User:Karlis/Clan Chat Discussion2

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following are related discussions[edit | edit source]

These are discussions that took place on the Yew Grove moved here to help reduce lag.

Our R S Wikia Clan Chat should be be limited to active Wiki users.[edit | edit source]

I believe our R S Wikia CC should be limited to active RuneScape Wiki users that have Wikia accounts. I know of people that users have invited, and they completely come in and ruin the environment and start causing trouble to a previously OK clan chat. After all, it is the R S Wikia CC right? This is just going to turn into a chaotic clan chat if we open it to the general user. It is better for the atomosphe of the CC if it is just Wiki people too, not random RuneScape players. All I request anyone that uses it is a registered user of the RuneScape Wiki and actively editing and/or participating in the community such as the forums. I understand that the owner of the account, C Teng, has limited space on his account R S Wikia friends list, but I strong feel we need to come up with a solution it so it isn't so public. This might include taking the notice of the site's homepage and possibly making the account R S Wikia a member for 200 friends.

Again, I do understand there can only be 100-200 people on C Teng's Friends List. An alternative may be making a lot more people able to kick, so if anyone starts making trouble, they are booted off.

I would really like this changed, Prayer Jediadam4 (Talk) Bandosgodsword.gif 07:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To visit the forums thread, click here.


weak-support-I think the clan chat does require some limitation and further monotering. But there are some users non wikians who deserve a chance. Yet on the other hand there has been a lot of vandal attacks both on the wikia and on the clan chat. I think we just need a list off users with there wiki name and rs name and give them a number. When a mod request their number because of a suspision we could look that up. This is just a suggestion... God Of War 07:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Support -But it would be tricky to find such a method --

Abyssal whip detail.pngYeah1101Dragon sq shield detail.png

12:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - as I've said before, we've already tried this and R S Wikia ran out of friends space within hours. A clan chat for only 200 friends is frankly not an option because there would be a lot of editors left out. I'm open to alternatives but this isn't one of them. Andrew talk 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - as per Solier 1033. I do support allowing more users to kick, but there should be very strict limits on what they can and cannot kick for. Supertech1 TCE 21:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - We have over 226+ active users with Wikia accounts (I'm not even going to link...), and anywhere from 100% to 500% of that in active non-registered users. If we were to make it exclusive, only 200 people would get to use the chat, right? Wrong. R_S_Wikia is F2P, so it only has 100 slots on its friends list. That's unfair to the other 55% of our active users who won't be able to get in.

Also, new users are joining at a rate of around 10+ a day with many also going inactive every day. We would constantly have to maintain who does and doesn't get on the list.

And how are we to know if someone is active on our site? Many people use the forums mainly, thus getting perhaps one edit every few days. Some people have an account but only use the wiki to look up things.

All in all, it's unfair and far too much of a hassle. I say if they know about the Clan Chat, they should be allowed in. Though, I say anyone with a rank should be allowed to kick, but if anyone abuses their kick powers they'd get de-ranked. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 21:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I oppose limiting the clan chat. It is just likelimiting the users who can edit, and the point of the wikia is that any user can edit. I feel that we need to come up with some kind of chat restrictions (ex. speaking about the war should be directed to another chat, as this is often a heated discussion) that can be implemented where a kick can be supported. I also feel that "Kicking games", and ranking people to play "Kicking games" should not be allowed.

Bonziiznob Talk

22:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - As Chiafriend12. R S Wikia is F2P and capable of holding 100 friends. When having over 250 active users... Even when we make R S Wikia member. It's just impossible. Buzz (Talk#P ) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - per everyone else who opposed so far. I'd say we still need to admins/b'crats with kick powers, but other than that, its should be open to everyone. What if someone finds out about the wiki via the clan chat? Its reasonable to say someone would do so. If they couldn't get in the chat, they may well be put off editing the wiki, and they could turn out to be a very valuble editor. So leave it open! Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Even if R S Wikia was a member, 200 would not be enough to hold all the active users. A actually have not seen any problem with opening the channel to all people, because hardly anyone else knows about it. There has never been "chaos" in the channel. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 03:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Almost every rank can have kicking powers, except for the ranks that are only used in Wikifests. Those are the Costume Contest ranks, and I don't think we need anyone less than a Lieutenant to kick. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 03:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - There has been "chaos" in the CC numerous times. You, C Teng, just wasn't on it at the time...

Prayer Jediadam4 (Talk) Bandosgodsword.gif 04:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. There has been a lot of problems and this is one way to fix themPatronusMongoose 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - How? It is impossible to recruit all the active users. And you have no idea how much work it would take to do that, even if we could. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose There lacks a method of allowing in IP address users and those who play under a name other than their wikia name. Fron the arguements here and in the forum, it sounds like some people desire control of the "official" chat for use as their private chat. If they wish a safe from reporting place for their selected friends among the Wikia. Seems like they should set up such a chat. However, if the "official clan chat" of the Wikia is not open to anyone (even a visitor) whoo has visited the Wikia, then I argue it is pointless. Wikia is about the open exchange of information. Here I see a great deal of suspicion and unsupported fear. For example, the recent post by one person here includes a accusation of being reported by a mod. Later he apologized for this assertion as he had misunderstood something in the message I applaud his apology}. Then another member used the situation to proclaim the need to limit the chat to members with user pages. Again, there is no evidence that the report came from someone without a user page. If private chats are desired, set them up. If a chat for the Wikia is to be set-up (and I like that idea), then leave it open for users. RumplePug 19:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Super Strong Oppose - <Rant> This is just ridiculous.

  • First off, there are only 100 spaces on R S Wikia's friends list. More than half of the editors here would be left out. That defeats the purpose of having a CC in the first place.
  • Secondly, how could we monitor who is active and who's not? C Teng would have to be updating the list all the time. Can you imagine how tiresome that would be?
  • Finally, it goes against everything the wiki stands for. Our motto is 'Welcome to the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki devoted to the MMORPG RuneScape that anyone can edit!' If we limit the CC, we are also potentially limiting new users. What if someone came on the CC to announce that they were new and ask for some help in creating a userpage, only to get kicked?!

I am totally against this policy. I think that a lot of the trouble on the CC has been over things like this (see on the forums the topic 'What happened?'). Maybe we do need more kickers, or maybe we need less. I don't know. But this is almost paranoia. </Rant> ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  05:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

EDIT! - This is nearly a month old... I have new ideals... I don't believe the same things, read what I have recently posted for my current opinion. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 08:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support for 1 As per many supporters, I believe in AEAE

Rankings and Kicking powers[edit | edit source]

We can't recruit everyone. It's impossible. Event if R S Wikia were a member, 200 would not be able to hold every single user, especially since we are getting more users all the time. It would be way too much work to get the right recruits in. So we can't do that. However, Jedi suggested giving more people kicking powers, and I agree. A lot of the time, no one with kicking powers is on the Clan Chat. Currently, only Fest Mods (Lieutenants), Sysops (Captains), and Bureaucrats (Generals) can kick. I think we should give all rollbackers kicking powers. Rollbackers are not ranked right now, but I think ranking them would be a good idea.See below I think we should get rid of the corporal and sergeant ranks, because they are only used to mark people who are judges or contestants in Wikifest Costume Contests. This doesn't work, because Bureaucrats, Admins, and Fest Mods would not be marked because they are already marked as Generals, Captains, and Lieutenants. This is how I think we should make the Clan Chat system:

Kicking Powers would be given to Lieutenants+

People who are currently corporals and sergeants would still be in the Costume Contest, but they would not be ranked for it. The "Fest Mod (Lieutentant)" rank would be replaced by Rollbackers certain trusted users, because nothing really defines what a Fest Mod is, and all Fest Mods right now are Rollbackers anyway.

