Forum:Moderating the Clan Chat

Forums: Yew Grove > Moderating the Clan Chat

It has been brought up on another discussion that administrators in the Clan Chat may not necessarily be doing a decent job. Although the chat is not exactly overrun with autotypers and trolls, the current state of affairs with regards to keeping the chat under control could require a reassessment in order for it to remain a pleasant and sunny place for users. Although I am not proposing anything here, users with any thoughts on this matter are welcome to voice their opinions, and suggest ways with which to make moderation more effective if necessary.

Discussion

Personally I do not feel strongly about this either way, although I would like to take the opportunity to remind users to listen to moderators, and to remind administrators to pay attention to the chat in case of any potential trouble-making. As a final note, for the purpose of this thread "administrators" refers to all users with kicking rights. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 18:27, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

2¢ - I don't join the clan chat because of how obnoxious it is. I'm either: ignored in the vast argument over which training method is better; silent because people are arguing about controversial issues; gone because people are discussing inappropriate things. Granted, I don't go there often, but every time I have, I've left out of annoyance. It doesn't seem to take long for things to escalate. The ranks are nonexistent - if they do chime in, it's to fuel the fire. From an objective point of view, the clan chat appears very disorganized with an unhappy atmosphere at times. With as many ranks are there are, it should never be like this.

The problem our mods/ranks on offsite-chat mediums seem to have is a lack of caring. I don't understand why 99% of the people op'd/ranked are op'd/ranked. The immaturity they possess is enough to make me not want to join the clan chat (or IRC) at all. If someone is being abusive to other users, freaking kick them. Wth. Gawd. I don't understand. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 19:25, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

if anyone can make a more direct and accurate statement than this I'll give them a free badge Ronan ^Talk 19:38, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

I would write a statement on how I feel about this thread and the ongoing situation... But Fergie stole my words. Rhys ^Talk 20:14, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I'd like to say a few things, but this will require you to imagine you are an admin in the chat. First off, the ranks sometimes do try to stop arguing, when they see it escalate to a heated point (And stop arguments before they start: I.E. When someone asked about opinions on abortion last night, Yoda acted quickly and firmly.). Though, it's almost like this example: you are watching two people argue in real life at a coffee shop. It's over, I don't know, something ridiculous; like whether or not to use a banana or plantain as a scale for a picture. You, who is a manager in the shop, ask them if they could kindly take it outside because it's disruptive, and a few customers have complained or seem annoyed. The one gives you the finger, while STILL (Yes, the stress is needed) arguing. Now not only do a few customers start arguing with him, some argue with you, some also argue about the coffee shop manager not acting fast enough (or something like that). You continue to tell them what to do, yet they still refuse to listen. They finally agree that the other needs to "shut the hell up." You think "This was only one experience, I'll just be more firm next time. They didn't break anything, and the vast majority of the other customers agreed with me. I may have been a bit too yielding at first, but next time I'll do a bit better." Things like this start happening several times a day, and you start to feel useless; you can't do anything. The customers have minimal respect for you, so you send out the other managers to do something. The same thing happens; they get tired of it and only deal with it when necessary. You tell the owner that no one can do anything to help. He says that 'everybody loves him, it should be easy,' so he tries himself. No one listens one bit to him, and like everyone else his authority starts to decay to it's bare bones form. It's comparable to a corpse freshly killed corpse laying in the desert. After about a month atrophy it becomes a skeleton, but it's still there. I hope that helps everyone to understand what it's like.

Now, I'm not an admin, but I think I see why they don't immediately kick people who are being abusive. It would look bad on them, as if they had a vendetta against the offender, for lack of a better word. (When butterkitty was in the chat, I recall as admin kicking him, but they invited him back in. The admin who kicked Butterkitty was told something along the lines of "The Yew Grove discussion isn't up, he deserves a fair chance.") Everyone deserves a fair chance, even if someone is being a bawble/butterkitty level [insert adjective here] person. Again, this is only an assumption, but I also think that because there's not an admin on 24/7, they might assume they don't know the whole story. Most people would rather share their feelings in a 'Forum:Regarding:X" thread than in the CC, because this is for the most part mature discussion. They don't feel like someone would attack them as if this was the CC. Even then, we have edit history and chat bots here and on IRC, respectively, that add to that 'safe' feeling.

The Clan Chat requires that people take screenshots, when for the most part not even the arguing pair would care to take any there. It's not like we could tell the admins to take screenshots of everything, they already have enough on their plate. It'd also be ridiculous to make a rank who's sole purpose would be to take all the screenshots they can.

Regarding Urban's previous comment: It's not that they are mature. It's just that no one respects them. They'd have to be mature for an RFA, that's something that is (slightly) measurable. When Rel, or Yoda, or Cole made an RFR, they were mature, and at least somewhat respected on the wiki. After they're in the Clan Chat, though, that respect changes. I don't know why; my best guess would be is that most non-admins see admins as just other players or walls of text, or just disagree with everything they say because an admin told them to stop doing something.

I'd guess it would be the latter, that most users probably don't like one admin/their views or opinions on anything, and their unconscious self takes it out on them all. I could be looking too deep into this, though. There you go, Flaysian, does that help?User:King kolton9/Signature 21:01, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

if you're expecting that I'll read that without any paragraphs you are gravely mistaken Ronan ^Talk 21:13, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

Is that good enough?User:King kolton9/Signature 21:34, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

This is why I left! - 'nuff said. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 21:24, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

Both of them are idiots. You use a José for scale. MolMan 21:30, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I rarely enter the game, but the due process of the wiki can be a hindrance at times. When a new user decides to violate UTP obviously it is often swiftly dealt with on the wiki, and I would hope this is also true in the cc. Bringing up a topic that is guaranteed to cause arguments such as the abortion topic mentioned above is also going to be dealt with properly. The problem is the grey area - where do we draw the line? Even more so with an established member of the community who many of us will have interacted with to a degree.

I suppose the lesson to be learnt here is to have more confidence in your actions, if you don't feel the warning is taken onboard then use the tools you have to drill it home a little harder. I don't believe muting individuals in the clan is currently available so kicking someone, however temporarily, is really the only option.

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Comment/Thoughts - As mentioned in my response to the other thread there at times were instances, where highly political/religious (or even generally highly charged) conversations have occurred, following the rules (particularly rule 4) even as a double banana user, I've said (with others) "Per the rules could you consider taking this to friend chat/other" as there were other more game related conversations taking place, and to be perfectly blunt, I'd had enough of a 30 minute+ debate on evolution.

As for enforcement (even if neutral CCAs were around), I doubt nothing could happen without a witch hunt here on Yew Grove, as at least one of the users involved was a CCA themselves. Even if the argument was between two recruits, I doubt I would've supported actually kicking the users outright - as I understand the system doesn't allow for a user to be muted in a clan chat, and kicking them actually removes their membership of the clan (can someone confirm?), so not appropriate for short lived violations.

So, what is the solution, to both enforcement of the rules, and avoiding he said-she said witch hunts on Yew Grove? Here is my thoughts, if the transgression is minor and solved with a reminder of the rules, or a simple warning, it's water under the bridge, forgotten about. If the user continually crosses the line (i.e. multiple minor transgressions are found to have occurred several times in a short timespan), or there is a disregard for the rules (like alleged in the Imxor/Immo thread), or warnings don't cut it, then a new process is invoked, which would be something to the effect of 'Clan Chat Administrator Requests' - a cross between RS:AR and Yew Grove.

It'd allow the escalation of disputes in a fora-type environment, for discussion between Clan Chat users & ranks, allow/favour mediation, and get these sorts of disputes out of way. It'd also serve as a means to back up claims like "this user has broken RS:UTP so many times" if there is archived consensus/agreement that it has happened in the past. Also, PM arguments are not admissible, as they can be easily blocked with the in-game ignore feature.

So, Proposal 1: a system similar to the above be implemented, replacing parts 2 & 3 of RS:CC#Handling_rule-breaker to allow better dealing of Clan Chat disputes and enforcement of the rules. --RSDaftVader (talk) 00:14, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

That seems extremely bureaucratic. Is simply trusting the clan admins' actions not sufficient enough? Must we go through such a process for the clan chat when it's not done for any other chat-medium? I understand it's different because it's a clan, but if someone is doing something that warrants a kick, it'd be easier to just do it and get it over with. Allow them on-wiki appeals or something. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 01:52, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

The last I've really heard about the way that Jagex implemented the clan chat tools is that a kick isn't just a temporary thing, it's de-rank and everything, and I welcome someone to come up with a better idea. I'm just trying to take into account various comments like:

“	Again, this is only an assumption, but I also think that because there's not an admin on 24/7, they might assume they don't know the whole story. Most people would rather share their feelings in a 'Forum:Regarding:X" thread than in the CC, because this is for the most part mature discussion. They don't feel like someone would attack them as if this was the CC. Even then, we have edit history and chat bots here and on IRC, respectively, that add to that 'safe' feeling.	”
	— King kolton9 21:01, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

which I agree with. Now, keep in mind I'm not saying (although I may have excluded it from my original comment by mistake) that it should be used in every instance, there are always going to be times when swift enforcement is more important than trying to hash things out. --RSDaftVader (talk) 03:06, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

This might be silly, but it's just an idea. Seeing as how there are chat only admins, admins who are both chat and wiki, and admins who do everything plus a little more, we know that some admins will go above and beyond for the wiki.

