, and he had been warned about them once before. I would have warned him a second time if this had been his first offence, but he'd already been warned twice for singing. We can't just let someone break a rule until he's on the edge of a kick, then come back and break a different rule for just as long ten minutes later. And finally, the "who cares" attitude mentioned by Serenity was never mentioned by me; it's only his/her interpretation.

I may have more to add to this later, but I've not had breakfast yet. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 09:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Addition: Karilz was the one who warned him for singing, and no-one objected to that warning (er...those warnings), so I assumed it to be upheld by the community. So to speak. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 09:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I object to two of the comments Serenity has made:

and was asked to stop but not in an official way

I felt that this kicking was unfair, so I took a look at the CC rules

An official way? I'm not quite sure how to vocalise my thoughts on this other than ... what? A warning is a warning. I understand the difference, but I think you and I disagree on the purpose of a warning. A warning, for me, is basically telling someone to stop whatever action caused it. Kicks are for refusing to adhere to that warning. A warning, for you (it seems), is an announcement of intent to kick if the behaviour continues - its purpose is to allow the warned to stop their actions to avoid a kick, rather than because it's the right thing to do. The difference is subtle, but it's there. Be aware that you may actually have been thinking this subconsciously, without knowing. Don't immediately jump on the defensive if you see this as some kind of personal attack - analyse your own motives carefully first. Once you've done that, you're welcome to tell me I'm wrong - but that leaves a huge unexplained discrepency in our different treatments of warnings.
Took it to the CC rules, eh? You shouldn't need to. Rules are there to facilitate good behaviour, not to enforce it. If you thought the kick was unjustified, the rules would be irrelevant - if anything, they would need changing to adapt to what the community thinks. This is why I don't care for the rules. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 10:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I wasn't there in the beginning, but as far as I could tell, Fred was ignoring the warnings given to him.  Tien  12:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Vimes, you are completely correct in your interpretation of what I think a warning should be. An official warning should let the user know they are going to be kicked if they continue, the kind of warning that was given in this case was hard to tell from a casual comment. Though obviously it is ideal that people would take its annoying as justification to stop all by itself, many people don't. This is not always an unreasonable thing, for example, if a pair of people were talking constantly about p2p and a f2p person (who happened to be ranked) said stop talking about p2p, its annoying then the original pair would be justified in just saying no. Where as if the original pair where talking about politics and it was getting heated and they where asked to stop, then how would they know that the ranked persons statement of stop talking about politics is any more serious?
Secondly, i think that someone does have the right to be warned for each rule, not on repeated occasions but when they are new. For example when I was new I was warned for talking about real world stuff in cc, which I didn't know was frowned upon. This doesn't mean that I should now be on a last warning for other things does it? Now if I came back the next day and broke the same rules again, then it could be justified for me to be kicked without warnings.
--Serenity1137 14:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Having not witnessed it, I think we should just make some very strict cc rules for kicking.Joe Click Here for Awesomeness18:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Where did this "no singing" rule come into?!?! Really, who made it, and who agreed to it other than Vimes? People just laugh and have a good time. I just like to have fun. If you don't like what's going on in the CC, then just get out of it, it's not like people are forced to be in there Just relax people. This is what I don't like about the CC and the Wiki sometimes. If you want this all to be "mature", then don't have rules for 6-year olds? Vimes just can't make it a rule on his own... God, so much censorship in the CC now days. It's freakin' RuneScape after all, no need to take all the fun out of it... This is why I only kick for people obviously spamming... I don't really give a crap if someone makes a joke that is deemed inappropiate by some! Just let it go Vimes, and maybe lighten off your personal kicking policy and "rules" that you have "made". *Runs into a wall* Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 18:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - That's