So that's how I think we should rank people in the R S Wikia Clan Chat channel. Anyone agree? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 17:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Ya i can agree with this. Buzz (Talk#P ) 17:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - That sounds good. Basically, to sum it up, I just want the people that are causing trouble to "go away", and this might fix it. There are a lot of rollbackers, so if they start abusing their powers on the CC, they can easily be punished on the Wikia. If there a sounds like a decent solution, though it still may not be perfect. However, I'm not sure whether we could achieve perfectinre only 2-3 people on the chat, and no rollbackers, I guess we can just get off the chat and ignore the trouble maker. Thisg. =) Thanks C Teng. This will be like medicine, not a vaccination though. Prayer Jediadam4 (Talk) Bandosgodsword.gif 18:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - InstantWinston suggested that instead of giving Rollbackers kicking powers, we give it to frequent Clan Chat users. Some Rollbackers don't use the CC, and there are many trustworthy players that aren't Rollbackers on R S Wikia. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 18:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support It was partially my idea anyway, so I obviously support it.

InstantWinstonDragon 2h sword old.pngold edits | new edits

18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment C Teng, you wrote: "InstantWinston suggested that instead of giving Rollbackers kicking powers, we give it to frequent Clan Chat users. Some Rollbackers don't use the CC, and there are many trustworthy players that aren't Rollbackers on R S Wikia." Yes. Good idea. I feel I fall under this category even though I am not a rollbacker or anything higher. How about be give all rollbackers kicking power, and then also give it to trusted CC users? Edit: I became a rollbacker today, even though I still keep my views on this issue. Prayer Jediadam4 (Talk) Bandosgodsword.gif 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, most Rollbackers would fall under the category of Trusted Users, so we'll only rank those who go on the chat. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 19:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - now that this chat is the "official" chat. Rollback can be granted very easily and is not done through a community process, and there are probably quite a few who would be eligible for rollback but not trustworthy yet for kicking. While we were using Ilyas' chat, there were some untrustworthy rollbackers (whose names I will not mention). From my experience, whenever I have gone on, there was always at least 1 admin. Also, we have an ignore list. So, basically, since there's no community process for this, I oppose. Butterman62 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we decided not to use Rollback, but trusted users who are not administrators. Look at the comments above. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 21:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay. But who defines "trusted"? Butterman62 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, the same way we do it with RfAs. The player could request it on the channel, and the captains would decide. Or we could make a subpage on RuneScape:Clan Chat for it, similar to RfAs. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 23:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but if and only if we do it with an RfA-like process. Conditional support. Butterman62 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per above!

Bonziiznob Talk

07:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note: All users presently with rank should not have it revoked because of this change. When creating a new wikia, inexperienced sysops are common to help start it up. They are not required to complete an RfA afterwards to keep their rights. All existing Lieutenants should keep their rank, and future ones be appointed by community afterwards. 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - C-mods (chat mods), for the win! Supertech1 TCE 19:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Many times have we needed to kick a user, but theres no user with kicking rights around. This would prove useful. --— Enigma 01:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here and on the discussion below, it looks like we've agreed to get rid of the Fest rankings and replace them with trusted users with kicking powers. Discuss how they will be chosen here. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 03:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from subpage[edit | edit source]

There have been several violations of lately, and I wanted to outline a few, and discuss why (or why not) these policies need to be followed on the R S Wikia cc.

  • Assume Good Faith - This is a big one, and it has been bothering me since my return to RuneScape. Our motto for the Wikia is "The RuneScape Wiki - The RuneScape fansite that anyone can edit!" Major emphasis on anyone. We are different from other fansites because anyone can edit. Small pieces of information are added constantly, making our articles more comprehensive and complete that any other fansite. And regardless of how many registered editors we have, a fair amount of our content comes from anonymous editors. We must assume that anybody who joins our community (even anonymously) is here to better the encyclopedia. This is the same for our cc. We must assume that anyone who joins (registered on the wiki or not) is there to learn about us and potentially help us in the end. By requiring somebody to register before they are allowed to participate in the cc, we are only driving people away. There are many reasons why somebody might not want to register, and we have no right to require them to. If somebody joins the cc who doesn't have an account here, maybe they want to learn about us, or get to know some of the people in the community. I have seen too many people kicked out of the cc because they aren't "registered." We don't revert every edit and block IP's because they aren't registered.

  • User Treatment Policy - This one is violated often as well. I constantly see people calling each other names, flaming other user's when they're not logged on, or talking "crap" about somebody because of a previous scuffle. Harassing, instigating, arguing, flaming, name-calling, kicking (blocking on the wiki) are not tolerated on the encyclopedia, and should not be tolerated on the cc either. I understand people will always have opposing views, but getting in a heated argument with them will never solve problems or allow them to come to a reasonable conclusion. Everything can be solved while remaining calm, and discussing possible scenarios, reasons, solutions, etc. The constant "power struggle" as some have referred to it as is immature, as all editors are equal. Just because you can kick, doesn't mean you should. Misuse of sysop tools on the encyclopedia can result in them being revoked, and you receiving a ban. Every sysop signed this prior to taking the responsibility. Excessive kicking/threatening/disregard for policy in the cc should have the exact same consequences.

  • We also have been having issues with spamming, which is very immature, and does not belong in the cc. If you feel the need to act childish, use say chat, not cc.

  • Another issue is political discussions. While they are not disallowed on the Wikia, they are not things to bring up in community discussions. Users are free to discuss their political views, but on talk pages. The same should apply in cc. If you want a political discussion, more power to you!... in private messages, or join a different cc. They often lead to arguements, harassment, and violation of UTP.

I would like to get everyone's opinions here, as the drama has been getting worse, and several people have been driven away from the cc. If you notice more issues, please add them above. Please discuss below.