We could do one of a few things: Make an opt-in system like the raffle helper/organizer system (The same essential system, only involving the rules) for admins and users who are in the clan and would like to take screenshots of arguments/major offenses (Minor offenses should only be recorded if they've broken the rule multiple times in a short period of time. They'd likely break the same minor offenses again if such is the case.). It would be through Dropbox, (owned by some trusted admin, like Gaz or Cook, or Yoda) and should a Yew Grove forum break out, an admin (or user) would upload all of the images relating the person and forum to Imgur; It would most likely be a gallery. If my idea does become commonplace, I'm not sure if the Dropbox images would be sorted by Dropbox>User>Offense>Number, or just Dropbox>User>Number. It seems like the former would make posting to Imgur easier. (Like i said before, this might be hard, but if it works in the end, I guess it'll be better than what we have. It works very well for the raffle.) Or, we have a second option. We can't be sure how this one would work out, but we could try. We could bring back the Forumadmins, seeing as how they already have a rank in the cc. Their only job would be to post all relative documents to Imgur when a user and their actions come into question. They would probably operate on IRC and Special:Chat, too. It would probably be a Dropbox/Yew Grove/other form of moderatible of archive. Again, these are only ideas, I'd like to hear any comments on the suggestion.User:King kolton9/Signature 03:51, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Wait, forum admins? What? Why? And why do they need to be in IRC/Special:Chat too? User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 04:00, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Simple. Forum admins were phased out before, and therefore had all of their rights removed. They would be doing an important, easy to handle, job. It wouldn't require many (If any) tools at all, and no ranks would need to have rights removed/added. They still have a recognizable rank in the clan chat, and we'd need minimal tweaking to phase them in. They wouldn't need to be on IRC/Special:chat, but it would help. People who frequent the clan also frequent those, and at least two there would solve further conflicts down the line.User:King kolton9/Signature 09:51, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I know this will be ignored, but here I go: the users of the wiki should have more to say with arguements: namely, I had a…bit of a thought. It involves the triple banana rank. I know, That rank was retired, but, hey, it could work. Basically, once a month, a Corp will be selected to be put on probation, with his/her consent. During this time, the person will have 3 or so selected handlers(of the rank of admin or so/above). When these are not online, he remains a corporal. When one is, basically, (s)he will lend his/her rank to the player, and kick/ban at his/her commabd, unless it is obvious that he/she shouldn't. At the end of the month, the handlers will compare notes, and If the majority agree positively, the player will receive the ability to add any player of lower rank to an "investigation" list, and that player will be investigated. The handlers cannot have had/have any friendly/enemy happenstances, and if the new general is suspected in any way, he/she will be deranked to corp until the investigation is complete, and if someone is found in need of derank from this position, it will be like any other derank. The general rule for this rank would be; 60 seconds with warning is a mark, three times is add to quick kick list, and if evade, or other suspicious things(like rank stuff)add to consider for ban list. To confirm this is only to benefit the chat, and not to gain rank for myself, I will declare myself not eligible for this, unless expressly asked to by a ranked person.Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 05:05, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

That seems like an unnecessarily elaborate suggestion to me. I think Fergie nailed it when she said this:

“	If someone is being abusive to other users, freaking kick them. Wth. Gawd. I don't understand.	”
	— Urbancowgurl777 19:25, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

It's simple, we kill the Batman admins need to kick people who are being abusive. Temujin 05:22, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Just kick em pls. Granted, I don't go into the cc (or others) much since I'm a hermit, but when I have I noticed that the moderation could be better. --Shockstorm (talk) 05:32, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Gee, I can't even take a weeklong break without something like this showing up. I can't speak for any other admin, but for me personally, I don't pay that much attention to the discussion at hand, and so have missed rule breaking a few times. The last time I kicked someone for rule breaking, I was apparently quite late to the party because I was distracted. Attention issues aside, as I'm sure others are more attentive than I am, there is also the issue that we lack an intermediate action between do nothing and kick from clan. When faced with a situation for which the best action would akin to a kick for guests (that is, you're booted from the channel and can't rejoin for an hour, but it automatically expires after that hour), I tend to err on the side of do nothing, and I know that most other administrators do the same. That is my understanding of the current state of the system.

As for the less "blatant" violations of the rules: I will admit that the clan chat has a more relaxed interpretation of the rules. Until now, I have not heard complaints about not rigidly enforcing the rules, but if the clan chat wants us to enforce the rules in a more stringent fashion, then we will do so. This thread is the place to voice that opinion. Cheers, --Liquid^Talk 05:47, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

A simple solution - We create a temporary two-and-a-half banana rank that only gets activated on Thursdays. During that time, the people with that rank (we will call them lieugents) will not be allowed to talk in the clan chat, but they can send coded messages through either IRC or Special:Chat that will be relayed by official messengers to the Clan Chat. These lieugents will be allowed to give out up to three warnings per day, but only if at least one other lieugent or higher (admin+) agree to the warning. After a user receives two warnings, everyone in the clan chat will get to vote on whether or not the person should be kicked, by either making a thumbs up (^) or a thumbs down (v). If there is at least a supermajority in favor of kicking (2/3rds or more) then the person will be kicked from the clan for a period no less than 48 hours. If someone is to be added to the ban list, a ban request must be submitted to a new Google Docs spreadsheet, which will be evaluated by me for a small processing fee. Also we could have a new rank called "super admin" reserved for the head admin that can kick all the people in the chat without any repercussions. Also Immo gets banned if he says anything with the letter "k" in it. ʞooɔ 06:39, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Wtf. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 06:41, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I said what I did, is a circulative dilemma of people waiting for the next rank to ban someone that needs to be banned, and then that you should add ignore those people, and then that someone else should do it. Plain and simple; someone breaks the rules, kick them. If they ignore the reason behind the kick, give them a ban. Most people that have the responsibility to do this are failing, blaming being ignored, so I reasoned that if there is more, spread out responsibility, it will be much less of a task for anyone! Either the ranked ones need to step up and do their chores, or take a chip from their sceptres and give it to others that will perform their tasks within the Clan Chat.Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 06:55, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

(At cook)We really need a Constitution at this point. The 1st amendment should be a right to a fair trail on the yew:grove. I believe anything done in the cc with a serious point will be done in haste. Even then, that seems like it would be a bureaucratic nightmare. I say no to that. Now, I see that you're joking, but any rank that would be temporary should not be considered. None at all, by anybody. Either you commit entirely, or don't commit at all.User:King kolton9/Signature 09:51, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Cook's proposal, while ridiculous, is actually similar to something that we can almost do. I looked into it a while back, but the idea was that we take one of our unused ranks, in this case, sergeant, and modify the rights so that it can't talk. To temporarily "kick" someone without actually kicking, an admin can change that person's rank to the muted rank. Unfortunately, it seems that the ability to talk is a "set as minimum rank" option, so the only way this would work would be to mute the recruits and bump everyone up by one rank. Obviously, that won't work because then effectively you'd need an admin around to recruit. However, I think it'd be a great solution if Jagex changes its systems later. --Liquid^Talk 06:57, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

You've said yourself that to remove sergeant's ability to talk you have remove recruit and corporal's ability to talk in the process. This could work (somewhat impractically) if you made recruit a rank used solely for muting. You wouldn't need an admin to recruit, you'd just need them to promote new recruits — which they can do with ease anywhere. Jagex probably wont change the system any time soon, so that's your only option if you want to temporarily mute people. Temujin 07:36, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Strong Oppose and Comment I disagree on the whole mute thing out right. Alot of the people come to the clan chat to, well, chat. We aren't event specific, you know. And we also have a massive majority of lower ranks. Yes, there are those that don't talk a lot, but there isn't that much. Unless we de-rank offenders to 1 banana, 2+bananas can talk, 3+bananas recruits, Lieutenant would set the de-ranks, general would be the events team (who will default to captain when not on the team) and Forum admins, and from there on is standard procedure. Even then, as I said above, anything involving ranks should be done in Y:G. It seems like that's a bit, how do I say it? Wishy-washy, if that makes any sense.

I can't believe that muting all lower ranks was considered. That's another bureaucratic nightmare, even if we could get it to *MILDLY* work. No one should have to have an RFR to talk, and that's what will happen if EVERY rank isn't changed a bit. That's another nightmare, then we'll have to argue about what ranks should be getting what tools/rights/jobs and how. Until we can come up with a logical system that improves on the current system without taking away freedoms, and (natural, none the less) rights, I oppose any change.User:King kolton9/Signature 09:51, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Missed the point entirely. ʞooɔ 09:58, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

I know what the point was. It was so we didn't have to reserve spots for people who are temp kicked, and instead, keep them in the clan without them being a nuisance (if you are talking about a few of the above suggestions; if not it's because the Imxor argument had people complaining about bad moderation and that started the fire for this thread. In my opinion it isn't as bad as people put it out to be. Any changes (even the ones I suggested) seem a bit radical. I don't think admins being removed, or rank changes would be the best. It should be Admins: Pay a bit more attention. Users: Listen to admins, plain and simple.). But you still have to bump everyone up/mash ranks together if you change the ranks as simply as that.User:King kolton9/Signature 10:11, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Comment People on here keep saying 'Just kick them. It's not that hard.' Actually, it is, but we are over-complicating it a bit in this thread. I'd like to (again) cite the case of "Butterkitty vs RSW" As I have said before, butter kitty WAS kicked, but was invited right back in. Granted the kicking admin did kick him before his Yew:Grove thread ended (predictably) in a ban for him. But, still, everyone was annoyed by him, but they still complained when he was kicked. I assume they were putting themselves in his shoes: everyone wants a chance. When we're creating these amendments/rules, we have to put ourselves in everyone's shoes. What would it be like for US to be the admins, and what would it be like for US to be the accused? What kind of policies would we want? How would we want to be treated? I ask you to ask yourselves these questions.User:King kolton9/Signature 10:11, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Right, so I figured I should probably add my two cents in to this thread. The level of moderation in the modern clan chat is absolutely unacceptable in comparison to what it was like in the past, long before the introduction of clan chats in to the game. In the past, had you of put a step wrong, you were given one, and only one formal warning, before you would be removed for a series of hours. I know that, because I pushed Christine over the edge on the absolute smallest of deals twice in a row, and it would always result in my removal from what was the friend's chat.