what I thought Jedi, cos once I was just saying slightly pointless things, he told me to shut up or get kicked. Is there a rule about saying slightly pointless things? I don't think so. It didn't seem to be annoying anyone else. Like Jedi said, don't take the fun outta rs.Joe Click Here for Awesomeness18:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time Vimes has tried to enforce his own rules. A few weeks ago a couple of Wikians were conversing in Dutch I believe, as that is thier native language. He flat out told them they had to use English. Now while certainly its not polite to speak languages most others do not understand, it was was extremely over the top for Vimes to try to make and enforce a rule on the spot like that. Vimes, you need to understand this is not your CC, you are not a boss, you are not an enforcer. Your there in case of trouble. And if someone annoys you, the ignore feature works quite well. AEAE applies on the Cc as well as here.--Degenret01 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I completely agree with you there Degen. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 18:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I pretty much support Vimes on this. For those who do not speak Dutch, their conversation was spamming the chat. There was no reason they couldn't just move to another cc, as they clearly were not having a conversation with the English-speakers and so had no reason to use R S Wikia specifically. In addition, there is no way for the English-speaking kicker to know what they are talking about, therefore they cannot correctly enforce the rules. If anything bad were to have happened or been said (any type of rule-breaking of flaming, unbeknownst to some users), the ranked admin would have been at fault for not doing something about it. Christine 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Jedi: I'm sorry, but even if you don't like it, you have to have rules, even if they're unwritten. You can't just let anyone do anything in the chat. A few weeks (months) back I remember ambling in and two or three users were having a "fight". I tried to start a conversation two or three times; no-one noticed. I've seen similar things happen with other people. Fights don't do anything, so there's really no need for them, and when they're that disruptive...Why can't you take it to private chat, anyway? Same goes for singing. It's not as bad, but when four text boxes scroll up with nothing but lyrics from one person that aren't actually dialogue...why can't they do it in public chat? I'm aware that the "no singing" rule proposal didn't achieve consensus...Which means there were people both for and against it. In this particular case, I wasn't trying to enforce rules that hadn't achieved consensus (as you implied). I wasn't the only one being annoyed by singing; I wasn't even the one who gave the warnings.
To summarise; Jedi, you may want to have fun, but I'm sorry to say that the chat can't be all fun, all the time. Someone has to watch over. What's "fun" to you may be annoying to others - I'm afraid you have to learn to compromise.
It appears the only one that is having the problem is you. I'd recommend listening to your own advise and compromise yourself. If it's annoying you, leave the chat. They are not violating anything. Who is that someone anyways. Jedi is ranked, and he is your equal. That "someone" is him just as it is you. 18:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it depends which appearances you're looking at. I'm certainly not the only one who thinks annoying behaviour is annoying... JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 19:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. Annoying behavior is annoying, but the person being annoying obviously doesn't think it's annoying, therefore your opinion is bias and as your opinion equals theirs with regards to AEAE, you can't kick them for it. Ignore list 19:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Surely by that argument no-one can ever be kicked, because their euqal opinion, which says that all the rules are crap and we should just spam all the time, should be upheld as much as mine? Certainly I can think of two people in the past two weeks who've thought like that... JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
No. That's why we have rules. If they are not in violation you can't do anything, no matter if you want too. The rules are a guideline for all. The Rules are Neutral, they are in no one's favor, all must follow them. We are to moderate those rules and that they are being followed, not to monitor users wishing to converse in another language (although not recommended) and a user saying they leveled. 19:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Degenret: Christine pretty much summarises my feelings on it; you can't enforce rules if you don't know what people are doing. I wasn't "making and enforcing a rule" so much as making sure I was able to enforce whatever rules may have needed upholding. Also, RS:AEAE? How is that relevant? I'd have done the same if it were anyone. If Christine and Karis had been talking Esperanto I'd have warned them, too.