Discussion[edit | edit source]

Thank you, Karlis. People like Doucher4000 and Jediadam4, while normally nice and helpful, have been hindering the chat with their paranoia; I'd say half of the people driven away from the chat, like you mentioned, were because of their overly-scrutinous eyes and worries about potential "spies". First off, why would someone spy on the wiki? Second, what does it matter if they do? And finally...stop worrying about them, since Karlis is right - not ALL of the unfamiliar people are vandals/spies. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)

All the rules you offered except the one about not letting people without a userpage go into the CC. While anyone can edit the Wikia, that doesn't mean we should be the same elsewhere. This is the RuneScape Wikia. What is someone from another fan site went to our CC, and reported every one of us for advertising because we said to look something up on the RuneScape Wiki? This is just an extra precaution. All users should have to do is make an account, this takes less then a couple minutes. And then they're welcome. Prayer Jediadam4 (Talk) Bandosgodsword.gif 23:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

While I understand your dilemma with advertising, if we do not advertise websites, and simply uses wiki terms, we will be safe. I'm sure many users like to remain anonymous, and it's not our call to force them to register. That's the beauty of the wiki. =D Karlis (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved from talk page - i belive you are quite right and a agree espaily with the spaming and swearing that must stop as sum1 entered clan and said "f*** you all" or something like that witch was uncalled from and i belive it was some on a sub accont 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Every suggestion/rule would do well to better our Clan Chat, but I wonder on a few subjects. One is that about JAGeX finally embracing RuneScape Fansites, will this lead to additional knowledge about the Wiki and the Clan Chat? Will this increase the use of Clan Chat? Will this increase usage? I truly believe that this will help us as we are not supposed to behave as we have done. While many bouts have occurred on the Clan Chat, fewer exist here. I would like to point out an example:

  • Loon393: Made three visits to the Clan Chat - He had been kicked all three times. His first comment was "Doucher? That's a noob name." (D4K's name was blocked out). On his second trip was when Stulled was on and Was kicked almost instantly by Stinkowing (And He did deserve it this time) for saying "You all are a bunch of mother ******* and..." (Forgot rest of it). His third time was him getting on with this sentence, "Please do not kick me," and the rest was like, "I will behave accordingly." He was here for 3 minutes then got kicked.

While I do see his kick as deserving to a degree, I say that this is what keeps people from enjoying the knowledge here, or not just taking their frustration out in the CC, but here on the Wiki as Vandalism. Ryan PM 00:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Karlis, please see this thread, here. If he was muted/banned for simply saying someone's name so it isn't censored, aren't you concerned about getting blocked for advertising? I certainly am. I have worked hard on my account and don't want it banned. Jagex takes advertising far more serious then offensive language. - Prayer Jediadam4 (Talk) Bandosgodsword.gif 02:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Jedi, first off. Please go make your sig temp the way it says to in Yew grove. Please. Second, just saying wiki isn't going to get you in trouble. And if your really worried about it, its easy enough to just not say it. Stop wanting to exclude people. This is not that type of community. And really, it would be no trouble for some one to set up an account then go to the CC and report you for whatever anyhow. So just be careful waht you say and you will be fine. Its pretty easy.--Degenret01 04:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Abolish the rule about needing a userpage to go on the CC. WE ARE A WIKI, PEOPLE! This means we don't exclude. If someone reports, it's a simple matter to kick them. It's only a CC. Assume good faith. It's simple. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  07:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Whew, thank you Karlis for putting this on your userpage and not on the Lag Grove.
I agree with what Stinko said: there is nothing to spy on. In addition, I agree with Degenret said: we shouldn't exclude people just because they have no account on the wiki. And about the advertising... I don't think that's going to happen, Jedi. How do you know that Jagex takes advertising more seriously than offensive language? I know this has been mentioned before, but if you saw Jagex's recent poll, they were asking people which social networking sites they used and provided a huge list of them to choose from, which technically is advertising.  Tien  14:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for bringing it here: Yew Grove freezes up my internet.
Anyway. As I said in the CC last night, we should really behave in the CC like we would on the Wiki. Most of that is easy enough because most of it is taken from Jagex's rules, which we follow in the first place. However, the User Treatment Policy, AEAE, and similar policies need to be applied as well.
This means that:
  • People who do not speak should be left be. Consider them like editors, just inactive ones.
  • People who are disruptive, troll, flame, spam, etc. should be kicked. Repeated or severe instances should be brought to C Teng's/R S Wikia's knowledge, who may then ignore the user, effectively perma-banning him/her.
And if we're worried about spies, there's one thing we could do... simply refrain from advertising. If you need to alert an admin/crat, let them know through private chat; most of them have their PM's open. If that doesn't work, ask them to add you for a moment, and then tell them through PM.
4k's currently-used idea of referring to the Wiki as W is a great idea, too.
If someone asks for help on a quest, or something, don't tell them to look it up. Not only should they know that they can do that if they're using the CC of a fansite, but so can anyone else; if possible (I know some people can't because of internet/RAM problems), ask what part they are at, and then use the advice on it's page.
I'll keep thinking for more thoughts, too. --Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 15:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
God of War had the idea of temporarily closing the chat (if possible) and getting people to vote on users who should get ranks. Should we do that?  Tien  18:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that heated discussion and arguments should cease, but to not allow discussions about politics and religion is not the way to go about it. Arguments can be caused over any number of things (gp's vs coins, best looking evil twin, PC vs SW). Most wikians should understand that any arguing should not occur, but to limit what subjects people can and cannot talk about should not happen. If president Obama was found with a dead hooker...could we not discuss it?‎Cooked chicken.pngAtlandy 18:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess some more guidelines would have to be included with arguing. But what I was referring to was more along the lines of arguing with another user to the point of swearing/yelling, or bringing up things only for the sake of arguing. If I didn't have a supervisor next to me, I'd add more. >.< Karlis (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me see if I can sneakin a few more words. What I would call "arguing" would be any discussion that is no longer a civil conversation. Sure, it's completely health for us to discuss and debate topics. However, when flaming, swearing, blaming, etc is introduced, it has become an arguement. I have also seen users continually argue that "We should be able to do xxxxxxxx in cc!" Afterwards, many users have tried co calmly discuss why we couldn't/shouldn't do that, and the user repeatedly shouted "We should be able to do xxxxxxx." This was followed by spam, after the user was repeatedly asked to stop and calm down. I don't want to point fingers, but this situation came to mind. I'm sure it's very clear what the difference between an argument and a discussion/debate is. It would be hard to put limitations on it, but it's something where if people ask you to stop, you need to stop.

God of War had the idea of temporarily closing the chat (if possible) and getting people to vote on users who should get ranks. Should we do that?