One strong opinion that I have, is that was have users within the clan chat that are way too defensive of rule-breakers, as blatantly seen in the other on-going thread about Imxor Solmo. I remember a situation when the Dominion tower was recently brought in to the game, there was an attack on the clan chat by a clan that Bawble was involved with. This involved several users creating new accounts, so they could abuse the quick-chat system that we accept in the clan chat when people level up. They spammed plenty of 1-10 levels for the sake of gaming the system in their own defence, so they could break rules. I warned said players once, and only once, before removing them from the clan chat. At my surprise, I was then interrogated by several users about my level of moderation because I applied common sense in a situation that myself and others thought was viable.

This brings the whole scenario into a dire situation of being in the wrong for being too vigilant, and being in the wrong for being too lenient. We need a system to be created, if you want that clan chat to remain a drama free place. I'm sure others are lurking about this thread, watching what has been going on, and they're now gaining the impression that they can break the rules several times before the tiniest of punishments is enforced upon them. I have one primary proposal based on how we can keep things in order, formed on a basis of previous arguments in this thread:

Proposal - I feel that we need to create a black mark system on RS:CC in which a new sections would be created. This section would highlight what the black mark system is, and it would name any and all users that have had recent infringements within the clan chat in particular. For example:

RuneScape Name	Wiki Name	Amount of active offenses	Link to evidence
Warthog	Rhys Jones	3	Evidence

When the system links to a player's page for evidence, this evidence will be sorted by the date of occurrence, followed up by the level of rule-break, which would be defined on the previous general page for black marks. This evidence will be created by any and all clan chat users, as there would be a new rule urging anyone to screenshot any level of rulebreaking, and for them to be submitted for review by what I can only assume to be either: The higher ranks in the clan chat OR neutral administrators, not involved within the clan chat. If they deem the evidence is viable for a punishment, it will be added to that user's black mark page for potential future use.

The next question is, what determines when enough is enough? Personally, that is down to opinion, 1 major level of rulebreaking warrants just as much of a clan chat removal in comparison to 3-4 minor levels of rulebreaking. Personally, I would like to see a points system, much like the old black mark system Jagex used to have to be used. Let the community decide the amount of points that a major infraction applies to a player's status within the clan chat, and the amount of points a minor infraction applies to a player's status.

Finally, all evidence should also expire after several months, likely 6-12 depending on what community consensus is decided, should this proposal pass. As a community, we should assume good faith on our fellow members should their mishaps happen long in the past.

So, what does this proposal bring to the community and the clan chat? We'll have the following:

1. We will have an organised system to deal with rule breaking, rather than violating everyone's equality by removing some users for tiny violations, whilst allowing others to remain for considerably more significant violations.
2. We will have a solid record of clan chat evidence, assuming that the rule to screenshot all in-game situations is enforced correctly. It literally takes 30 seconds to take a screenshot, upload it to some imaging website, and to post it on a page that will be reviewed by another administrator before he makes the decision to go ahead and quash the evidence, or to enforce it as a black mark against said user.
3. This evidence could be used for other community issues, such as requests for ranks and administrative reviews.

I can only hope that the clan chat is going to make the dive into creating a new rule enforcement system, otherwise, it is going to remain the controversial atmosphere that is has been for the last several months.

Just as a final notice, this proposal could also leak over in to the IRC and S:C, and be more of a generalised enforcement system rather than being solely for IRC rule infractions. Rhys ^Talk 10:20, April 25, 2013 (UTC

I'd like to say that is a wonderful idea. Assuming people will even take screenshots. Remember how I mentioned before anyone who would care wouldn't take one? That'll be the same thing. Short of breaking runescape rules with an HTML5 bot (I AM NOT SUGGESTING THIS. DON'T EVEN CONSIDER DOING IT) that would log the chat, almost all ideas fail. It'd be very hard to enforce users to take screenshots.User:King kolton9/Signature 11:30, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Partial support - I wouldn't like to see this applied to the IRC and S:C, and I believe evidence should be carefully scrutinised. I also believe that one major offense should be equal to approximately half a dozen minor offenses. I support everything else. Temujin 11:52, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Don't make things so difficult that no one will enforce the rules just because of how annoying it would be to do so. User:TyA/sig 14:28, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

If a administrative user is too lazy to spend 30 seconds to enforce my new proposal, they really shouldn't be ranked in the clan chat. Rhys ^Talk 16:57, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

"Oh look, random noob 3 is being kinda annoying again and verging on breaking the rules, I think I should confront him about it. Wait, I'll have to document the incident, update a warn tally, and all this other crap. I suppose they're not being that bad, I'll just act like I didn't see it because I'd rather pay attention to these dungeons than worry about that crap." User:TyA/sig 17:07, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Once you accept the nomination for a ranked position in the clan chat, you're understanding the responsibilities that you have to undertake should you pass that request for a rank. If you're not going to take the time to sort in-clan issues, you shouldn't be ranked. It's that simple. I'm sure there's plenty of other users that would accept that rank and do the job that you didn't do. Rhys ^Talk 17:18, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Question - Why is it not possible to respect the chat admins' decisions? A kick removes you from the clan, okay, I get it. But if you're doing something that warrants you being removed from the chat, I see no reason to not go through with it after the warnings are ignored. Take a screenshot of the kick and maybe the events leading up the kick and keep them for future reference. Allow the kicked users to make appeals here on the wiki. Have a list of kicked users and their "ban expiry" dates so that they can't be added back to the clan until the expiration is up (and the clan admins should check this before adding users to the clan). Why is everyone making this so difficult? User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 16:59, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Strong Support - The admins/ranked users of the CC put their RFRs in to make the Clan Chat a better place, or at least they should have - if they don't want to take on more responsibilities, then they are going to have to share them. If they don't do one or the other, then RSW clan is going to fail miserably at remaining a well-ruled clan that has no bureaucracy. The admins say that being bureaucratic is the last thing they want, while groping behind their back to make sure no power is given or spread.Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 17:15, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucratic is the last thing we want because it's a waste of time, not because no one likes giving 'power' away. We're volunteers, not a cabal.

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Ideas, Suggestions, and Notes - Here's a bullet-point list of things it looks like people want:

• Precise, solid logging
• Bureaucratic, organized, and maintained
• Muting someone without kicking them
• Time-expiring, and additive offenses
• Tighter, but not police-state moderation
• User powered, but watched by someone
• Handled with neutrality
• Fora-like environment
• Assurance that it WILL be enforced, and enforced well

I think I can get all of that working like a well oiled machine. It might even be possible to automate it without a bot interacting with Runescape, at all. I have been experimenting with OCR and have been pretty successful so far on things harder than RuneScape's chat. It could be like a Firefox, chrome, Swiftkit modification, or Greasemonkey script. The OCR extension would look for specific combinations of words every minute or so, but the filter would be changeable from person to person. For example, I could have it set to save a screen shot when it sees something like "Up yours, ass," but not when it sees "ass." Even misspellings would be accounted for, and user defined misspellings would be very easy to add.

It doesn't touch the game at all; in fact, it would probably take a screenshot, then looking only at the screenshot's chat window (and not the rest of the game), check for ABUSIVE profanity, and if successful, upload it somewhere, I'll discuss where later. If it has a 50.00% success rate, (If I recall, I get something like 80.00% easily.) and four people's browser look at it, it's a near guarantee that it will catch it. You might say "What if it catches something like 'Up yours, asshole!' when talking about the Jad?" That's a pretty easy fix, actually.

We all know Gaz has a wonderfully large Dropbox, of which I know of 3 admins (Gaz, Cook, and Relaera) that access it weekly (If not daily). That takes care of authority, for that part, but they most likely won't be needed. I chose his Dropbox because it's a wonderful method of communication; it's almost like the wiki, but we wouldn't have to take up space here (You'll see why later). You can make announcements for only the people that need them, organize things by files, and if needed, ask other people questions.

You see, after the bot(s) would upload files there, you'd have three groups of people that can also upload,change, and discuss things: The admins (No duh), the forum admins, (My previous comments on why they're perfect summed up: It gives the rank a useful purpose on both the chat and wiki; they could de-rank offenders to the non-talking state with approval, yet still let everyone chat as normal with no bumps in the rank system. There would even be minimal tweaking involved setting it up everywhere.) and opt-in users. The difference between the two would be forum admins would decided whether or not they should be archived, (I have a special place for that, too. Don't worry. I know this is long, but it's a lot simpler than it sounds.) and if so, how bad the offense would be. The reason why the 'normal' admins wouldn't be doing much is because this is set up so they don't have to do more, but that's not to say some won't do it.

