Forum:Reforming the Clan Chat

Forums: Yew Grove > Reforming the Clan Chat

There have recently been several CC threads, two of which are still active, yet I believe another is necessary. As you may know, the CC is no stranger to drama and conflict, and it has very rarely become serious enough to be formally brought up. However, in light of recent events, I believe now is such a time. The CC is ripe with trolling, immature discussions and just bad conduct in general, and instead of creating unnecessary wiki drama, we've been shrugging this off for a while; and yet, said recent events indicate that it has become inhospitable to such an extent that two clanmates, both of whom have been members of the community for over a year, have decided to quit, and several others are seriously considering doing so. From what I have gathered in an off-site discussion, screenshots of which I can post upon request, it is clear to me that the current admins are either unwilling or just incapable of handling conflict within the CC, and ensuring the standard of conduct that is demanded by the clan rules.

I don't know where to go from here. If you think I'm saying that the admins are entirely responsible, I'm not, because the issue lies deeper. I am at a loss as to what changes should be made to rectify this. But it is obviously apparent that something must be done. I have therefore decided to create this thread, where I encourage anyone, part of the CC or not, to suggest solutions for the reformation of this once civil medium. Whether it's amending RS:CC, raising second thoughts about the current group of admins or just, well, whatever, any ideas are welcome, and most will probably be better than what I've come up with so far (pls don't ban me tho).

Although many of you will know who some of the people concerned are, I deliberately chose to leave out names in an effort to preserve what objectivity we have left.

Bluefire2^{Talk edit my sig}Oil4 I made this 22:50, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

See also - Forum:Moderating the Clan Chat, Forum:Regarding the user "Imxor Solmo", Forum:Sexual topics in clan chat. The consensus is always that some users feel there are some problems, some users feel that there are not. In the end, nothing changes. The last time I brought this up I was basically told that no one actually in the clan cared - admin or not. People seem to be fine with the way things are in the clan. Not everyone of course, but a vast majority. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 22:59, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

As I have told others already, I don't care if this thread drags on for ages and gets closed without consensus like the first one you listed did, because this way at least we'll have recognised that there is an issue and tried to fix it as opposed to sweeping it under the rug and leaving it for someone else to clear up. Bluefire2^{Talk edit my sig}Oil4 I made this 23:02, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Nice glasses. Didn't know lenses came in rose. MolMan 23:03, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have specified that constructive criticism is preferred. If you have any of that to offer, please do so. Bluefire2^{Talk edit my sig}Oil4 I made this 23:10, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

This thread isn't going to solve anything. MolMan 23:12, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

And your pointless comments are? Bluefire2^{Talk edit my sig}Oil4 I made this 23:18, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

It's more your thread that's pointless. It's saying nothing more than "something is bad, and something should get done". You've no concrete proposal or strong evidence, and you're overblowing the egregiousness of the situation. There are a few shitheads in the clan, and there was a lot of drama today, some of which stemmed offsite. In reality, the CC isn't too much different than it ever was, and most of the cancerous behavior came from other mediums. MolMan 23:24, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Except that's what every other thread tried to do. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 23:04, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

And they failed. So what? Bluefire2^{Talk edit my sig}Oil4 I made this 23:10, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

And so will yours. MolMan 23:12, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason for not trying to fix it, just because others have failed in the past doesn't mean you need to intentionally make it fail. Bloo is being serious and needs to be treated seriously. Sly Fawkes (talk) 23:16, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making it fail. It was doomed from the start. MolMan 23:19, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

We get it. You want nothing to do with this thread. Nobody's forcing you. Bluefire2^{Talk edit my sig}Oil4 I made this 23:21, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

You obviously don't because that's not my point. MolMan 23:24, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

You're just trying to cover your own ass because you know that the number one culprit here is you Oil4 ^Talk 23:26, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

I'll fully admit what I said offsite and everything. You were a problem too. I'm glad you left. MolMan 23:28, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

You have no right to be calling anyone a problem. You should be happy that you're even in a position to discuss this. Oil4 ^Talk 23:34, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

You're just mad because of what I said about your mother. But that was on skype, not the CC. MolMan 23:36, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Well this exchange was...not at all constructive. Although if this is the sort of behaviour I've been missing in CC, then perhaps the most reasonable solution would be to add one another to your respective ignore lists and enjoy the rest of the CC. Failing that, it seems that all clan members, not just admins, should actively and diplomatically discourage one another from treating each other badly in CC and bring it to the attention of an admin if people don't voluntarily modify their negative behaviour after being asked to. Heck, bring it to my attention if it's that bad. I'm not an admin, but if it's really bad, a mute might be in order. I have to see it, though, so if I'm in game when it happens, tell me. I might not be paying attention to the chat. What goes on outside of the CC, however, is outside of admin control. You can't ban a user from CC because of something he said on skype, for example, unless it was said in some sort of official skype admin meeting. Outside of that, I encourage you all to employ some semblance of self-moderation. Don't bring outside anger into the CC. If you do, be aware that your actions could have consequences, including (but not limited to) de-ranking and/or bans/mutes.-- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 10:51, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Anyway <.< I am saying that, you bring nothing new to the table. "There are problems, let's talk about them (if you agree with me) and maybe someone will come up with an idea. If not though that's cool." Come up with a solid proposal and maybe you will get somewhere. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 23:29, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

The first step is recognising that we have a problem on our hands. So far, nobody's managed to seriously do this. Bluefire2^{Talk edit my sig}Oil4 I made this 23:32, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