Well, I don't know about closing the chat, but I believe that it needs to be re-structured, and people need to be voted powers, rather than them given at will by the clan owner. As we are a community, the clan isn't "owned" by any one person. If this becomes an issue, then perhaps somebody else should create the clan account. But as it stands now, I see of a lot people threatening to kick, or advertising their ability to kick as if they're flaunting it. This is immature to me, and needs to be stopped. I move for a vote of re-structuring the way ranks are distributed, and a method on-wiki to vote one into kicking powers on the CC. (Getting busy at work, I'll add more later.) Karlis (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. Perhaps we should establish a poll on the forums about whether to redistribute ranks or not? I would do it now, but I'll wait until someone gives me or another user permission to do so.  Tien  19:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
"I move for a vote of re-structuring the way ranks are distributed, and a method on-wiki to vote one into kicking powers on the CC." I agree 100%. The clan chat is out of control, I think that less people should have the power to kick, as this seems to lead to problems and as karlis said, people "flaunting it". Also, I wish something could be done to remove the whole aspect of one person "owning" the Clan Chat. From what I can recall, however, accounts cannot be shared by multiple people, correct? --Rollback crown.svgAburnett001 {Talk} {#} 19:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
That's right, Aburn.
Instead of removing the ranked trusted users outright without a second thought, though, I say we put them through whatever ranking process is decided ASAP. If we go to RFL (Request for Lutientship), all ranked users who are not ranked because of adminship, forum adminship, or cratship, should have one as soon as the process goes live. This includes me, Jedi, Doucher, Tien, and Water Kunai. Unrank once the RFL for that user has begun; if it is successful, the user is given his/her rank back; if not, then the user is stripped of the rank. --Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 20:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Account sharing is not allowed, correct. I wasn't saying that we need to change it now, but simply was suggesting if one person has issues with this or is found incapable of upholding the rules and policies, that perhaps somebody else should take over the responsibility. I also like the idea of RFL, and perhaps a poll about re-ranking. However, I think we need more of a community concensus rather than a majority-rules. Maybe for now, or rather once we come to agreement here, we can work out who will get what ranks, and come up with a process for the future. Obviously we can't change a whole lot right now as this discussion is one day old, but we can prepare for the future. I think we should not promote anyone else right now though, and those who have kicking powers should be directed to this page as not everyone has contributed to the discussion. Sigh, getting busy again, this is lame. I'll write more later. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"People like Doucher4000 and Jediadam4, while normally nice and helpful, have been hindering the chat with their paranoia; I'd say half of the people driven away from the chat, like you mentioned, were because of their overly-scrutinous eyes and worries about potential "spies"." - Talking behind people's backs like that?

Let me make myself clear on some issues:

  • Spies: If you do not believe Spies are a real issue, consider going here: It is obvious that that the issues is real. And, why would xomeone spy? - Same reason why some people vandalise the Wiki itelf. Also, some people are forgetting that C Teng originally wanted only people that sign up here at the wikia to be able to join the CC. Unfortunately, we could not do that, so now we have to try our best to maintain Wikians-only environment. Anyone who has a better way then requiring everyone to have a userpage can sugest it right away. This CC was not meant as a way to introduce new people to the Wikia, as this would require Breaking Rule 11.
  • "Bad" Discussions - as with our Forums, Discussions about Politics, Religion, And arguable topics (like abortions, and such), are to be forbidden. Someone sarting such discussions should be stopped, and if attempts to repeat, kicked.
  • The Purpose of the CC - It is not for inviting new people to the Wikia, as I already said, as it would require Breaking Rule 11. It is not for chatting with Friends, we have PM's for that. It is for Discussions between Wikians, Editing/vandalism help, And Wikia Events.
  • Ranks - The more the better. I always ask other Ranked people in the CC before Taking any action. If there are no ranked people on, there's nobody to enforce any rules. Whipped Cream?Doucher4000I'll eat you! 22:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to debunk your claim of breaking Rule 11. Our CC is only available on the wiki, therefore the users has already found our website prior to joining. We advertised nothing on RuneScape, as they found our channel here. Therefore, no rule has been broken.
RuneScape Wiki note: Note that it says not to "advertise" and "web address", rather than "mention". You can discuss and mention well known RuneScape fansites, as long as you don't take it out of that context. Remember never to mention any URLs in-game, or to tell others what to search for in order to find it. This was taken directly from Rules of RuneScape.
Furthermore, It is for Discussions between Wikians, who are you (or anyone for that matter) to omit anonymous editors as a wikian? They are every bit important to this community as you are. If for any reason you feel any sense of superiority to them, then please refer to this.
Spying on us in the CC is silly. You aren't going to be banned for saying "Look it up on the wiki." I assure you, Jagex has far more important things to worry about. We have several player moderators in our channel who say things like that, and they're fine. Furthermore, if somebody is in the cc to "spy" or "vandalize" by being crude, annoying, whichever, they'd simply get a boot.
And the ranking issue is nothing more that a way to "show your power over others." We don't need to utilize every rank possible for every person. If somebody questions an action of yours (as far as booting someone from cc) then can bring it up, and you can argue your case. We don't need to go through the "chain of command" before an action is made. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me Degen, I just made my sig that way. Getting to the point, I completely agree with what D4K wrote above Karlis, 100%. Our CC should be that way and run under those rules. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 23:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
So you are saying that we all need to be paranoid about every single unfamiliar person that joins the cc because they're out to get us. ? Not hardly. We're not a registered-users only website, out IRC isn't either, nor should our CC be. We also don't need a rank for every person, as we're all equal. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Every time someone mentions spies or rankings, I think of little kids in their tree house. Just had to mention that. Perspective and all.--Degenret01 00:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I did not read this entire article, I did read some. Firstly, yesterday I implemented several rules that were discussed in the grove and on the forum, specifically for the reason that we needed rules at the present time, and considering nothing was done and the discussion about the rules was moved to the archives with no implementation of the discussed, I went ahead and did so. Now, to discuss the mentioned. I must agree completely with Karlis. All users, regardless of who, should be allowed to use the CC until reason is given to dis-allow it. I also agree with Atlandy, in the reason that politics and religion should be allowed. I have mixed opinions on this, and I'm not entirely sure if I posted before to not allow this, but I do know I posted before that this topic should not be dis-included from the chat, but in the event it becomes heated, then users with the rights to kick reserve the right to refer the chat to another CC.

Bonziiznob Talk

01:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Degen, every time I look at my account I look at 5 years of hard work I don't want to lose. -_- Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 02:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Jedi, what are you talking about? HOW can you lose your account? IF you follow the rules of Runescape, then you are FINE. FOLLOW THE RULES, and you can't get in trouble. PERIOD. --Degenret01 03:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to get angry. I deal with these things calmly, as if I am resting in some clouds on a warm summer's day. My answer is simple: most of the people who report people for simply trying to get a message to someone, such as trying to tell Doucher4000 something, are not Wikianw that have put enough effort in to make an account. If we close off the CC to only Wikians, then I avoid getting muted or banned. I thought someone of your experience and level would know the banning and muting process and rules that Jagex has implemented. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 06:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont get angry . Just because you repeat yourself again and again and again and never actually say anything is no reason for me to get upset. I roll my eyes, but thats it. The idea that limiting the CC would protect you just makes absolutely no sense at all. --Degenret01 06:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As a on-looker to this discussion, it seems that the problem might be the word "official". If this is the official Wiki CC, then it should be governed by the same ideals and guidlines as the Wikia itself. Once you limit who can join, it stops being "official". Just an opinion from the sidelines. --Lestatjh3 13:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support - I think that Rollbackers should have kicking powers, and Fest Mods shouldn't. When we're on the wiki, rollbackers are in a higher position than Fest mods. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  05:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I support this but it is not ideal to me. But I just guess that will never happen. Rollbackers that aren't trusted users should not be able to kick. Anyone can just go on a 'crat's talk and get one... Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 08:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong-Oppose All players should have a chance of getting the right to kick. We need elections and all users that currently have the rank and want to retain it should go through an election process this includes sysops, bureaucrats, and trusted users. Since we already have a few instances of "power abuse" we need to get rid of those who do wrong with their rank.... God Of War 16:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sum of my opinions:

Assume good faith - Support
User treatment policy - Support, except for on-wiki banning - it is unfair to ban someone based on accusations of in-chat power abuse, because they are extremely hard to prove and extremely easy to fake.
Spamming - Support
Politics - Oppose - this just seems too harsh. I think we should use the old chat's rules on politics.