Now that there's a huge percentage of any notable offense getting in, we move on to checking. The checking would be the forum admins coming to a consensus (it would basically be a 'Yes, because' or 'No, because' thing.) If they really can't come to a consensus, they should ask an admin. They'll put in their two cents, then they come to a consensus. It shouldn't be dragged on farther than "Yes," and "No," So it should rarely, if ever, come to that.

So, the offense passed, "Where do you host it?" you might ask. Well, it would basically be a wiki with protected pages (So that only Forum admins and admins can edit, the wiki doesn't need anyone messing with pages). The organization would probably be something like this: Wiki>List of cc users>"Username">Archive#>offense type>images. It would probably be a good idea to have a bot that would check Special:newfiles, and log the offense. That way, if some kind of offense expires and no one remembers it, the bot would notify somebody 'hey, I'll be deleting this, don't be worried that the page is edited,' or at least put 'auto:delete' as the image summary.

Regarding the whole expiring offense thing, and how many minor offenses equals one major offense, etc, I have yet another idea, though this part is really a matter of opinion. I believe 6 minor offenses equal one major offense. The first major offense should be a 24 hour mute, the second 48 hours, and the 3rd should start a yew:grove thread for further action.

I also believe that 2 minor offenses deserves a one hour mute; the 1st minor offense would be a warning. Now, even though minor offenses would 'officially' expire after 1 month or so, if they've gone close to that month, it's probably not notable. The same for something like one major offense: If they've gone 2.5 months with that as their only offense, and something else happens, call it 'mild' offense. They've done really well, always assume the best. If I missed anything here please tell me. If you want a Tl;dr, just read it.User:King kolton9/Signature 21:45, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Support this idea - This is a very good idea, provided the admins are willing to put in some time. Megadog14^Talk 22:18, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Wikia doesn't allow wikis that are permanently protected. Who is going to make this bot? And thirdly, there are issues with uploading files through the API, as evidenced by the lack of running User:Image optimisation bot.

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Well, a few things. Number one, it doesn't have to be protected, but that was a 'just in case' kind of thing. Two, I already have the know-how for the recognition part of the OCR, (Which isn't a necessity, really. We could have it run off of an interval, but that might get stuff we don't want.*) that's fairly easy. In actuality, it would be two bots.

One would work kinda like the bot you mentioned (We could change it a bit, even add on to it to perform functions that would prove useful to us, and attribute the base to A_prof.) The Wiki's api wouldn't be needed, if that's what you are talking about. It could auto upload the files to imgur then paste 'the link.png' *Better yet, I have an even simpler and better idea. You know how Imgur has a Firefox extension? It'd be fairly simple to make an extension in chromium/firefox/Swiftkit where one press of a button takes a screen shot of the page, sends it to "C:\Users\'user'\Dropbox" or the like.

Even better as a Greasemonkey script, it would work everywhere, AND users wouldn't need to opt-in personally. The script would be in the user's browser, (Swiftkit might need a little more work, but you can use the chrome API there now, so we could probably do something where a screenshot button hovers out of the way. It would preferably be in the top right. Once they've literally copied and pasted the script (assuming they already have Greasemonkey/A Greasemonkey fork), and refreshed the page once, they can hit the button any time from then on. (They can't say it takes too much time, everything is automated after the click.) The sent screenshot will be voted on by the forum admins. Then they'd have to upload it to the image wiki. I'm not sure, but it could be automated even IN the Dropbox. I don't know, something like a script in the same place as the discussions (which would be notepad files) where putting:

<discussion> <User:This is the tag that helps the bot/Discussion archive#1/examplegroup/image1|Type:>Minor Offense

• people talking*
• It passes as an offense*

<discussion/>

would send it off to the imgur upload, because the script would look for the tag <discussion/> in all text files that are in there. After both the text file and the discussion been successfully archived (confirmed by a ping, I'd guess) the script deletes the image, and replaces the discussion file with something like:

Discussion#32 (file name)

Discussion#32 ~successfully archived at 00:26 UTC, April 25th, 2013. For the archive, please visit: <User:This is the tag that helps the bot/Discussion archive#1/examplegroup/image1|Type:>Minor Offense

This process is way simpler and easier to automate when split into parts.User:King kolton9/Signature 02:41, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

I like using dropbox for depositing files for review, and if it comes to that I don't mind volunteering mine (as Kolton mentioned, I have 67GB of which I am currently using about 1% - though the shared items count against everyone's space, so if it gets large then I can move files to a shared-link folder from the collaborative shared folder: e.g. here you can see the raffle entries dropbox even if you're not invited to collaborate on it).

However, I don't like the rest of the process. It seems pretty... I dunno... involved? Bureaucratic? Over the top? Here's some issues I have with it:

• It would need widespread use of some sort of screenshotting program that takes images of the RS chatbox specifically (I know you can essentially get the functionality from Gadwin PrintScreen and other similar software, but something that can automatically get the chatbox regardless of the position of the window and such would be best). Using the standard printscreen-and-paste-to-image-editor technique is too laborious and honestly would put people off. Not cropping the images runs into issues with the dropbox size, as mentioned next.
• It would also need those users to all use dropbox, which also means the collaborative folder would need to stay below 2GB. This makes constant logging to the dropbox out of the question, though it would take quite a lot of images to reach that if they were all cropped to the chatbox and optimised (the raffle folder currently has 285 files and is 50MB - chatbox images can vary in dimensions and thus size much more than the resource check interface can though).
• There are several problems with the use of forumadmins:
  • The group is dead. I don't know when the last time TheElijah (the current only general in the clan) logged in was, but all the rest of the group are long gone. There would need to be a number of new generals added.
  • There is no way to mute a clan chat member without implementing the muted rank system discussed above (i.e. make the minimum rank to talk corporal, then bump every clanmate sergeant and below up one rank). This in turn has its own problems.
  • Even with that system implemented, forumadmins, as generals, couldn't mute anyway. Only admins and above can change the ranks of users. There would be no point implementing a new admin rank (by bumping all admins up one) since I believe the point of your use of forumadmins would be to be able to mute a clanmate but not be able to clan-kick or ban users, but all admin ranks have the unremovable ability to do that. This isn't TeamSpeak where we can fine-tune every rank and what it can do in respect to other ranks, this is RuneScape where we're bound by Jagex's mediocre, mostly-fixed system.
• The use of the other wiki is unclear to me.
• I don't really have a comment on the offences bit, aside from the issues with muting I mentioned, and the unquantifiable nature of what constitutes a major offence vs a minor offence.

I honestly think a lot of the issues mentioned here come down to Jagex's clan chat system being too inflexible (per Liquid's reasoning above).  @Gaz#7521 00:23, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Edit:I Hate it when forums are being flodded. I can't find the comment I was referencing, but it basically said use a greasemonkey script instead. All you'd have to do is click the button. It would take a picture of the full page, etc. I hate edit spam.

Edit2: I found it. Thank god for Lazarus Most of those problems are addressed in my above comment. Regarding all the rank/forum admins problem, even if we can't have the forum admins 'mute someone,' and remove the whole forum admins thing, they are still a pretty effective system for yew grove threads. Regarding the 'other wiki' thing, it's purpose is to put all the logs/images in one place. I guess we could make /Offenses a subsection of every person that uses the clan chat (or just every user) on the wiki.

You mentioned that 'what constitutes a major offence vs a minor offence' is 'unquantifiable.' This is the yew grove, is it not? Our job is to quantify everything as we see fit. Besides, humans naturally put EVERYTHING into archetypes, why can't we make a system based off of that? For example: cursing at another user would be considered a minor offense (Even if user 'X' calls user 'Z' a prick, it's still minor.) Should he say it over and over and over and over, after being told to stop, you have a mild offense. Should he evade a ban? Now it's a major offense. Think of it like this: Anything that would need serious action in the grove, things relating to disputes wouldn't need a forum, so they are minor. We could have a 'quantify the rules you believe relate to the level of offense' thread, I doubt even the CC will start a heated conversation there. Besides, it would be pretty ironic to pull anything there, anyway.

You mentioned that it would be hard to log in the Dropbox. The Dropbox wouldn't be permanent storage, by a long-shot. The Dropbox is perfect because anyone who's signed under it would know something is happening as it's happening. It's basically a safety net, and a way to keep a lot of "Do other forum admins/archivers think this is X?" threads off the wiki. I made the idea bureaucratic because it seems like that's what everyone wants. Besides, we can't have a adhocracy, that would plunge us into more chaos.

You mentioned the whole screen shotting problem, I believe that's solved by my other solutions above. Even if space was a problem, win-rar is free, and doesn't stop working after the trial. I've seen pretty good compression rates with it, and be happy to archive things into rar/or zip files. If it came to it I'd be happy to go days without sleep writing the codes for all of this.