You don't do it 1 forum at a time. Create an outline of the problem that identifies the problems, remedies, and sanctions. MolMan 23:34, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Useless comment - "the CC is no stranger to drama and conflict" you know the rules, and so do I Oil4 ^Talk 23:05, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. Sly Fawkes (talk) 23:09, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Oil pls Bluefire2^{Talk edit my sig}Oil4 I made this 23:10, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

You're replying to Fawkes though Oil4 ^Talk 23:11, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Regarding clan admins: You can't lead effectively and be everyone's friend. It's nice when you and all of your friends are also admins, and I genuinely think that most everyone in this cc has had good intentions through and through. The problem in my opinion is not that there are bad clan admins, but that even patient people get impatient when much of their life is faced with the same frustration--this game and this wiki together must take up a massive amount of time for most people, and stellar conduct is nigh impossible without saintly, parental patience. Of course people are want to let off steam via one channel or the next, or not take their position or role super-seriously sometimes. So what? Taking away someones privileges or reprimanding them publicly does nothing to develop better environments. As for the peons of the cc, most are also genuinely good people but probably are intimidated by the big dogs being condescending or brusque--I'm certain that if there is a void, new people will pipe up, and the culture can gradually change from pubescent dick-swinging to enjoyable conversation. TL;DR: Relax and perhaps reduce the number of responsibilities of the admins, consciously avoid egotistical quips and cut everyone some slack--71.62.249.105 00:00, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Clarify pls - I'm not an active player anymore but to give this thread a bit of shape for all editors, some screenshots of the "trolling, immature discussions and just bad conduct" that is in question are necessary. Concrete objectives in a proposal are a must -- not trying to put the proposer down here but the "something must be done" adage is an extraordinary benignity that really makes a thread like this lose a lot of its credibility. Ronan ^Talk 00:52, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be imposing myself here when I haven't been in the clan for a long time but reading through this thread was a big "wat" Ronan ^Talk 00:56, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Did you make this thread because you believe there are problems in the cc? If so what do you think the problems are and what would you suggest is done to improve them? IsobelJ 07:30, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Question - Would you please provide an example of the trolling, immature discussions and bad conduct that you are referring to, as well as detailing what (if any) the admin responses were and why you found the responses ineffective?  I might need to pay more attention to CC, because I've honestly not seen anything that would warrant a discussion of this nature and yet I understand a number of long-term members have recently left and that's concerning. I'd like to know why.  I can't suggest a solution until I know the specifics of the problem so if you or anyone who has recently left could fill in the blanks for me and provide some details, that would be tremendously helpful.  Ms ZuZu ^Talk 08:47, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

A user has requested closure for Reforming the Clan Chat. Request denied. The reason given was: As Mol stated, there have been endless discussions about this, and none of them gotten anywhere. The "I don't know where to go from here" in OP makes it even more doubtful that this thread will lead to anything.

Despite the overall lack of evidence to discuss at this point, which is needed if this is going to continue, I think that the mentioned previous discussions above do suggest that there are significant issues in the clan chat which need to be addressed at some point.

Let us not forget, RS:SNOW states a thread must be open a minimum of 1 week. Unless someone can show this thread can be closed under RS:UCS or another applicable policy, it should remain open for that one week. User:Cqm/Signature

Oppose closure - Just because previous threads have gone nowhere doesn't mean this one won't. The amount of time this thread has been up for is certainly not enough time for people to compose their thoughts, and notify clan members. Just because there isn't a proposal now doesn't mean that it won't result in one, after all this is a discussion. --RSDaftVader (talk) 10:09, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose closure - if there's a Skype cabal of a few users that's going around and causing problems, I think they should be dealt with first rather than closure, then this problem might be able to stop once and for all, as well as everyone in it who's took part in bad faith actions having taken the right punishment. You know who you are, I've already seen log excerpts and I'm sure they'll get posted fully for the wiki to see soon. – Ozank Cx 10:24, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

ilerminaty Oil4 ^Talk 10:38, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose closure - Can we please identify the problem and it's source(s) before we give up on any possible solution? Ms ZuZu ^Talk 10:49, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Request for screenshots/logs - Users above have already touched on these, could someone either provide the logs (or screenshot if they're from in game) or at the very least a description of what's happened? I appreciate that no one has named names deliberately, but if certain users conduct is exacerbating the situation they should be discussed. User:Cqm/Signature

+1 - also spoilers: contains two-faced discussion! :P (I've already seen some of it). – Ozank Cx 11:57, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Just shut up. You're shit-talking people without even naming them, based on fragments of a conversation you weren't in. That shit doesn't belong on the YG. Oil4 ^Talk 12:09, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

No need for the hostility. You'll see the whole logs soon enough, don't worry. And considering those conversations directly relate to what this YG is trying to address, I'm very sure they do belong here. – Ozank Cx 12:17, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I've personally seen the whole logs and they easily belong here. What's more important, however, is that your attitude here is not helping your case at all. bad_fetus^talk 12:21, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Is this in response to Ozu or to me? Oil4 ^Talk 12:22, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

To you, as the indentation should imply. bad_fetus^talk 12:24, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

You could easily have forgotten a :.

Anyway, what are you even talking about? I have no "case" here. These magical logs that everyone's talking about but nobody's willing to show, where did they come from? Who supplied you with them? Oil4 ^Talk 12:26, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Showing the "no proof right now so it's all a lie" card will just make you look worse than what you already do at this point. We're just waiting for the one who merrily showed us log excerpts in S:C last night (~12 hours ago) to relay the whole thing for the wiki to see how some users really are. – Ozank Cx 12:29, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I'm doing, lol. I'm telling you to stop prematurely shit-talking people without proof.