Butterman62 (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

RFKP[edit | edit source]

I'm sorry as this is my first time visiting this page. I have a proposal. What if on the RFA page we could have something called a RFKP (Request for kicking powers)? It would be different then an RFA.

  • Only people with 25+ edits can vote
  • Must have join the R S Wikia adleast 10 times
  • RFKP lasts only 1 week
  • There can only be 2 people running at a time (To ensure no confusion)
  • There can be
    • # Neutrals
    • # Against
    • # Support
    • # Note
    • # Pending
    • # Comment
    • Those voting styles are to be used.
  • You cannot self-nominate.
  • Person running cannot be an I.P.
  • Add more to this list if needed (ANYONE can edit this list, I give them permisson)

Support, or Against.

ço¬Ø 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Pending. I see several mistakes, in that order:

  1. some people only use Forums.
  2. no way to really proove that. How about making it "Must be known on the CC?"
  3. This will become a race of who can get their RFKA's first.
  4. I see no problem with self-nomination in that system.

I believe "CC Admins", Such as Myself, Jediadam4, Water Kunai1, Pikaanpi and others, Must have different List of Requirements:

  1. Must have been a Wikian for over 1 month
  2. Actively Uses the CC
  3. Has to be Active in the Community.
  4. No RFA, preferrably.

Whipped Cream?Doucher4000I'll eat you! 23:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why cant this just be simple: crats can boot admins can boot rollbackers can boot wikians. No fest mods or cc admins. If you have rollback, you are obviously trusted in some way. Abuse and you lose kicking powers and whatever (admin, rollback, etc on the wiki too) This isn't rocket science‎Cooked chicken.pngAtlandy 23:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Because we find ourselves having problems with the CC being watched. Before trusted users got ranks, we went for several hours at a time without a rank present; heck, the day me and Water were ranked (a week ago last Saturday), we went roughly 6 hours without ANY rank being present AT ALL, and this is AFTER more than half our current trusted users were ranked. (note: this is before we were ranked on that day). "Spies" aside, if we had someone coming on to troll or flame, we would have waited HOURS before help arrived. That's not a pleasant thought. --Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 08:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have a rough chronology of what happened the day that we went those 6 hours without an admin. All times are EASTERN.

I got on at about 2:45 AM. Jedi, as well as a few unranked users, were in the CC already. After a couple minor dicussions about nothing important, Jedi left at roughly 3:10.

We went without any ranked user whatsoever until about 9:45 AM, when C Teng logged in. He was with us for about a half hour, in which we discussed the previous 6 1/2 hours. Shortly before C Teng left, he went on R S Wikia, and ranked both me and Water Kunai. Water left about 20 minutes later, and I was the only rank for about another half-hour, before another admin came on (I forget which one, but I think it was Kytti). A few minutes after the admin came on, I left to get breakfast.

We regained our stability after that, but the point is clear; there are simply not enough admins and Crats to have the CC covered at pratically all times. In fact, there are still quite a few times that we would be without ranks if the Trusted Users weren't present, especially in the early Eastern Mornings when Jedi, and occasionally me when my insomnia kicks in, are the only ones monitoring the clan chat. We can't afford to do without them. --Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 08:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

So, it sounds like we need ranked users that cover all times of day... if possible, we need to get a list of users who use the clan chat in the morning, in the afternoon, at night, and after midnight in a certain time zone, and then pick out trusted users from each time of day.  Tien  13:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose with current rule suggestion. - 1. People should be able to self nominate. What is bad about that? 2. If only 2 people could run at once, and we had a dozen people in line, that would take months! Unlimited amounts of people should be able to run at once. I am on there almost all the time on my school days 6pm-2am (Eastern time) and sometimes I stay up until 5 or 6 am eastern. But I live on the Pacific coast. We need to have more trusted kickers, but not rollbackers. Someone could become a rollbacker 1/2 an hour after visiting this site for the first time! I am fine with there being no admins on, but we need kickers, even if they are such ranks as Doucher4000 and myself. If we had a flamer on when no one ranked was on, a new Wikian could join and quit the Wiki because these "Wikians" were rude to him/her. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 19:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Colo's suggestion, Mostly Support Doucher's: My response to Colo's echoes the replies from Jedi and Doucher. I support all but one of Doucher's suggestions: That we don't need a RFA. I do believe that ranks are basically admins, except on the CC instead of on the Wiki, and should get community consenus as such. Besides, it also helps weed out those that might abuse their power, and gives people from whom the Rank would support the CC a fair chance to get it. It doesn't need to be as long as a RFA- a week sounds fine to me. --Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think the idea behind the "2 at a time" idea is to prevent a flood of RFA's like we are currently are experiencing, however your point is a valid one. I think the idea of a community concensus is a good idea before the power is given though, to prevent "friends" or others from gaining the power from the owner. (Not in any way implying that C Teng would do that.) Karlis (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I said...You could tweak the rules if needed.. ço¬Ø 21:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Rules Proposal[edit | edit source]

Here’s my proposal for new Rules:

  1. All must follow Jagex’s 13 Rules, without questions or exceptions. However, we might have to “tweak” rule 11 – Obviously, we will have to mention, refer to, tell people to look, etc., the Wikia many times.
  2. No Flaming. This is pretty much self-explanatory. There is absolutely no need to flame anyone. Calling people Noobs is also to be considered as “light” flaming. Anyone who personally attacks another user is to be warned once, and then kicked.
  3. No Spamming. Spamming is simply childish, and is definitely unwelcome in our CC. Anyone who spams will get 2 warnings, and then get kicked.
  4. No Political, Religious, or otherwise “flammable” discussions. Those tend to turn into flame wars, which is unwelcome. Not everyone wants to hear your opinion, and some might react aggressively. Best to steer clear of such discussions altogether. Anyone trying to start such Discussion is to be warned once, and then kicked.
  5. All users are to be treated fairly and equally. As every editor is Equal, so shall every Clan Chat member be equal. If StinkoWing (Sorry, had to use you as a scapegoat) starts spamming and Flaming, he’s to be treated in same manner as anyone else.
  6. No P2P vs. F2P – I believe we should completely ban those. No “Jagex ignores f2p”, “More F2p Quests and items”, etc. Those will not lead to any action being done. This will only start a flame war, or a riot.
Does that sound good to everyone? Support or oppose, and edit if needed. Whipped Cream?Doucher4000I'll eat you! 00:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Support- I think No Spamming should be changed to Keep spamming to a minimum, as everyone has those times when they just want to plaster the screen with "W00000T" and "@@@@" after leveling up =p If its starting to drive people crazy, tell them to stop. If it continues, kick 'em. --Rollback crown.svgAburnett001 {Talk} {#} 00:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I don't mind what the rules are, just as long as they don't cause controversy. And no "unspoken" rules, please. :P  Tien  00:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's time for my thoughts on this. First off, I want to allude to the muting incident involving Doucher4000's name. In no way whatsoever does this mean we need to armor the clan chat against "spies." Such thinking is the height of paranoia. I think a certain amount of blame for this lies on Doucher4000 himself for having a username that includes a censored word. Aside from that, there is a reason he gets referred to as D4k. Using that instead of evading the chat filter (which IS reportable; what if someone had taken offense to that?) is the smart thing to do. The muted person may have only been referring to a name, but does that make it okay to refer to someone who makes a bastardized and filter-evading name of "fuck all asians" by name by evading the filter? No.