Those are the apples and oranges of the matter. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Christine/Vimes - So why do we automatically assume someone is breaking the rules ? Just because you don't understand the language doesn't mean you can jump to conclusions about what they're saying. Have some faith, theres no point in assuming that everyone is breaking the rules. Karis Talk to me 18:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
We don't automatically assume someone is breaking the rules. If they break the rules, there's nothing we can do about it. If all editors really are equal, why should people who can speak a different language get the right to ignore the rules (which, if none of the ranks can speak their language, they do)? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Warnings should be issued is almost all situations. Sometimes things get outta hand fast, but that's why we ranks are there, to moderate it. Being annoying is no violation, so to kick because someone is being annoying is bias and not right. If you have a problem with the user being annoying then add them to your ignore list. We have rules for a reason and if they are not breaching them, we can't automatically implement temp ones to justify a kick. I agree with Degen. AEAE Vimes.

Bonziiznob Talk

18:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have to use the ignore list to deal with someone in the CC, then ur doin it rong. That's not how you moderate a chat. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot
If you have to kick someone for some made up rule on the spot cause you don't agree with them, that's also not moderating the chat. 19:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Wrong answer Vimes. Ignore is for people that annoy you without breaking the rules. --Degenret01 19:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have work now. I won't be on for the next four and a half days (about 110 hours, I think). JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 19:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Mmm... Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 21:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Serenity, it is not a "discrepancy" that we allow politics and religion in the clan chat. When we discussed it as a community on this page, there was strong support to allow politics and religious debate. Butterman62 (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My point was that whenever I brought up politics or religion in clan chat, I was told it was against cc rules, but this is -as you say- not the case. --Serenity1137 07:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I believe this kick was totally unfair, but after reading other users arguments I call Neutral. Lovely torso armourSupirion1Talk Contribs #Summoning.png 12:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Support if it only applys to minor rulebreaking such as curseing or light trolling. things like death threats, highly voulger language, and things that are taboo in our cc should warrent an instant kick. The fact that a user is ranked shows that they should know when is and when is not a good time to kick. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


for those with lag Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Stelercus, I don't agree with what you said. First of all, "...the fact that a user is ranked shows that they should know when is and when is not a good time to kick" - I put emphasis on the word should, as (1) we've removed powers of people who should have known when and how to use them (e. g. admin powers and desysopping), and (2) I think that, in our rush to fill the chat with ranked users, we ranked people too easily. Also, what is "taboo" is entirely one's opinion and is dependent on one's culture and upbringing. It's especially subjective because we don't have a "list of things that are taboo in cc" that I know of, so people would not even know if they're breaking the rules. Butterman62 (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
comment - If a user does not know when to kick, why the heck did we rank them in the first place? If that is your consern, make a thread about removing the kicking rights of the user you have an issue with. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? - If someone acts like an idiot, that person should be kicked. The warning system was implemented to make sure good faith is assumed, and there are no come-in-say-one-thing-get-kicked situations. I am not going to say "This is an official warning for breaking Clan Chat Rule Number 5.2; please look over the rules again and refrain from further breakage of thereof. Thank you for using the Runescape Wikia Clan Chat. Sincerely, whatsmyface." Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 18:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And what if you are having a conversation between a couple of people and a ranked user tells you to stop doing something because although you are not violating any rules and no one has complained, you are annoying them and should stop? Does that make you the idiot? The written rules are there to prevent something like this happening, if you are not harming anyone else and haven't truly done anything wrong then by what right can you kick or even warn someone not to do something?Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 19:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Quite a speech from a hyprocrite who said we're becoming "nannying socialists, and only people who can maturely and intelligently enforce the rules get the power", saying we don't need any more rules. If people don't like the conversation, they can leave. If the conversation is against the rules, then we apply the due proccess. Simple. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 22:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Dude you need to learn to drop your grudges and chill out a little more, just because I disagree with you on another topic doesn't mean I consistently want to treat you with disrespect or want to make you look stupid with every statement I make. I am against the implementation of silly rules like no spoilers, but support the proper enforcement of the existing rules. So how exactly does that make me a hypocrite? You're presuming that the interpretation of the rules is unanimous among ranked users. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 22:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The no singing rule has never achieved consensus, and IMO is really a ridiculous rule. People in the CC like to have fun, they like to say things that may not make sense to everyone and they should have every right to do so. And to be honest, the day the CC becomes how Vimes wants it to be is the last day I show up. Zaros tally.PNGBladeQuick chat button.png# 00:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Users should only be kicked if there is quite obviously a general feeling of annoyance(not meaning that you asked people if they are annoyed, just if your sure lots of people are). Just because somebody annoys you doesnt give you the right to kick them out of the cc. People are going to get annoyed over the littlest things sometimes, and some people, no offense, just have to learn to deal with it. AttackJdogy15 TalkDragonfire shield 00:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If a mood of annoyance, anger, or other bad feeling is felt overall and it is caused by one or a group of users, a warning should be issued, and kicks made later. I mean, there are some cases where an instant kick may be acceptable, such as the "Phrase" stuff, but if it's typical, non-violent causing behavior that violates no rules, than why kick? A warning usually suffices. I'm still undecided on my stance here.

tl;dr version: Don't go guns a blazing on every little disturbance. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 19:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)