What is this anyway, a witch hunt? Because I'm not seeing you behave any better here than the people you so despise. Oil4 ^Talk 12:33, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I don't despise anyone in particular, that isn't relevant nor true, and it's not a witch hunt. But the point is I'm not a fan of cabals who like to cause drama on the place in the question (e.g. clan chat/wiki), and those users deserve to be exposed. I'm sure anyone with good intentions would agree. – Ozank Cx 12:41, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

What are you trying to accomplish? What possible use is there in putting the entire log of a private skype conversation (I assume that's the log you keep referring to) online? It contains private information which is nobody's business. Oil4 ^Talk 12:44, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

The logs that I previously mentioned are here. I was initially reluctant to post them as the person that provided them asked me not to post them and wishes to remain anonymous at this point. Regardless, I think the logs show a rather unacceptable state of affairs between some of the more well-known members of the community. bad_fetus^talk 12:52, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I was the source of the logs. I only allowed them to be posted in the interest of openness. It is not my intention or desire for people to be kicked because of the content of the logs. I would hope that at the end of this thread we all move on together and that the clan chat is a better place to exist in. That however is above my pay grade. All the fighting that is going on currently serves no useful purpose. I would rather it happen in a private skype chat rather than in the clan chat itself. But given how far this has all escalated, everyone should be allowed to see the whole picture. All editors are equal after all. Raglough (talk) 13:52, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I very strongly agree. If we want to make the RSW cc a better place, shouting at each other on the YG isn't the way to do it. This is causing way more hurt than needed. Oil4 ^Talk 14:16, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to be punishing people for comments made in a private conversation, Mol ought to be blocked Oil4 ^Talk 12:57, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone decided on anyone getting punished yet, just that your, fawkes's and mol's attitudes are unacceptable. Moreover, if any punishment does get decided upon, I agree that mol also deserves it. bad_fetus^talk 13:04, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal here. What we have is:

1) Mol harrassing Sacre and myself - this is the worst part of that log, if anyone's going to be punished, it ought to be him

2) Fawkes being a dick - not entirely unexpected

3) Me doing something that apparently greatly upsets people but I have no idea what it is

Big deal Oil4 ^Talk 13:08, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

What is this log supposed to show? I see nothing but a few people having a nice conversation. Could be me though. User:ThePsionic/Sig/2

Comment - Alright, this is where the log has relevance to this YG. See line 260-275 on the log:

[12/22/2014 9:32:29 AM] Gaz: look
oil, fawkes
we [all cc admins] are administrative team
if you can't act as a team and at least be decent to other admins then there's an issue
the resolution to such an issue is removal of the problem part from the team or   clan entirely
 
you're going to stop your shit and act like you're administrators
or you'll find that you no longer are
[12/22/2014 9:32:31 AM] Gaz: clear?
[12/22/2014 9:32:44 AM] Sacre (Vitus M.B.): Jesus Fuck this got real.
[12/22/2014 9:32:49 AM] Oil4 Burgers: you have no right to deadmin me over honest comments made in an off-wiki chat
[12/22/2014 9:32:56 AM] Jakey-poo: basically the thing was "I'm not allowed to do what I want to do anymore"
[12/22/2014 9:33:04 AM] Oil4 Burgers: you're going to stop your shit and act like you're a clan leader
[12/22/2014 9:33:04 AM] Jakey-poo: "So I might as well end it all"
[12/22/2014 9:33:08 AM] Oil4 Burgers: or you'll find that you no longer are
[12/22/2014 9:33:09 AM] Oil4 Burgers: clear?