Second. Jediadam4 seems to have some concerns about getting muted in the channel. What for? Advertising? If the level of "advertising" that goes on in the channel were a problem, then every single player who has ever mentioned in-game (which, I ought to point out, is NOT censored, and neither is "wiki") would be muted. The advertising rule primarily exists to protect people against sites that break Jagex rules and sites that hack your account. Well-known and respected fansites do not fall under this category, so it's acceptable to discuss them. Also bear in mind that this is a clan chat called "R S Wikia." If you are a member of a clan and you have your own site with forums, etc, would you get in trouble for discussing your clan forums in your CC? No. No one is going to get muted in the clan chat for discussing the wiki, and any mod who actually did do that would be an utter disgrace to the Jagex team.

Now, about cc rules and such. I myself don't visit the clan chat all that often, but I usually do every day I'm on RuneScape. I see very little in the form of trouble with spammers, trolls, heated discussions that collapse into flamewars, etc. However, if other trusted members say that these problems arise, then they probably do. The only thing I really have to say about potentially controversial discussions (politics, etc) is that they should only be allowed when there's a channel mod around to keep things civil. A "blanket ban" on such topics is probably not the way to go. Besides that, I basically agree with what D4k posted above me. I would add in something about adhering to certain wiki rules, like not advertising RfAs, UotM nominations, featured article nominations, etc. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 00:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I like everything except not allowing religious/political discussions. HOLD ON! Please. I know they can degenerate into heated arguements, but most of us are mature enough to not let it get there. A brief occasional mention of this or that should not be a problem. If they start to go bad, it is easy enough to stop it, their are always kickers on now. (after a warning or two at least)(I am quite happy I have not had to kick anyone). But the ignore option still works quite well last time I checked 2 days ago. --Degenret01 00:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Jagex has been know to ban/mute for some pretty ridiculous reasons. I'm just trying to protect my account, but I love the Wiki too, so I'm not going to stop using the CC. I have put months of work into it, literally, if you add up my time played. I cherish it. Better to be safe then sorry. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 19:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Have you read the new rules that have just been implemented recently. A lot of your proposed rules are already rules... 03:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Rules (new or not) sound great. Not a lot I can say that hasn't already been said. I agree with Andorin's notes on advertising and 'blanket bans' - the wiki is obviously going to be discussed (yesterday. when I was on, it was about recent RfAs). As long as it remains a civilised discussion, and doesn't degenerate into flamewars, things like politics/religion/whatever etc can be discussed. If it does turn to a flamefest, then give warnings to the participants, and change the topic of conversation; if it continues, kick the offenders.

As far as 'spies' go, it just seems stupid. The wiki is open to everybody and anybody, should the CC not be aswell? If the first time someone finds out about the wiki is via the CC, but they get kicked, then they may well be put off joining the wiki altogether, and who's to say they couldn't be an amazing editor? They may even get angry and turn into a troll. Hence, let anyone who knows about the CC to join it, and ony kick if they are disruptive/rude/etc.

In regard to the rest of the discussion (I skim read it, sorry if I repeat anything already said here), Support the concept of RfKPs and/or RfCCA (Clan Chat Admin), but more towards Doucher4000's and Jediadam4's amendments to it. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Slight Support - While I do believe we should follow Rules 1, 2, 3, and 5; my issue lies in Rule 4. This is to say that I dislike being warned, about or for that matter, about being kicked from the Clan Chat for talking about President Obama (Saying his Name gets Kicking Threats - this has not occured recently, but have been asked to stop after saying the name); the Economic and Recovery Act; Some things that are associated with politics are just insane.

I say that this is madness in that if i were to quote Obama, I would get people wanting me to quit political discussions when it may not even be related to the quote, when I could quote Matthew Broderick from Glory; Christopher Bale from the set of Terminator Salvation; or Liam Neeson from Fallout 3 and not get a Cease and Desist Order from Ranked Wikians. But while I am quite motivated (as i am a Political Junkie) by politics, I do not think this should keep us from Stating what President Obama has said today or what He said during the Campaign season (My Favourite - "People in Rural communities who cling to their guns and religion.") that dictates someone being kicked for that offence. Although I will not go overboard on such discussions, I never let another decide my Religion or dictate how I fell in the world of Policitcs, I ask for a lighter version of this rule. Also, does sites like Sal's Realm, Rune HQ, or Tip.It have a CC with rules we might look at? Ryan PM 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's an arguable point. I think though, that discussions should be acceptable, but when it turns into more than that, it should be taken off R S Wikia CC. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rules Draft[edit | edit source]

  1. All must follow Jagex’s 13 Rules, without questions or exceptions. However, we might have to “tweak” rule 11 – Obviously, we will have to mention, refer to, tell people to look, etc., the Wiki many times.
  2. No Flaming. This is pretty much self-explanatory. There is absolutely no need to flame anyone. Calling people Noobs is also to be considered as “light” flaming. Anyone who personally attacks another user is to be warned once, and then kicked.
  3. No Spamming. Spamming is simply childish, and is definitely unwelcome in our CC. Anyone who spams will get 2 warnings, and then get kicked. This includes constant spam of Quick Chat features for the sole use of annoyance. However, we understand you may be excited when you level, and may feel the need to shout "W000000000000T!!!!!!!" when you do. Please keep this to a minimum.
  4. Keep your conversations mature and remain cool-headed. It is understood that everybody has different political, religious, moral, etc views. Discussing events or beliefs like this is okay, but preferred to go to private chat. Discussing politics in the Clan Chat is acceptable, with a few conditions. If other users ask you to please calm down or stop the discussion because it is getting out of hand, kindly do so. It is very easy for these kinds of discussions to quickly evolve into heated arguments. Should this happen, users will be given 1 warning to calm down. Should they continue, please refer to Rule 2. In short, please respect the wishes of other in the Clan Chat when discussing controversial topics.
  5. All users are to be treated fairly and equally. As every editor is Equal, so shall every Clan Chat member be equal. Just because one user has the ability to kick, does not make them immune to the rules. They are expected to follow every rule, as is every other member of the Clan Chat.

This is the draft for our current rule system. Please, if you are going to support, note that you support all of the rules. If you have an issue with one, please Support all except #, then give an explanation.