Finally, if a lot of the issues come down to Jagex's system, then we have to change somehow, unless you live next to mod mark or something.User:King kolton9/Signature 01:55, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

What is and is not an offence is highly subjective. Where would the line for not offence, minor offence and major offence be drawn? Insulting someone without using vulgarity, calling someone an ass (a word not censored ingame), calling someone what is often referred to as the 'worst swear', delving into racial epithets - what would be major and minor (I guarantee there are multiple answers, none more or less right than any other)? Is it even possible to commit a 'major' offence when insulting a single person, or would it only be possible if many were on the receiving end - in which case, why is it a major offence and not multiple minor offences?

It doesn't help that I feel as if you delved too deeply into the inner workings of your proposal at this stage and it lost most of the purpose.  @Gaz#7521 14:15, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

This is blowing my mind that I'm even suggesting this, but it take us out of the rabbit hole a bit. It's an alien, foreign concept to almost all of humanity, all of it's leaders and all of the people but the most elite. They could use *cue dramatic music* Common sense. *DUH DUH dun dun dun DUHHHH* If not, find out what the community thinks. Yew grove is your friend man, he's better than google. On the subject of me diving into it deeply, it's because every person everywhere when given freedom will use it. When you have the freedom of speech you talk and complain. When you have the freedom to punch someone in the face a lot of people are missing teeth. This includes admins, which a lot of normal users look up to as demi-gods, when really they are just people. With tools you don't have. In a job they aren't paid for. Where they are badgered every five minutes. Of every day. OKAY, so maby every admin ever has either an abnormal amount of patience, or they secretly have 3 masters and 7 Ph.Ds in homicidal urge resistance. It's probably the latter.User:King kolton9/Signature 21:03, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Common sense is both uncommon (as you implied) and very subjective. It would be nice if we could rely on it only (I mean really, if people followed DBAD and UCS we wouldn't need explicit rules), but that's not going to happen.

By delving too deeply I meant you went into too much detail for the stage of the process. If the basic idea got approved then you could work out the implementation, but I got bogged down in reading how you'd do it and not what you're wanting to do or why. I guess I'm still not entirely sure on what your entire process would be.  @Gaz#7521 21:50, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can do that right now. Steps to a more perfect union:

1. 1 Make a Greasemonkey button
2. 2 Ask people who volunteer to install the button (and Greasemonkey, though almost everyone has some fork of that)
3. 3 Have them click the button.
4. 4 The button sends the screenshot to some moderatable forum or place.
5. 5 People vote on whether or not to bother with it. A simple answer and type would suffice, and they wouldn't have to act immediately.
6. 6 Send it to some organizable archive (Why not a page called why not zoidberg, for example.)
7. 7a If needed anywhere, anyone can reference that page.
8. 7b If never used/needed within the page's community determined lifetime, a bot deletes it.

This system is simple, effective, organized, straight to the point, and flexible if and when needed (Why I wanted to use it). It would basically have made the recent Imxor thread a lot shorter and with much less fighting if referenced in the OP's post, had it been implemented previous to that. To be honest, most threads like that would probably reach consensus faster and easier.User:King kolton9/Signature 23:36, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure institutionalizing tattle-telling is a good way forward. User:(wszx)/sheeeeple 23:46, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

If this is tattle-telling so are tya's chatbot logs. Edit: Please expand. I would gladly make a script that would take a screenshot every 30 seconds, upload it on a subpage of my userpage or something, and use the button thing, too. Even then, tattle-telling would be pretty easy to detect, like the chat window wouldn't be fully expanded in the screenshot, or scrolled halfway up or the like. Even if it was used, suspicious things like that would be shot down pretty damned fast here, especially if the automated screenshots added anything. It probably wouldn't even get to that point, though. User:King kolton9/Signature 01:24, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Then do it. Develop a proof of concept. Immo Voted Worst Wikian 2013 02:19, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

And I have. After doing some research last night, ans starting a firefox extension, I came into unavoidable problems. No firefox screenshot programs are working well (most not at all) due to changes in 18.00+. Greasemonkey is purly javascript, and that can't work alone (It would require active x, and that's an internet explorer only solution. Firefox can't because again, the addons don't work.) So my rough proof of concecpt is: every time a screenshot is taken, the image is automatically uploaded to imgur, and the link is put into the clipboard. A clipboard logger that I have then logs the link to a file. You saw part of the regEX thing in irc. The one I got (which works with pearl) will delete all lines not containing "imgur" and replace them with "unrelated." The logs would be saved in the Dropbox, would take up minimal space, etc. It could be polished up with a little elbow grease (it is a proof of concept after all).User:King kolton9/Signature 20:07, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I see one huge gap in this; it means that people can still say one long, hate/condescending statement, just only once every 28 days. Huh? Most of the people that are really making the CC undesirable are on maybe once a month, rendering this useless, except for catching the wrong people who were wrong place/wrong time. To make this work, you would have to have a counter to check who is online when and how long, and that's just the opposite of what this thread appears to be intended for. I still cling to this fact; ranked people were given rank because the community was convinced that they could and would make the chat a better place, and the reason that anyone applies for a RFR should be because they can, they know they can, and other people know that they can make the CC a better place, and when they do it for other reasons(not excluding me on either side), then it should be up to the community to realize that this is not a good choice. Mistakes have been made, and when they do, it gives the player in question a sense of arrogance in the CC, and I think that the community as a whole is embarrased by this, and so they turn a blind eye, because it is a black mark in their minds.Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 00:52, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Well, Ice, if someone who comes on once a month annoys everyone for 29 days AFTER they are gone, then something is seriously wrong somewhere.User:King kolton9/Signature 02:07, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

That could class as gaming the system. Use common sense and take action in this case anyway.  @Gaz#7521 14:15, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Just my thoughts, I have been a leader of two different clans and I do believe I know the difficulties in walking the fine line between being too lenient and too strict. Yes from my perspective the chat gets way out of line at times, when it bothers me I have left. I knew to a certain degree the chat was likely to be a bit more 'wild' than I am accustomed to yet I strongly recall a rule about general respect (It's why we read the rules before being allowed to join, yes? So we know what we are getting ourselves in for.)

My position is admins need to step up when needed and they also need to support each other because its obvious the masses will be more than happy to tear you apart.

First I don't see how having a rank that is muted will work, because I think everyone is forgetting if you mute the recruit rank, non clan members will be muted as well (Then how can I torment them by asking for the pass phrase?)

Also the added steps of a bot posting pictures? I totally disagree with that and any unnecessary bureaucracy. This is a game and everyone here volunteers their time, I just strongly feel that anyone's time should be efficiently used and not wasted (although a simple place to list people who have had offences is okay, it helps one to realize how often a member might or might not get into these issues.)  Rose76.178.11.28 01:36, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

The ability for guests to talk and the minimum rank to talk are two separate permissions, so guests should be able talk even if recruits cannot. (Unless you have experience otherwise? I haven't tested.)  @Gaz#7521 14:15, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

RANKS NEED TO DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS - Though I admit it's kind of hard for ranks to enforce the rules when they break the rules themselves. I'm talking about you, Yoda. Whatever your opinion of Ice Rush may be, you are still bound to not be an asshat just like everyone else. And let's not forget this bit of uncomfortable truth: An editor's status, popularity, or in-game experience will not affect the validity of their opinions or anything they may say. Let me get a bit of clarification here: Are we pretending that UTP doesn't exist, or are we enforcing it like we're supposed to? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 01:51, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm willing to calm things down a bit. However, I think we may need to reassess the current rules regarding what is and is not allowed in the clan chat. It may be the case that too much is left to the discretion of the users, who (I fully admit to being guilty of this) are a bit lax in what is allowed to be discussed in the clan.--Cheers, Yoda 02:03, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how many complaints are "ranks aren't doing their jobs" recently, short of some of the things I said above, we could do something like a bi-yearly (every 2 years) admin check. We assess who has been doing what, where, and why regarding admins, those who don't pass would have their adminship removed. I don't think a healthy checkup is out of line, or is bureaucratic, do you? Edit: See gaz's comment below on citations for previous threads on this idea. I hadn't seen them before.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by King kolton9 (talk).

INACTIVE CHAT ADMINS ARE STILL TRUSTED BY THE COMMUNITY AND THEY MIGHT COME BACK SO WE SHOULD KEEP THEM. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 02:08, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Every admin should be evaluated. If they have not been present, we can wait until they return.User:King kolton9/Signature 02:43, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

What, exactly, needs to be "reassessed"? I think the rules are pretty clear - don't be a unnecessarily rude. And since you think it's ok to say "why do we even tolerate his shitcuntiness" in regards to a user making a thread, then perhaps it's time for you to step down. I don't see why any admin would be willing to enforce UTP (or other rules) across the board in an unbiased manner if they can't even follow it themselves (see above image and this). --Shockstorm (talk) 03:07, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Id just like to say, Yoda wasnt just freaking out at Ice Rush for no reason, Ice Rush has done PLENTY of stuff to him and other people in the clan. Him making the thread about banning Immo was just another annoying thing he has done, and although Yoda was a bit extreme, his anger was definately justified. Megadog14^Talk 21:34, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Sad - Moderation is very poor. Administrators are very biased when it comes to users breaking the rules (lets it slide most of the time). If you're an administrator, administrate instead of living the way you want. Hair 02:49, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I can agree that some admins are a bit lax in what they allow in terms of UTP. I'm sure that the admins will be willing to step up, admit their bias towards users who they view as friends, and moderate as such. As for content moderation, I don't think it's an issue. Most people in this thread seem to speak for a silent majority who do not definitively exist as of yet. If a user has an issue with a conversation, they can leave the chat, or request that the users in the conversation take it elsewhere. So far, more habitual users in the chat seem to support more lax standings on topics, so I feel that that should be left as is unless it gets completely out of hand.--Cheers, Yoda 03:16, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Yoda, let's disregard our differences, because I approve of where you're going. My thoughts are: there is like, what, 4 ranks between admin and owner? And admin seems to be what this attempt of a crackdown is on, so what I was thinking was a higher rank that has more devoted users that is above admin, would be strictly in charge of UTP and other similar policies, since they really don't have any new responsibilities, and it would make getting the new rank a bit more than trivial poking around for the next rank. Just my thoughts, go ahead, regard them as noob.-Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 04:39, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Last I checked all ranks are tasked with enforcing all policies and rules. Are you seriously suggesting to have yet another rank dedicated to enforcing rules and leave admins as a happy-go-lucky eye-candy rank? Why is the idea of reminding ranks to do their job so hard? This thread is ridiculous.