Now see line 289-355

[12/22/2014 9:36:03 AM] Gaz: the attitude of this chat is bleeding over to cc
[12/22/2014 9:36:04 AM | Removed 9:36:10 AM] Sacre (Vitus M.B.): This message has been removed.
[12/22/2014 9:36:05 AM] Jakey-poo: until you get to clan leader, there's no higher power
[12/22/2014 9:36:07 AM] Gaz: is my point
[12/22/2014 9:36:09 AM] Oil4 Burgers: No, Gaz
[12/22/2014 9:36:11 AM] Oil4 Burgers: it really isn't
[12/22/2014 9:36:24 AM] Oil4 Burgers: This is a PRIVATE conversation
[12/22/2014 9:36:26 AM] Jakey-poo: then explain bloo's screenshot
[12/22/2014 9:36:28 AM] Oil4 Burgers: where we discuss PRIVATE things
[12/22/2014 9:36:35 AM] Sly Fawkes: waffle quit, so?
[12/22/2014 9:36:41 AM] Sly Fawkes: that was coming for a while
[12/22/2014 9:36:51 AM] Sly Fawkes: no one kicked him
[12/22/2014 9:36:54 AM] Jakey-poo: facilitated by your cuntiness
[12/22/2014 9:36:58 AM | Edited 9:37:02 AM] Oil4 Burgers: it would reflect very badly on you, Gaz, to make serious clan decisions based on conversations in this private group
[12/22/2014 9:37:03 AM] Jakey-poo: I'm not saying I care about it
[12/22/2014 9:37:03 AM] Sacre (Vitus M.B.): >Implying you're not a cunt to many of us
[12/22/2014 9:37:05 AM] Sly Fawkes: my cuntiness has nothing to do with this chat
[12/22/2014 9:37:15 AM] Jakey-poo: but it's an example of this chat being noxious
[12/22/2014 9:37:20 AM] Oil4 Burgers: Mol
[12/22/2014 9:37:24 AM] Gaz: as much as they say they left for no bad reasons to join another betetr-fitting clan
[12/22/2014 9:37:27 AM] Oil4 Burgers: you have no right to complain about that
[12/22/2014 9:37:31 AM] Gaz: we all know why they really left
[12/22/2014 9:37:40 AM] Oil4 Burgers: They left because they didn't get the power they were so hungry for
[12/22/2014 9:37:40 AM] Sly Fawkes: they said no reasons for leaving
[12/22/2014 9:37:43 AM] Sly Fawkes: they just did
[12/22/2014 9:37:55 AM] Oil4 Burgers: Gaz for fuck's sake, you hated Waffle yourself
[12/22/2014 9:37:56 AM] Sly Fawkes: waffle was a cunt till the end
[12/22/2014 9:37:57 AM] Oil4 Burgers: don't flip flop now
[12/22/2014 9:38:06 AM] Gaz: i didn't hate him
[12/22/2014 9:38:13 AM] Sly Fawkes: that screenshot was the only thing he said before leaving
[12/22/2014 9:38:14 AM] Gaz: i never said that
[12/22/2014 9:38:16 AM] Oil4 Burgers: Gaz
[12/22/2014 9:38:22 AM] Jakey-poo: I didn't like him, but he's still an accurate example of what you guys are doing
[12/22/2014 9:38:22 AM] Sly Fawkes: he hadn't said anything else in three days
[12/22/2014 9:38:26 AM] Oil4 Burgers: Can you HONESTLY say that I am in ANY way more unreasonable towards Christine, than you are towards 5-x?
[12/22/2014 9:38:32 AM] Sly Fawkes: us? doing?
[12/22/2014 9:38:46 AM] Sly Fawkes: I called him a twat once, and asked him to stop the fake qc
[12/22/2014 9:38:49 AM] Sly Fawkes: nothing else
[12/22/2014 9:38:50 AM] Jakey-poo: you hold actions from what she did 7 years ago against her
[12/22/2014 9:38:54 AM] Oil4 Burgers: No I don't
[12/22/2014 9:38:54 AM] Sly Fawkes: no other interactions
[12/22/2014 9:38:57 AM] Oil4 Burgers: I gave her a second chance
[12/22/2014 9:38:59 AM] Oil4 Burgers: she blew it
[12/22/2014 9:39:00 AM] Oil4 Burgers: not my  fault
[12/22/2014 9:39:03 AM] Colin: I think Gaz said something interesting
[12/22/2014 9:39:11 AM] Colin: "The attitude of this chat is bleeding over into the clan"
[12/22/2014 9:39:15 AM] Colin: this is true

Do I need say more? This continuous talking behind people's backs in the log shows that the some of the aforementioned users are detrimental to the clan, the behavior is started to happen in the clan too, and even users in the cabal know it. – Ozank Cx 13:25, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Jesus christ, stop talking about a cabal, there is no cabal. As you can see, we all disagree with each other on everything, what kind of shitty cabal is that? Oil4 ^Talk 13:27, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

The fact you said it was "private discussion" in S:C coupled with saying "Anyway, what are you even talking about? I have no "case" here. These magical logs that everyone's talking about but nobody's willing to show, where did they come from? Who supplied you with them?" just reinforces that you're trying hard to keep it secret or make out it doesn't exist - which fits the definition nicely. Also, the focus of my excerpts is the behavior is affecting the clan, heck several users in there admit it. – Ozank Cx 13:36, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Please don't let your saltiness about your failed rfa influence your judgement. It's unprofessional. Oil4 ^Talk 13:37, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

RS:UTP - my comments about going off what was said in the log is irrelevant to my withdrawn RfA, so it'd be nice if you could keep the personal insults out of this. – Ozank Cx 13:43, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Let's have a look at this. Anyone who's been part of several internet communities of this sort of size knows that there are several ways they can go south. If those in power enforce the rules rigidly with no common sense or consideration for context, you end up with dry, dull discussion disappointing denizens into departing. If those in power sit back idly and let discussion take its free course, eventually someone will step over the line because they know they can get away with it. I understand the calls for corroborating evidence in this case but actually I think this discussion is worth having by itself. The OP merely says that "something must be done" which is a little unhelpful, so let's hash out a few options, along with my mullings and musings thereon:

• Do nothing: Some people have suggested that what's actually been happening is about personalities rather than the actual clan chat regime and that those people who left were simply not a good fit, regardless of whether other users stepped over the line or not. Whether or not this is true, one user asserts that participation in the clan chat is being reduced to tribal groupthink, because a certain set of users is allowed to get away with anything while dissenters are not. I think that's exaggeration, and personally this is my favoured option because I like free and unfettered discussion, but I accept that there are those who prefer a more calm and civil environment.
• Have admins enforce the rules flatly: Reading the OP I'm led to believe that most admins like to sit back and watch or even participate when a discussion gets heated. One simple solution is to have admins step in and slap down anythng acrimonious as soon as it starts, with admins who get involved or fan the flames demoted (either by thread or summarily). This of course risks the former of my points above where discussion gets slapped down the moment it deviates from approved territory, leading to bland chat. This slapping down itself has the potential to turn sour - I don't like this idea much.
• Have some fresh admins: Perhaps the rules work just fine, and the problem is that the admins we have just aren't the right people for the job. It might be the case that there are users out there who would naturally use the right combination of authority and common sense to make the clan chat a pleasant place for everyone. I don't have any names in mind, and nor am I trying to undermine the current admins, but when the problem is "This moderated chat isn't working" you have to at least glance in the direction of the moderators.