Support - These all make sense. Idk why not to support. >_< Christine 23:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Seems fair.Quest Cape hood.png Bigm2793Talk Quest Cape.png 00:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per reasons Obvious. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 00:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Butterman62 (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - These make sense in every way to keep the community working together. --Degenret01 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Everything here seems quite reasonable. Ryan PM 03:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - We should limit each player to 1 account to be ranked as R S Wikia is limited to 100 people, and as for getting Ranked, we could discuss that later, but nothing to the point of a Request for Clan Chat Adminship. Ryan PM 03:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong-Oppose Politics like religion will ALWAYS start flaming. Until this is changed i oppose. God Of War 01:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Actually just last night we had a discussion where we had 2 extremely strong viewpoints regarding our former president. While each side had very strong views, no flaming, name calling, etc. took place. People naturally will have different views, and standing up for your view is admirable. You can debate and debunk somebody's arguement without it getting negative. I commend Jedia for believing so strongly in his views, and arguing against them with several points. It shows the he doesn't buckle under pressure. You can learn a lot from the opposing side without it having to get ugly. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Support- makes alot of since.Proselyte hauberk.png floppyc5 Ancient talisman.png 02:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Strength-icon.png Hammer2092 Time |KOTA Bandos godsword.png 18:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Support! Abyssal whip detail.pngFerrelShadowDark bow.png 19:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

SUPPORT- I've read through it thrice, and agree with all of them, especially No. 4 :) --- 21:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment – We also need to make up punishments. Such as blocks on the Wiki itself for flaming on the CC, etc. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 22:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment- "Such as blocks on the Wiki itself" That's not allowed, per RS:NOT#OFFSITE, right? --Rollback crown.svgAburnett001 {Talk} {#} 01:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - These sound like fair and appropriate rules, all of them. I think it's a good idea to have policy about the CC so we can all be on the same page. PS - Thanks for letting us w00t when we level. I promise not to get out of hand, lol. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 03:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Support- Sounds fair. Read through it 4 times.Total agreement. Iloveaboy2 07:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we need to add those 2:

  • No begging for ranks
  • No advertising your RfA on the CC.

Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 22:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Support However, I think that there should be rules regarding politics and relgion in the clan chat, as there can be situations in which they become very heated. But right now this is a good start. Guthix cloak.pngInvincibility |Talk| |Edit Count| Magic.png 02:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

CC, open or closed?[edit | edit source]

Our second issue to address is whether the Clan Chat should be open for all users, I.P. to Wikia Staff, or only for registered and above users.

  1. Our Clan Chat should be available to all users, whether they register or not. As our community relies on anonymous edits, people who have not signed up should still be able to participate in the Clan Chat. They are still held accountable to the same rules, but will be given a "heads-up" if they are breaking any of our rules.
  2. Our Clan Chat should only be available to registered users. This means that somebody who enters the Clan Chat must be registered on the RuneScape Wiki. If they are not registered, they are told they must, and given the opportunity to. They will be informed of the consequences should the should they not register, and if they don't comply, they will be removed from the Clan Chat.

These are the two options really. Please Support for 1 or Support for 2. Please also specify why you believe it should be that way.

Support for 1 - All editors are equal. Christine 23:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support 1 I think the first option would be the best. After all, our slogan(or so I think it is a slogan) is "Welcome to the RuneScape Wiki the wiki devoted to the MMORPG RuneScape that anyone can edit!. I'm sure enough that "Anyone" refers to IPs/Anon editors. I think it would be nice if we did the same thing to the clan chat also. Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 23:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for 1 - I don't think we should exclude unregistered users just because they haven't made an account. It's their choice if they don't want to make one, and we should respect their decision.  Tien  23:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for 1 - If theres a problem with allowing everyone in chat we could always switch.Quest Cape hood.png Bigm2793Talk Quest Cape.png 00:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Problems have already arisen. People have gotten reported, There has been spam, trolling, flaming, etc. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 00:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for 1 I agree but also anyone who knows about the wiki may join if they want its their desicion to make an account i think... =P Hunter Waterkunai1 Dragon claw.png 00:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for 2. It is called "R S Wikia", so I fail to see why any random person may join it. It takes 2 Seconds to create an Account. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 00:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for 2. Per Doucher4000. I will stand up for what I believe in, even if it won't happen. If people are so serious into the Wiki to join the CC, they should be into the Wiki enough to make an account. We could simply link to the account creation page from the Clan chat page. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 01:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for 1 All editors are equal and anyone who wants it different can start thier own little clan somewhere else. This is the Wiki CC, and should be based on Wiki principles. Everyone is welcome --Degenret01 02:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for 1 - It should be open to all as the Wiki itself is. It does not make sense for the Clan Chat to be any different. Ryan PM 02:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Do you think someone we force to make an account would not report some here anyways? Also, it would be nice for us to not be dictators within this limited subject as we might ward off some IP's or some new players. IMO - For the best interest in the Wiki, it would be devastating to require players to make an account (Also, have you noticed how many accounts are here, but how few people actually use them?). Ryan PM 03:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment - You cannot post on the Forums without an account. What can you say about that? Remember, we cannot tell people to use the Wikia in-game in any way. Refering to it, maybe, but "Use/Go to Runescape Wikia", or something like that, is 100% against the rules. So, Only people that would know about the CC have already been here. Also, about spies - Some people vandalise the Wiki. Why? No idea. We revert that, rollback, undo, etc, but this is still annoying. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 04:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I only say that why must we force people to make an Account? We don't tell them to Use the Wiki, we say that we use the Wiki, we do not Advertise it, we Mention it. Saying "I used the Runescape Wiki for thier Thieving Guide, it helped me greatly" does not constitute as Advertising. Also, if you remember, so people are IP's and would make an account if they wanted to, but would dislike being Required to do so. Ryan PM 04:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment - We "force" them to make an account if they want to use the forums. Would you say doing that forces them to create an account? We ask them to create one, not force them. You make an account, you get the benefits. Easy as that. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
How about the IRC then?-- 04:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment - You get the benifits, but then why should we Support for 2 if this is how you feel? And the ask is not asking, but forcing them to make one if you support for 2, because kicking them is the only other option on the 2nd, and there is no reason to kick someone because they have a question for example, they can post practically anything in Talk with their IP address, so why not do the same in the CC? Finally, if we are to kick people off the CC for not having an Account, although there is no reasonable way to Prove this as Christine made quite clear over the past week. So should we also ban punish IP's for not having an Account? (I am stopping here as it seems to be going too far, and I do not mean any bouts against you, D4K, or any other person that chooses the same idea.) Ryan PM 05:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment - The only reason people are forced to create an account to use the forums is because of technical limitations with the PhPBB forum software that Wikia is currently using. . -Byte_Master bytesig2.png bytesig3.png 11:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for 1 - Per Christine and Degenret. All editors are equal. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Suppor for 2 We can not tolerate non wikians on the CC. They have already reported C Teng once and we can not risk him or anyone from the community getting a ban or muted because some kid decided it would be funny to report us. God Of War 01:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That is no reasoning. All RS rules still apply. If someone is breaking those rules, then it is perfectly acceptable for anyone to report them for that rule. Wikians are not exempt. Christine 02:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
comment C teng was reported for no reason whatsoever. Jagex has bad customer support they pretty much shoot first and ask questions later. I stand firm by support for 2. Im not encouraging anyone to break the rules; its just a risk we can easily avoid, but people fail to see the big picture. God Of War 04:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
And I'm telling you that random people, who are probably ip editors if they know about the chat, are not the only ones who will report people who break the rules. I will report anyone who breaks the rules in that chat, regardless of who they are. You say that C Teng didn't even do anything. Well if that's the case then why the hell are you trying to blame someone else for reporting him? He can appeal it and it will be fine. Christine 21:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for 1 - not only is option 2 a bit harsh toward newcomers, it would be nearly impossible to enforce. Butterman62 (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for 1 - I believe Wiki CC is more based on community and not editting. SummoningSernions 14:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for 2 - My personal feelings is that the person should have ties to the Wikia in some formal manner to be in the clan chat. Some stipulations should be given for those not registered. A simple user page listing the person RS user name. Give them 3 free visits or a week to get it up on the wikia. Will this be a perfect solution? No. But it should start out with some requirement. Strength-icon.png Hammer2092 Time |KOTA Bandos godsword.png 19:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for 2 It would be too risky to let others in, lest they report us for rule 11, which most of us would soon get black marks for. 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Support 1 RS:AEAE- everyone should be allowed to use our clan chat. Also, think about RS:AGF. People who are paranoid that people are going to report users for things they didn't do sound a little paranoid to me. Our assumption should be that people are going to come to our cc to have fun and chat with other wikians, not try and sabotage the wiki and its members. --Rollback crown.svgAburnett001 {Talk} {#} 01:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support for 1 - I think openness and inclusion should apply to the wiki CC chat as well as the wiki. These values are what attract new wikians to join our community and contribute. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 03:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support for 1 - Option 2 is equivalent with closing the wiki itself to people we don't know. It shows that new editors are unwelcome to the community as a whole.