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Comment - I think the chat would be a lot calmer if people actually asked people who are making them uncomfortable to stop. It seems like peoples first response is to start argueing with them, creating even more conflict.  Megadog14^Talk 21:39, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see a more simple system whereby users who violate our clearly-written policies are given one formal warning, and kicked afterwards if they continue to hassle people. I would also like to see a system whereby admins were subject to the exact same rules and could be kicked by Gaz or whoever if necessary. This is one of the most ridiulous pair of threads I've ever seen on the wiki and has turned into a ragefest fuelled by stupidity. Closure needed asap. Ronan ^Talk 07:35, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

There is actually a rather simple solution to this problem. De-rank everyone except Gaz and make them all go through RFR again. If current ranks are inactive, they won't be repromoted. If current ranks are ineffective, they won't be repromoted. If current ranks are terrible, they won't be repromoted. If wikians are unable to identify who would make a good rank, then there's not really any point to trying to fix things because everything's fucked and there's nothing else we can do about cc moderation except hope for the best. User:(wszx)/sheeeeple 08:45, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

This idea is partially what I was thinking. I believe the grandfather clause we have on ranks needs to go. Someone mentioned doing reviews on all ranked users every 6 months to see if they're up to the standard expected of them. I would support something along those lines: Removing the grandfather clause and adding mandatory administrative reviews every 6 months. Given how much of a game people treat the ranks by, it'll give them a good kick up the rear end to keep their moderative duties up. Rhys ^Talk 09:07, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Twas my proposal, laddie.User:King kolton9/Signature 20:49, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Hardly. User:(wszx)/sheeeeple 20:57, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

No, that 'someone' was me. I suggested:

“

Well, seeing as how many complaints are "ranks aren't doing their jobs" recently, short of some of the things I said above, we could do something like a bi-yearly (every 2 years) admin check. We assess who has been doing what, where, and why regarding admins, those who don't pass would have their adminship removed. I don't think a healthy checkup is out of line, or is bureaucratic, do you?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by King kolton9 (talk).

”

User:King kolton9/Signature 22:26, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Sure you may have said that. But you're not the first person to suggest it. Or even make threads about it. Not even close. Making a point to claim it as "your proposal," as if it were an original and novel idea, is pretty rich. User:(wszx)/sheeeeple 23:04, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Number one, I haven't seen anyone mention it in here, and that seems like something someone would cite or reference. Number two, this is one of the few threads I've ever edited here, would you show who has said this before? I'll gladly link to threads that have said it before. Number 3, you don't have to be a dick about it. I did nothing to deserve that tone, nor that treatment. Why are you speaking to me like that? I don't even think we've talked in S:C or IRC, I see no reason why there would be bad blood between us. RS:DBADUser:King kolton9/Signature 23:14, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

This is the first mention of admin reviews my simple google search found. It also came up here and here. There may well be other places.  @Gaz#7521 23:54, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

two of those were for only inactive admins, and one was for all admins. It didn't reach consensus (On how to implement it). Fergie's idea was pretty good, and close to mine. I wonder why no one has mentioned that here?User:King kolton9/Signature 00:29, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Forum:Editor Review feature? (and RuneScape:Requests for deletion/RuneScape:Editor Review) is the only proper implementation of a review I know of, although there are some admin reviews on user subpages. Forum:Admins, admins everywhere has mention of a cc admin review being rejected in another thread, although I am unaware what said thread is.

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Forum:A Modest Proposal. User:(wszx)/sheeeeple 08:25, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Had someone mentioned that idea before or was that your own idea? I want to cite properly.User:King kolton9/Signature 21:52, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

The ones I linked are admin reviews. That is exactly what you said - while the target may be slightly different the idea is the same. But we digress.  @Gaz#7521 23:43, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I'm Gaz Lloyd and this is my favourite proposal on this thread.  @Gaz#7521 14:15, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

I'm Stinkowing and even though I quit the wiki clan ages ago now, I approve of Gaz's favorite proposal. No bull. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 15:01, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

D'oh, I forgot to mention, but this solution could apply wonderfully to S:C and IRC. I don't know for sure about IRC, but S:C has users who are able to kick who, when they see a user who is breaking the rules and/or blatently trolling, will toy with them by insulting and flaming the offending user and then kick them, like a cat playing with its mousey prey. In fact, I don't trust very people on S:C because I find them to be dicks even to each other, but I believe that needs to be fixed as well. Just saying. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 15:09, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

As King of Special chat, I deny all claims of dickery amongst my subjects. MolMan 15:18, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

All hail the king! On a more serious not what you're actually suggesting here is an administrator review, as most of the moderators of s:c are, in fact, admins. The same can be said for IRC. We all went through RfA and haven't blown up the wiki, isn't that enough?

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

The point is we don't want it to escalate to the point that someone doesn't rad the sign and presses the big red button. We want to stop it before it happens. Does that make sense?User:King kolton9/Signature 20:49, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

My claims be more of that they not of a phallic nature, these actions. Their behaviour is deplorable at times, but it is rarely proper to nomer it 'dickery'. MolMan 15:44, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

One question; would the RFR be for whatever the person's previous rank was, or lieutenant/admin? And regardless, lieutenant RFRS would have to be re-opened. And anothe question, how would people consider the players during the RFRs, as they might have just succeeded/failed a RFR and would be regarded as thus - creating biasIce Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 15:08, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

That last point wouldn't matter. If you JUST failed an rfr, don't try again.User:King kolton9/Signature 21:04, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to throw this out there, but based on the indentation of Gaz's comment, he likely was referring to Harlequin's idea. Rhys ^Talk 15:16, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

It was.  @Gaz#7521 21:50, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Stinko, that wouldn't help S:C considering the ones doing the toying are "administrators" (and I use that lightly), and you can't separate their powers in S:C. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 15:34, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - It seems like it would be quite a process to evaluate EVERYONE's ranks. Perhaps we could allow people to "challenge" the ranks of admins who they feel need to be re-considered, instead of making a new RfR for every rank and expecting people to vote on ALL of them with any sort of vigor?--Cheers, Yoda 01:38, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. There isn't much point in making current admins do another RfR if they are obviously doing what they are meant to be doing. BennieBoy (talk) 04:05, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I hate to bring this up, but you are doing a RFR for the very position in question. Just to be on the safe side, I would probably advise edging around this thread, for now at least.Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 06:38, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

What? Why? If he can pass an RfCCA now he can pass one in two weeks. Not relevant. ʞooɔ 07:03, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be better if he did come here. Being involved in clan chat threads (which could change how the CC works) is good. Most of the clanmates don't bother (or even know).  @Gaz#7521 15:54, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly not more of a process than the byzantine silliness proposed anywhere above for how to make ranks do their job. Furthermore, my proposal has an advantage over yours: since everyone starts with no rank, no consensus means no rank. It is always more difficult to get things removed than to get them given. And that means that mediocre ranks will stay ranks if the default is that they keep them; if the default is that they do not have them, we have fewer mediocre ranks. User:(wszx)/sheeeeple 08:25, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - The problem with using a "challenge" system is that the default option is that the individual retains their ranks. If the intention of this procedure is to identify ineffective ranks, a "challenge" system would be most useful. If the intention is to keep the "effective" ranks only, then the best path of action would be to set the default action to derank. Obviously this course of action would bring about complaints à la "I earned my rank in an RfR, I deserve to keep it", etc. A question, are we only proposing to reevaluate the lower ranks (I forget what they're called, considering the years since I actually played RS) or everyone, including administrators? Personally, I think administrators should retain their ranks by default (no conflict of interest here, I quit years ago) since it has always been essentially a rubber-stamp option on the RfA. 222 ^talk 10:59, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Sergeants - well, everyone below admin really - have basically no powers. They can kick guests, but its not like we get misbehaving guests that often (aside from when we had one person who disliked us so much he made a bunch of alts and an attack of spambots). As they have passed an RfR they are essentially trusted as some form of moderator, but they can't follow up on any of their warnings to someone who is part of the clan.

I suppose that if we are going to do reviews, Sergeants-Generals can be included, but the baseline should be the admins.  @Gaz#7521 15:54, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Do we even have any active generals? How are you going to handle inactive ranks with this and those who gained their rank through RfA? I only know of 2 occurrences where users with ranks gained through RfA were reviewed, Forum:Request to Lower a Rank and Forum:Ban Dtm142 from the Clan Chat, one resulting in a reduction in rank, the other in a temporary ban. Reviewing all ranks gained through RfA would also effectively remove the grandfather clause as how is someone who hasn't logged in for a long time going to pass?