The concrete problem I mentioned earlier is that the way the clan chat is set up now, the only way to prevent someone from speaking is to kick them from the clan (please correct me if I'm wrong because I've not looked into this). One way to solve this would be to have the chat-able rank as corporal and leave the recruit rank as a sin bin where people can be put if an admin feels they've earned a spell there. I can foresee a couple of logistical issues with this, such as there being no automatic timeout on being put down to recruit and the demoted user having no guaranteed way to complain if their time is up (unless we also enforce that admins keep their private chat on and available). Basically this boils down to: if we decide the admins need to be a bit more forceful, how are they meant to do so? Raging Bull ^Talk 13:30, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

The admins do need to be a bit more forceful, even with other admins. It isn't a difficult notion: if a RuneScape player is violating the rules of the game by disrespecting people, then that player should be reported to Jagex and banned from the clan chat. This [1] would never happen in RSW. And what happens in the RSW clan would not be tolerated there. Despite popular opinion, it is possible for people on the Internet to be nice to each other. --Wafflebb (talk) 17:27, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

"This would never happen" my ass. There are plenty of moments like that in RSW, except they have been overshadowed by the exposed bullshit that happens once every so often, especially this month.

Also, "disrespecting people" happens on a massive scale in the CC. While I'm not denying that, anyone involved knows who they're dealing with and simply stop giving a single shit once the argument's over. People in the CC are mature_ish. User:ThePsionic/Sig/2

I apologize if I have overgeneralized. I was just trying to point out that in the time when I was part of the clan, I can't recall a time when the clan chat felt genuinely friendly, and it wasn't long before people started accusing each other of being "noobs" and acting as if they are better than everybody else because of reasons x, y, and z. Sure, maybe the 50 most vocal members of the clan chat don't mind people belittling them in the chat, but the clan summary that displays on the vexillum declares the clan to be a friendly clan. That should mean at the very least that Jagex's rules for conduct in their own game will be followed. In general, being called a noob, an idiot, or annoying is not what comes to mind when many people think of "Every RuneScape player is entitled to the respect of the other members of the player community." --Wafflebb (talk) 17:50, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

????????? User:ThePsionic/Sig/2

Give me some examples of the RS code of conduct being broken then Oil4 ^Talk 17:59, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I've been supplied with a fresh source of logs that span a month's worth, but I'm reluctant to post the relevant details pertaining to this forum as apparently an admin said I was arguing with a user and I had more of an issue with the user in question than vice versa even though they blatantly insulted me twice. I initially only stepped in because I knew there were relevant logs around but the forum could have been closed prematurely before addressing them. So yeah, I won't bother elaborating the issue any further now. Consider me out of this. Make of what you've seen so far, as I'm not prepared to be made to look like the bad guy any further and I won't be handing the logs to anyone else. Redundant, as they were posted and possibly out there. – Ozank Cx 15:20, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Zuzu said above that users who troll in Skype cannot be banned in the CC. I would like to point out that this is not true. There is no policy that protects users from being a troll in alternate chat mediums while being banned in one. Likewise, there is no policy that says users who troll one medium must be banned from all others. The area is gray and there are no policies regarding it, to my knowledge. We have had discussions on it before - if users who troll in IRC should be banned from wiki, for example. In addition, things said in other chat mediums (CC/IRC, private chat in S:C) have been used as evidence in various YGs and adminship requests. Therefore, I just wanted to let everyone know that your other wiki-related accounts may be effected if a proposal to ban you from the CC goes through due to this Skype stuff. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 18:35, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I guess it's just my opinion, and not policy, that private conversations outside of official wiki channels shouldn't be considered, but given that in this case the attitudes in those conversations has trickled down to CC it does become somewhat complicated. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 22:27, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

The atmosphere in the convo had been toxic for a while, and I was noticing the attitudes spreading from it - not just the CC, but on to the YG as well. I was considering leaving it for awhile, but I enjoyed the decent chats when they happened - usually with the users mostly not involved with this debacle.

It was a cabal. Maybe it didn't start as one, but it certainly became one.

I know the lack of specificity in my warning lead to further debate. As a clarification, no, I would not have acted solely on the skype convo. Of course not. But the way things were going with the bleedover it would've ended up with removal of rights. [This obviously was not helped when I went AFK for a bit.] I'd asked them (and others) previously to stop what they're doing and be nicer, and it was obviously ignored or forgotten. If they aren't responding to me asking then I have to move it up to warning.

I know some are unhappy with my handling of the situation - as am I. I'm disappointed with those involved, but more so, disappointed with myself. As I always have been, I am open for my place as clan owner to be reassigned if the community deems so.  @Gaz#7521 19:31, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

As one of the main people in this particular Skype group, I can only echo what you say. I never meant for any of this to happen - I just wanted to have some fun with a few clan/wiki people. Yes, it did become a "cabal" (god I hate that word), especially with regards to the whole clan avatar issue. I still disagree that there was serious harm done to either wiki or clan apart from that. I wish to apologise to anyone who might be offended by anything I personally have said or done in these Skype groups - you all know that sometimes you just want to let off some steam, and a (what I presumed to be) private skype group with friends is the perfect opportunity for that, right? We've all had rude thoughts about others, that's human nature. The difference is that most of us keep these to ourselves, while some of us (e.g. myself) say them to others in private.