The paranoia that we'd be reported for rule 11 is entirely unbased, this has not happened yet with the currently open CC, and logically will never happen. Having a clan chat dedicated to a third-party site is not advertising, as we all (1) come from said site, (2) have not told anybody who does not know of the site already, as they had to have come from the site to have found the chat, and (3) never mention the URL in the channel. Anyone that actually is reported can appeal based on these 3 simple principles.

On top of it all, we have no way of actually enforcing option 2 effectively. The only way to do so is to use the "Friends Only" option on the R_S_Wikia account, but even then, that space is limited to 100 people.

We don't force users to register for anything else, we shouldn't force them to register to use what is nothing more than a simple chat channel. I'd prefer we steer away from violating our own policy. -Byte_Master bytesig2.png bytesig3.png 11:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

STRONG SUPPORT FOR 2! - It is called 'R S WIKIA' that name proves alone that it is the clan chat for the runescape wiki. Runescape wiki is made for the users of RSWiki so they should be the people on the clan chat. And I agree with Dave Lopo, that it would be too risky to let anyone in as they could report us for breaking rule 11.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iloveaboy2 (talk).

That doesn't "prove" anything. Runescape Wiki is not "made for users of RSWiki," it's made for everyone, this wiki, like all others, is something anyone can edit, and therefore, anyone should be able to use the chat. Besides, even people who just read the wiki are technically "users." Deciding not to include people because they don't use the wiki in a certain way is counter-intuitive, pushes people away, and overall harms the community's expansion. Also: read my above comment - I've outlined that rule 11 is not an issue at all because we are not advertising. -Byte_Master bytesig2.png bytesig3.png 00:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for One (1) - I like meeting new people. I don't see the need for us to force them away just because they haven't got an account. If we can convince them to join the community, then we have gained an editor. I am not the one to say no more editing, so proposal one makes most sense to me. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 22:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for 2 - I believe that to be able to speak on the clan chat you should be a part of the wiki, and that non-wiki members should not be allowed. This is the RuneScape wiki clan chat, not the Runescape clan chat. I see both sides, but the clan chat is for the wiki, not just any random user that could get on and report someone for rule 11. Additionally wiki members are generally not going to spam, flame, or otherwise harass people, as their wiki accounts could be blocked, etc. It is nice to allow everyone to join, but it won't work effectively in the long run. I also suggest adding a ranking list that shows what users have ranks, and a way to apply for them. Guthix cloak.pngInvincibility |Talk| |Edit Count| Magic.png 02:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - You want to limit the clan chat to wiki users, but still ignore the fact that even people who don't have an account use the wiki? A wiki is open for anybody to edit, and as such, the clan chat should be open for anyone to discuss the wiki. I joined the clan chat before the wiki itself - had option 2 been in place, I likely never would have started doing things here. What option 2 does is put a damper on IP users. It doesn't encourage people to sign up for "benefits," it pushes people away because you're paranoid of people we don't know and ultimately shows them that we don't assume good faith in them.

I think what people here need to realize is that the clan chat is nothing special. It isn't something that needs protection like sysop status. Like IRC, it is just a means of communication and no harm whatsoever can come from letting new people talk with us.

Also, Rule 11 is not justification. It's already been clarified that it's not an issue and never has been. "But rule 11" is bullhonky. -Byte_Master bytesig2.png bytesig3.png 02:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional clarifications[edit | edit source]

I know this has already been resolved with IRC, but I think we should make some things clear for the clan chat:

  1. While discussion related to the wiki on the chat is allowed, discussion on the clan chat is not equivalent to on-wiki discussion, and cannot take its place. For example, a person cannot declare a consensus for a policy change based on consensus in-chat. However, discussion concerning "should this user be blocked/should consensus be declared on so-and-so's RfA" and such is allowed.
  2. Since the chat is technically part of RuneScape, not the wiki, no action shall be taken on a person's wiki account for matters related to the chat.

I'd just like to get this over with so we don't encounter this problem later. Anyway, your opinions. Butterman62 (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - All this in a nutshell - CC is unrelated to the Wiki, nad one's actions on the CC do not affect one's status in the Wiki. It is not Communitative, and one's actions on the Wiki will affect one's status in the CC. For example, all vandals are to be kicked on sight. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 21:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I think this needs some consensus too. I agree with actions on the Wiki affecting CC status. Actions on the CC, however, should not affect status on the wiki, most notably because there is no paper trail (written record or evidence) of what happened. (Screenshots do not prove anything happened anywhere, as anybody with the right talent in image editing can make a forgery.) -Byte_Master bytesig2.png bytesig3.png 10:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is a RuneScape thing, shouldn't we rank people based on how they act in the clan chat? It's bullshit that I can't be a captain because I haven't made over 9,000 edits and gotten a successful RFA. Same for anyone else who feels that their demotion was unfair and wrong. Also, I'm not going to sign into the clan chat until we get a sane rank system. Not even the previous one was good enough.

InstantWinstonDragon 2h sword old.pngold edits | new edits

20:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Instant your getting mad because you got demoted? You can still kick can't you? Although we do need a Ranking system I suppose, We cannot make everyone a recruit because again only 100 spots and we have more than 100 people I believe. Attack Ancient Fofo Slayer 00:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have every right to be mad. The clan chat is for community. Forumadmins are forumadmins because of their participation in the community forums. They are the community-based wikians. If there absolutely has to be some sort of "holier than thou" system of ranking (which there shouldn't be), the forumadmins and admins should be equal. I don't like to be considered lesser just because I don't like editing.

InstantWinstonDragon 2h sword old.pngold edits | new edits

01:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC) And anyway, I found a better clan chat to hang out in where all the members are the exact same rank, and the rules aren't so astonishingly tight. So you guys can just forget about me. I'm done.

InstantWinstonDragon 2h sword old.pngold edits | new edits

01:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)