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

I'm pretty sure we don't have any active users with the general and captain rank, and there are none with the lieutenant rank (since Forum:Regarding lieutenants pushed them back to sergeant). However, their tools are exactly the same as sergeant so lump them together, much like how the entire thread has lumped clan administrator, organiser, coordinator (unused), overseer, deputy owner and owner together as 'admin' (though there are minor changes between them this time, not just the shininess of the rank icon).

For ideas for the rest:

• No difference between RfA-obtained and RfCCA-obtained ranks, hence...
• Throw out the grandfather clause
  • Possibly dump all RfA-obtained ranks who are not currently in the clan - if they're in the clan, they do a review; else, they have to do an RfR?
• Inactives lose their rank - they may have to run another RfR, or they could just do a review, or whatever, doesn't matter right now
• Make the default for reviews to lose the rank? (Per below)

This isn't a proposal, just some ideas. If anyone wants to make a formal proposal, go for it.  @Gaz#7521 23:43, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

It makes no sense not to review admins. Since only admins+ can actually kick clanmembers, they are precisely the people who are reportedly not doing their job, since it is almost always clanmembers who are violating any of the rules. (As a note I do not like using the word "reviews." If we're still talking about my proposal, they are not reviews. They are full-fledged RFRs that have to be passed again. Not reviews.) User:(wszx)/sheeeeple 18:22, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

The few Sergeants that are still around have got kicking rights as well. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 20:10, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

sergeants can only kick guests, not members Ronan ^Talk 20:20, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Just a clarification, I meant sysops when I said administrators i.e. the ranks who received their ranks as a result of being a sysop on the wiki. 222 ^talk 06:29, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Comment/Strong Oppose - Why is Gaz excluded? And if it is to remain that way, Liquid should be as well, due to his special discussion. Anyways. Other than that I am somewhat frustrated by this proposal. Considering I personally have stuck to the rules and I quite enjoy use of the avatar (and I'm planning on using it for the agility+the new skills in all likelihood). As for kicking people, it's such a rare event, but it is quite nice to be able to do when necessary. Other than that it seems like a pretty big mess to have 30 or 50 (depending on who exactly is required to do one). RfRs running at the same time. I much prefer the idea of reviewing things on a case by case basis if there are problems.

Ultimately what everyone finds a "pleasant and sunny place for users" will differ. [offends me may not offend you]. So unless anyone can present specific cases of admins breaking rules what we are really chasing is a change in the rules. So let's change the rules, not the admins, who as far as I see are not at fault. User:Haloolah123/Sig 02:29, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Gaz is excluded because he's the clan owner. He can't be deranked unless someone is there to take his place as owner. -- Cycloneblaze ^{(user - talk - contribs)} 18:08, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

An actual proposal

Because the only way forward for this thread at the moment is to disintegrate into a argument over the effectiveness of certain people as ranks, we should move this forward. The general agreement is to have a discussion over whether we should have a review. The question being put is: Should ranked members in the Clan Chat have their positions reviewed?

Of course, there are additional, more specific questions:

• (a) do we make the default decision derank, or retain rank?
• (b) will all ranks be reviewed?
• (c) will Gaz and/or Liquid be excluded?
• (d) should we dump the grandfather clause?
• (e) should all inactive members (such as myself) lose their ranks and be required to submit to a formal request in the future?
• (f) under what sort of criteria will we be retaining/removing ranks?

Hopefully we can finally put this issue to bed (because based on what I know, this issue has been festering for a bit), 222 ^talk 06:29, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, dump the grandfather clause and review people who have ranks because of it. Temujin 12:14, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

If there are going to be reviews I don't mind putting myself forward as one of the first to be reviewed.  @Gaz#7521 16:07, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

A question for everyone involved in this thread - A quick count shows 7 separate proposals to somehow improve the clan chat. What I don't see, however, is much if any discussion of what the actual problems of the clan chat are. Some people think we allow too much latitude for inappropriate conversations, some people think the admins (which admins?) are too close to the trolls (which trolls?) to have fair judgment. Others think that we're altogether too strict. Nobody can seem to agree whether the clan chat is that bad, and if it is, WHY it's so terrible. So how about we take a step back from premature, bureaucratic proposals, and discuss what the issues at hand are? Why are things so bad that people think we need to log the chat, or de-rank everyone, or otherwise make sweeping changes? What's so bad about the clan chat, and what are the ranks doing wrong? Until we can concretely answer that question, these proposals are a complete waste of time. ʞooɔ 06:51, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up question - If clear reasons are given for the supposed dysfunctionality of RSW, will there be an interim period between the closing of the thread and something massively bureaucratic as reviewing every rank? If the problems are identified in a timely manner, the admins could be made (very) aware of the fact that people are not happy with the way that RSW is being run, and could change their behavior as such. I still think that reviewing every rank individually at the same time is a task that is being addressed too lightly.--Cheers, Yoda 15:03, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the currently conversation - I was doing a dungeon and noticed some people were seriously goofing off when there were ranked people in the clan chat. I remembered that this forum was looking for reasons to re-evaluate the admins, and here it is;

• [1]
• [2]

The ranked users were: Dtm142, Exor Solieve and Suppa Chuppa. I requested the people shown to bring it down a bit, as well as asked the ranked people to do something about it, with no response. I take no side, but am simply showing proof that ranked people need a bit of inspection.Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 21:33, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

the "proof" you have supplied took place in a 3-minute window, in which the three present admins could very easily have been otherwise occupied Ronan ^Talk 22:02, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

The banter had been going on about 10 minutes before I took the screenshots, and was still going when I logged out about 5 minutes after I took the second screenshot.Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 22:48, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone express the desire to discontinue the conversation? It's obviously not the best topic for users to explore, but it's also not harming anyone, as far as I can see.--Cheers, Yoda 01:36, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that you requested that they stop.--Cheers, Yoda 01:51, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Did you pm any of the admins alerting them to the issue? You said I was in the cc at the time, and it's very possible I was not paying attention to what was going on, I often don't check the cc when I'm playing. I always have my friends chat to public, so if I had received a pm informing me of the issue, I would have taken a closer look at the cc to see what was going on. Granted, it's possible that you did pm me when I was in the lobby and therefore afk. Just wondering for further clarification. Also, you can't honestly expect all ranked users in the chat to pay attention to what's going on at all times. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 21:07, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Comment- I talked to Fly Fawkes about this last night and he said that not only did you not ask them to stop, you joined in. Is this true? -- Megadog14^Talk 22:22, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not. In fact, the only think I said during the time was a request for the users to stop, and asking the admins to step in, as well as a miscellaneous question which was if anyone wanted to help me get a Gorgonite platebody. In answer to Suppa Chuppa, almost nobody has their private to anything friends or off, and usually people pay more attention to clan chat/friends chat than private chat. At least I do. And if there is not always at least one ranked person paying attention to the clan chat, well, isn't this what this thread is for?Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 22:55, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

I don't suppose you would have any pictures of you asking them?-- Megadog14^Talk 23:15, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

I took the two pictures near the end of the dungeon, I asked at first, to give them a chance, and when I noticed that it was still going near the end of the dungeon, I had to go, so I took two pictures and then logged out.Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 23:20, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

If there's something wrong in the cc a pm is probably the easiest way to attract attention. I don't have chat expanded for more than a few lines (whatever the minimum height is) and if the conversation is relatively fast flowing or they're doing a chatbox intensive activity the rule breaks can easily be missed. Pms I believe a pm always shows up above a chatbox and only disappears when it is lost within the chatbox or more than a certain number of pms are recieved. In short, pms are easier to notice.

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Comment - If we're going to review every ranked user, then I think we should start from the top and go down from there - i.e., Gaz and Liquidhelm first, then everyone else, higher ranks first. I think that's the fairest way to do it. Oil4 ^Talk 20:08, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

How are you going to go through this? Are you going to go through the whole list of Ranked Users, and cross each one off the list? What is going to qualify each player? What if someone disagrees with your judgement? Most importantly, are you going to do this, or are you going to let someone do it? It can't be Gaz or Liquid, as knowing someone might cloud their judgement. My suggestion, if Oli4burggraa's idea IS carried out, to maybe have Gaz and a leader of another large clan have a talk, and arrange a trade system: a ranked person from their clan will spend about a week in our clan chat, and vice versa, and will submit the results they got to the evaluated clan's leader, and the leader will take action as such. If there aren't any active leaders online throughout a week, anyway, then what is the point of them having any rank? It's like lending a car to a friend on the condition that he uses it during a race twice a week, and then find out that they haven't started the car in a month. It's most basically, useless, and in the case of limiting RFR's/cracking down on them, etc., it disbalances the scales.Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 22:55, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

If there is an active leader that isn't online throughout a full week is what I meant to say, just didn't want to delete a part of a discussion.Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 22:57, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose- For the reason that someone in another clan wouldn't have the experience or knowledge of the specific clan members. Also, where would we even FIND a clan that would agree to this? -- Megadog14^Talk 23:13, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much any large clan has a similar situation to us.Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 23:20, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Um no, no one does that. Also, in normals clans if there is an issue with a rank, they are spoken to by the clan leader and/or removed. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 23:34, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