I don't want anyone to think that I'm backtracking, or not taking responsibility for my actions. I am deeply sorry for any hurt I may have caused those reading these logs, but again, one should realise that this was merely a private conversation. Apart from the 5-x/clan avatar debacle (which I admit was incredibly unwise and should never have happened), I never let this private group influence my actions, and I still disagree that it caused serious harm to the wiki and/or any of its assets (like the clan).

Gaz: I was deeply disappointed in the way you responded to what happened last night, but it's good to see that you are too. Everyone knows that you're a very reasonable guy, so I think it would be stupid for you to step down as clan leader over this.

As for me, I've already left the clan over this and other related issues. I'm fully willing to help with this thread and any others that are necessary to remove the problems that have been pointed out. And if I called you a "bitch" or something in one of those logs, please don't take it too seriously, I probably didn't mean it like that ;-) Oil4 ^Talk 19:48, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Then stop trying to take me down. MolMan 19:49, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Gaz, I don't think stepping down as owner would be productive. This was one situation. I think your leadership in most respects has been overwhelmingly positive. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 22:27, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

General Comments - I wanted to take a few before commenting on this to try and compose my reply. Regarding this Skype 'cabal', personally if Wikian's want to discuss something as friends/whatever outside of the bounds of RuneScape/IRC/on-wiki, fine by me, there is absolutely no rule or law against it, the problem comes when either of two things happen. The first is when general mentions of the existence of a group of clan members/editors discussing the clan chat are made within the clan chat (I've seen this mentioned several times in multiple ways), this is spilling 'private affairs' into the clan chat and actually potentially creates the view of elitism (personally I don't care about this aspect, I don't use Skype, doubt I ever will, just trying to tell it how it comes across) amongst others. The second problem is when the 'private' discussions (to be honest, it sounds more like a giant conference call & group chat) are used to attack Wikian's and clan members, I've had multiple people tell me that this has happened and they've personally heard/seen it.

It's not just the Skype issue though, there is general unpleasantness in the clan chat itself, it's why I left the CC earlier in the year & stayed clear for over 6 months, and it's why I'm considering leaving again, an example from a month ago is when somehow a discussion got onto the subject of Hitler and Jews (I can't remember the exact context or participants now though but at the point where I said 'Surely this is inappropriate, can you stop', I believe the instigator was trying to justify Hitler's actions in the war), it's a type of discussion that is inappropriate nearly anywhere, anytime (I guess there are some exceptions, but I don't think there is ever an exception in RS itself), the discussion was attempted to be justified by Godwin's law, but seriously...

The clan chat is meant to be a community, I think there are a lot of people that would enter the clan chat and think 'gee, that is toxic' at certain times of the day (nowhere near as bad in the middle of the night), and the constant 'I see no problem' by what I'd like to dub 'the regular lot' doesn't help things, especially when the majority of the actual clan chat users don't regular check for RFAs, YG discussions, etc. I saw an excellent comment on IRC yesterday that went something like "It's the same 10 people commenting and voting for each other and no one else comments". Personally in my opinion this is part of the problem. --RSDaftVader (talk) 23:00, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Daft makes an excellent point of this all being the same people commenting/representing the whole of the RSW clan community. Honestly, I'm not a big wiki-user (I'll be the first to admit I'm a wiki noob) and I initially only joined the clan because I wanted something semi-active when I started playing RS again this last summer. While I've seen my fair share of drama/conflict in-game via the CC, I didn't know that it spanned off-site to such a degree. I'm glad that Daft and a few other clan members directed those of us tradtionally not in the loop to check out the YG to see all of this and give our opinion, because I definitely want the cc to get a better vibe than it has now at times and be more cheerful... I mean, we are playing a game that is supposed to be fun, are we not? Ty ler ^Talk 23:16, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposal - I can see several comments in this thread are going slightly off-topic now. To get this back on its track, without debating general strategies for improving the situation within the clan community, I'm putting forward a concrete proposal of punishments for the last two months of behaviour in the Clan Chat for involved persons:

• Last chance warning for Sly Fawkes (Fly Fawkes), The Mol Man, Sacredoom, Cursed Pyres (Immo). Any further violation of Clan Chat rules would result in a ban of an appropriate length, decided by a CC administrator.
• Removal of all CC ranks of aforementioned users, including Sly Fawkes' CC administrator rank, degrading them to recruit.
• General warning towards Sacredoom, Bluefire2 (Iodine), and Clv309.

I'm putting these up for discussion. 5-x ^Talk 15:47, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

"I'm just seeing it like this right now: the CC is going to shit, and people need a scapegoat. Bring in your unofficial wikian chat."

"ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ" in the "cabal"

User:ThePsionic/Sig/2

Is there a specific reason for these particular users? If you want a blanket punishment of all people in the skype group, that's a lot more than those few. If you don't, then I don't see why Sacre would need to be punished, he only ever talks about his crush on a girl Oil4 ^Talk 16:05, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

The reasons for choosing these particular users are their actions in the CC. In the case of Sacre, it's his participation in generally disruptive CC discussions, for example with Adam Wiki. I agree though that inclusion in the last chance warning is a bit too harsh here, so I moved him off the list. 5-x ^Talk 16:18, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarification, have any of these logs included User:Sacre Fi? I got confused when I saw Sacre, now I see SacreDoom coming up more specifically. User:Cqm/Signature

Any mention of "Sacre" here refers to User:SacreDoom Oil4 ^Talk 16:56, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I believe these are two completely different people and the "Sacre" named here is not User:Sacre Fi. 5-x ^Talk 17:03, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Why is Christine on that list? She's a victim here. Raging Bull ^Talk 16:39, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, Christine has also done some not-so-nice things to some clan members (e.g. Fyre, 5-x). Considering also that she is indeed sort of a victim, I think a warning would be fair. Oil4 ^Talk 16:58, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Christine and Immo are responsible for starting the avatar squabbles and blowing that issue out of proportion, breaking UTP in the process, which in itself is one of chainlinks leading to this thread. 5-x ^Talk 17:03, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I don't have the whole history on this topic but from what I saw, Christine was merely trying to uphold the established avatar policy for the common good. She can be a bit blunt at times but it's important to not confuse that with her just being out to get you (and I should know). Do her the courtesy of not just being out to get her in return. Raging Bull ^Talk 17:08, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Surely a simple warning is fine then? "In the future, make sure to follow all policies". No harm in that, right Oil4 ^Talk 17:10, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

When she hasn't actually broken any policies it feels a bit excessive to admonish her about policy, n'est-ce pas? Raging Bull ^Talk 17:21, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, mais je ne parle pas Français Oil4 ^Talk 17:44, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I would personally like to see some evidence that supports making my punishment more harsh than anyone else's, it just seems that you have a vendetta against me. Sly Fawkes (talk) 18:09, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

"Degradation" to recruit is ludicrous and gratuitously punitive. If you want to remove Fawkes's rank, you can have a valid grounds for proposal, but removing the extra banana from corporals does nothing. Also, I'm removing my in game name. I don't want it posted here, and the people who can enforce anything know who I am. MolMan 16:45, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, removal of ranks other than Fawkes' is indeed a minor thing, more a matter of principle than a punishment in itself. I felt it's required to state it though. 5-x ^Talk 17:03, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

If it doesn't effect a remedy, it shouldn't be on the table. MolMan 17:04, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

What did Sacre and I do? Bluefire2^{Talk edit my sig}Oil4 I made this 17:16, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

See below. 5-x ^Talk 18:13, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Support - I am currently in a different clan, which contains the maximum 500 members. However, rules pertaining to respect for all clanmates is actively enforced, and as a result the clan chat becomes a positive method of communication for the clan rather than a way of enjoying insulting people. I can sort of understand why people might think that rigidly enforcing rules might lead to a lack of interesting conversation, but for those who have a reasonable level of education and maturity, there's no reason why friendly conversation cannot occur without resorting to profanities and name-calling. In our clan, if you are rude to someone, you get a warning. If you continue to be rude, you get removed from the clan. The result is that people who are capable of enjoying a game without cursing at people have an incentive to act with some level of mindfulness of the other members of the clan. And the people who are incapable can find a different clan. --Wafflebb (talk) 17:01, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

The point isn't to kill trolling. If it were, we'd make it a rule that anyone who talks gets banned. The point is to kill trolling while impacting as little as possible on everything else. Let's not go all Mother Russia on the cc. Bluefire2^{Talk edit my sig}Oil4 I made this 17:26, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

What does this "last chance warning" mean? It seems like a vague and meaningless term Oil4 ^Talk 17:14, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I support it to mean as follows: "If you curse out a clanmate or act rudely to them, you are banned from the clan." --Wafflebb (talk) 17:18, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Define "curse or act rudely" Oil4 ^Talk 17:18, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

This forum post has a pretty good explanation of the former. [2] --Wafflebb (talk) 17:32, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

"lmao" is a curse? lmao Oil4 ^Talk 17:43, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Users will be placed under observation in CC. Any transgressions of CC rules will result in a temporary ban. Think about it this way: stuff that a guest or someone less known would normally be kicked+banned for will no longer slide under the radar. A "want to be a part of the community, then behave" sort of message. 5-x ^Talk 17:30, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I have asked 5-x to explain the placement of each of the users on this list, so that we aren't tempted to blindly agree on a proposal with an arbitrarily compiled list. He is yet to reply. Bluefire2^{Talk edit my sig}Oil4 I made this 17:46, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

>implying I need explanation

MolMan 17:47, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I've had a dozen people, including this thread's creator, asking me to provide some reasoning for presenting the proposal in its current form.

• Fly Fawkes - General trolling, chat disruption (also using an alt account), distasteful jokes, offensive language in dutch.
• The Mol Man - General trolling, chat disruption (also using an alt account), distasteful jokes.
• Immo - Incivility, starting arguments about the avatars (twice).
• Sacredoom - Inappropriate discussions (persistent).
• Iodine - Distasteful jokes.
• Clv309 - Continuing arguments about avatars.