RSW is a normal clan. The problem is, despite Cook's question regarding the topic, no one has actually told us what the ranks of RSW are doing incorrectly. You can't expect everyone to do a better job if they don't know what they're doing wrong in the first place.--Cheers, Yoda 00:01, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Last I checked you need community consensus to do basically anything, so no, not a normal clan. Also, several people above have mentioned that they don't moderate the clan chat well (you included, but your reason is because no one else does). If anything, people need to work on themselves personally. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 00:04, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

You say that the clan "isn't moderated well." What are we doing wrong then? No one who habitually uses the clan has voiced any sort of complaints regarding the moderation of the clan. If the problems are identified, the admins as a whole can work towards solving them, instead of tackling the supposed issue with something as bulky and blindly bureaucratic as making everyone run an RfR again.--Cheers, Yoda 00:35, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

COMMENT - I've spoken to several people privately, they have nothing negative to say about the current clan chat system, or the admins. Generally I've been told the atmosphere of RSW is enjoyable, and I can agree with them. I've went through the list of administrators of RSW and I can't think that any of them have exhibited any sort of negative behavior. So far as I see it, there is no problem. If there is a problem, the ranks would have taken care of it. However it is best that we identify what the problem is and then evaluate the current administrators. But from what I've seen above, no one has actually said what is dysfunctional in RSW. It would be helpful if the problem that caused the creation of this thread be identified first. -- Spine^Talk 00:40, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

What do I think is wrong in the clan chat? - What exactly drove myself and some other users of of the clan chat do you ask? There's a multitude of reasons, and I'll list them as below. Believe me or don't believe me in what I say, I don't actively have the screenshots to back these accusations up, but surely some people will understand when I say what I list.

1) The chat isn't drama free - This is an absolutely fundamental reason in to why I left the clan chat. On many occasions, a level of drama will break out in the clan chat for no apparent reason, and it will drag other users in to the heated debate. This usually results in some of the quieter users getting upset, in which they'll make a temporary ultimatum to leave the chat until things calm down, or to turn their clan chat off... The huge problem here is, when drama does break out in the clan chat, almost none of the ranked users will do a damn thing to prevent it. Whether it is down to the fact that they're scared to use their tools, or whether they feel they're not in a neutral position to actively kick someone. Sometimes, you'll see ranked users purposely get involved in said drama, usually because it helps to provoke a person they particularly don't like. Example, Yoda and Ice Rush (Neither are innocent in any way, but you would expect Yoda to be more rigourous in his position, rather than baiting. What Ice Rush does is irrelevant, as he isn't ranked, and he should be removed/warned appropriately. That brings me to my next pivotal point.

2) Users are NOT getting treated fairly - There is absolutely no way in hell that all users are being moderated on the same level. Some users are constantly bullied within the clan chat by certain groups of people, that at times, also include ranked users. Take for example, Butterkity; Yes, he wasn't the greatest person in the world to speak to, but so many people provoked him long before any consideration to ban him from the clan chat. He would be warned, and eventually removed indefinitely from the clan chat for, admittedly, a not so nice edit on the wiki, but other than that, what else did he truly do wrong? Now let's look at the other end of the spectrum... How many times have we seen Imxor Solmo display obnoxious and dickish behaviour, and not even receive a warning for it from anyone? Too many times.

3) The policies are taken WAY too lenient - This pretty much sums itself up. Before I left the chat, I would commonly call people out on policy breaches, that are completely genuine, and within the working of the policies, without being a technical dick. After quoting these policy breaks, I would then proceed to have my position challenged, despite full knowledge of said policies. After a while of this happening, I stopped calling out policy breaches, and just gave people appropriate warnings. The warning system needs to be more strict and severe... When someone breaks RS:UTP, warn them... Don't harass fellow ranks because he CORRECTLY used his position of power to prevent further policy breaches.

So why do we need this whole administrative review? It's because the ranks don't have a flying clue to what they're doing... We run these requests for clan chat administrators, and the now defunct lieutenant positions, and we judge people on whether they're a nice guy, pretty much. Please, go ahead and proceed to hate me for saying this, but other than the grandfathered active wiki administrators, people are using the ranks as a STATUS. "Hey look, I'm one of the popular cool guys now because I have a rank."

What do we need to do? We need to review whom we let administrate the chat. Let's get the people that are not using their position properly out of power. Put EVERYONE through a review for the sake of keeping equality behind this scheme. We need to run a page, with all actively ranked clan chat users involved to be assessed on whether they TRULY make a good administrative role. We need to make the policies that we enforce in the clan chat significantly more strict, because with them so lenient, a high quantity of complaining is inevitable, and it makes the clan chat an obnoxious atmosphere to be a part of.

As for ALL inactive ranks, outside of the clan chat, they should have their powers removed with immediate effect. If they decide to return to the clan chat, they need to prove once again that they're ready to take on their position of power. That includes all grandfathered administrators and crats on the wiki that play no part in the clan chat.

The system we have now isn't working properly, and the only "Easy" way to change it is through the reviews, whether that is everyone at once, or 5 people a week, or whatever works. Personally, I would like to see the clan chat system become more sophisticated... After all, you're applying for a position of power to help the clan chat, are you not? If you're too lazy to take a screenshot, and to upload it to the wiki for the other proposal in this thread, you shouldn't even be ranked. It just shows that you're using your position as a status if you're willing to complain about that accusation. Rhys ^Talk 19:05, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Problems I see with admins-Theres 3 main ones

Admins dont pay attention As shown in Ice Rush's comment above, he asked for an admin to stop a conversation when there were 3 in the chat, and not a single one responded. A lot of the time when I'm in the CC, there might be one admin on who isn't being active in the chat and maybe another in the lobby.

Bias Warthog summed this up nicely. A lot of times, when someone asks an admin to do something about someone, they don't because they dislike that person or they are friends with the person who is being disruptive

No standard procedure for kicks/bans Right now its pretty much up to the admin to decide what to do. Because of this, we have some admins who give too many warnings and some who kick without giving a single one. Also, shouldn't we inform people of what theyre being kicked for in the chat rather than solely using the wiki?

Hopefully this will help with deciding what should be done.-- Megadog14^Talk 20:27, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could arrange something which says, if any ranked user is known to be active, and someone breaks a big rule like UTP, and a screenshot is taken, it is an instant kick or even a ban. If the user won't do his/her job once, there is nothing saying he/she won't do it again and again. Another thing, is that the grandfather rules HAS TO GO. There are some people that were grandfathered into kicking ranks, if I recall correctly. The only real use of the grandfather rule is as a consolation prize, which, if someone can put up with dicks in the Clan Chat, then he should definitely be able to go without consolations, which are at the cost of the ranks he/she left behind.Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 21:16, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

only inactive sysops (who haven't appeared in-game since 2011) can be grandfathered into a kicking rank -- the clause is almost totally irrelevant to this "discussion" Ronan ^Talk 21:23, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

'Comment' - The huge problem here is, when drama does break out in the clan chat, almost none of the ranked users will do a damn thing to prevent it. Whether it is down to the fact that they're scared to use their tools, or whether they feel they're not in a neutral position to actively kick someone.

Followed by

After a while of this happening, I stopped calling out policy breaches, and just gave people appropriate warnings

So you stopped doing anything. Congratulations. You were part of the exact problem you're petitioning against. Immo Voted Worst Wikian 2013 06:57, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Can you read? I suggest you read that again before trying to declare any level of hypocritical behaviour with your dickish and obnoxious attitude. I still GAVE warnings, I just stopped declaring policy breaches to people, because others would get upset over the fact that I was enforcing the rules correctly. It eventually did end up in flaming, each time. Rhys ^Talk 11:05, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Comment/Request - Could the people complaining about bias, policy breeches and general incompetence please provide concrete examples, not "just look at what happened to so-and-so"? I am in the CC for several hours a day and I have never noticed any of the things you're all complaining about. Oil4 ^Talk 21:43, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Well, for being kicked without a warning, about a month ago there someone in the clan named LT Lash. He had been saying stuff in the chat that violated Rule 9 of the chat. However, some people had been joining in and nobody had complained. After about 10 minutes of this, Relaera kicked him with no warning and didn't even say anything. After LT Lash messaged me saying that he couldn't join the chat, I asked, and only after I asked did Relaera say he had been kicked for Rule 9.-- Megadog14^Talk 22:20, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Anything else? I feel like one or two anecdotal occurrences over a large space of time should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, rather than going through the huge hassle of re-evaluating everyone for a few peoples' mistakes.--Cheers, Yoda 23:53, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not even sure where to put this, or whose comment to put it under. But anyway. I am in the cc relatively often, and 99% of the time (made up stat :3) there is none of the bad behavior in the chat that some people have pointed out. Sometimes there is, and someone, be it a rank or not, will most likely request the discussion be stopped if they are uncomfortable with it. Granted, I haven't actually seen someone be kicked in a long time, but personally I just think everyone is over-reacting, asking to review every rank. If someone see's ranks not doing their job, should that not be brought up on a case by case basis? (I'm not familiar enough with protocol to say whether a yew grove thread should be created or something, but the point still stands).

Also, is it not proper procedure to list who was banned on the cc page? Only Bawble and butterkity are there, and no-one else ever seems to be. If it's not, it should be mandatory. --

Wingcap

17:49, May 1, 2013 (UTC)