Note that these are all observations from my perspective. No one likes pointing fingers like this but it seems this is now unavoidable if we wish to change something in the Clan Chat. I quit the clan because I couldn't see any simple solutions and "asking to stop" wasn't doing anything any more. 5-x ^Talk 18:13, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

"offensive language in dutch." uh what? Oil4 ^Talk 18:20, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

"(also using an alt account)" also uh what? Oil4 ^Talk 18:20, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

A bit over a month ago. Both in-game alt and an alt account on the wiki (the latter outside of the scope of this proposal but related) made to continue stupid "your mom" jokes. 5-x ^Talk 18:30, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

There is no "in-game alt" Sly Fawkes (talk) 18:32, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the in-game alt was owned by Mol Oil4 ^Talk 18:42, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Stop the blatant lies. MolMan 18:43, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I agree, you should stop the blatant lies Oil4 ^Talk 18:46, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

All of you stop and take it elsewhere. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 18:48, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

But this entire thread is about saying what everyone did wrong, so... Oil4 ^Talk 18:50, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Except that you will get nowhere when someone accuses X of doing something and X completely denies it, then Y pins the blame on other people who also deny it. Take the blame-game elsewhere. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 18:51, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

But this entire section is one big blame game Oil4 ^Talk 18:52, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Just last week, in CC. Jokes about cancer. Remember? 5-x ^Talk 18:28, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Did not know swearing in Dutch was an offence. User:ThePsionic/Sig/2

Oil asked that to stop, in vain. 5-x ^Talk 18:28, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

That's an important distinction. I don't believe swearing or cursing in any language should be considered an offence, but continuing after being asked to stop should be. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 22:08, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I know no dutch, ask oil, I also have no alt account in the cc, it seems like you are pulling at straws to get at me. I would like some of this in a solid form not just accusations. Sly Fawkes (talk) 18:23, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Oil, corrected. Sorry Fawkes, you only made the wiki alt. 5-x ^Talk 18:52, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Oil is lying. I made no alt, and checkuser will tell you Ethanobi is actually the one who made the Wiki alt. MolMan 19:04, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I was mistaken. I remember Ethan saying it was him in a previous Skype group. I couldn't tell you why though... MolMan 23:02, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

(ignoring indents) This wiki account used the same IP as Fawkes (src). There doesn't appear to be an in-game account with the same name. Any other in-game accounts I don't know; this is likely to be dating back a few weeks or more if that is the case.  @Gaz#7521 19:31, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

http://i.imgur.com/veH2WaB.png

ʞooɔ 22:49, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Well then. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 23:04, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Question - How long are you proposing the de-ranking to be enforced? Permanently or temporarily? -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 22:14, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Permanent, one-time thing. It doesn't matter much in the case of most of corporals, but it definitely means Fly Fawkes would lose the administrator rank and would have to go through RfCCA process again, if he wished to regain it. 5-x ^Talk 23:13, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Support - I definitely think that something needs to be done in order to better the CC situation/attitude/direction and I believe that making these individuals more aware of the impact they are having on the CC and general clan attitude via warnings/punishments is a good first start (and, obviously, better than doing nothing) Ty ler ^Talk 22:46, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Another Question - I'd be interested to hear whether or not those who have recently left would be comfortable returning if the proposed action is taken. Not that action shouldn't be taken either way, I'm just wondering if there's anything we can do to retain users who have become disenfranchised. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 23:04, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself - yes. If my proposal or a part of it was implemented in some form I'd agree with, and I could get restored to my previous rank in the clan, I would come back. 5-x ^Talk 23:40, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I left, have fun. Sly Fawkes (talk) 01:47, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for anybody else, but I personally don't want anyone leaving. Ideally, I'd like to see everyone who behaved poorly to acknowledge that they were out of line, suck it up, accept the consequences, put it all behind us and do better in the future. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 01:59, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Been gearing up to leave for a little bit anyways, now seemed to be a good time.Sly Fawkes (talk) 02:14, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

As I said to cook, I am ready to take full responsibility for what I did in regards to 5-x. I took it too far, it was only meant as a joke but it went over the edge. Sly Fawkes (talk) 02:21, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Then take the de-ranking, add some folks to your ignore list, and stay. Don't let your disagreements with a few people rob you of the company of others who you enjoy. (And that goes for everyone, by the way).-- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 02:30, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these words. I'd like you to know that I hold no grudge against you. Same for other people I mentioned. It's a shame things went the way they did. 5-x ^Talk 10:10, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to stay a member of the cc, as I said I had been ready to leave for a bit. I can always be a guest in the cc to enjoy the company of those I want to be with. Sly Fawkes (talk) 02:49, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

I left, as well. The toxicity of the clan had bothered me for a while, but with this thread it became clear how big the drama can blow up (hell, this thread had under 10 edits less than Forum:Block Ikin within the first twenty-four hours). To be fair, I am completely done with it. If anything comes out of this thread, I will be happy to join the clan as a guest sometime or other, but until then you can really count me out. User:ThePsionic/Sig/2

Support - some of the things relayed in the logs were deliberate attempts to get back at users they disliked. This is poor conduct and I don't think a slap on the wrist will do any good. De-ranking sounds fair (I agree with the ones you stated) and hope that the involved users cease this behavior once and for all, as it clearly isn't welcomed by RSW. – Ozank Cx 23:21, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Additional proposal - If nothing else, there's a loss of community trust in the leaving clan admins [Oil, 5-x, Fawkes]. To me, this means in order to regain their clan admin rank, they need to reaffirm their community trust by doing another RfCCA. As such, all of those admins are free to rejoin (with the caveats of the original proposal, if applicable), but they would need to do another RfCCA to regain their clan admin rank. They can do that whenever, and maybe with a shorter duration of request (1 week?).

Remember, the main focus here is to make sure that this doesn't happen again and things don't just go back to 'the way they were'.  @Gaz#7521 01:33, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Presumably this wouldn't be a full RfCCA right, but a shortened version which boils down to "Does the community still have faith in you"? Oil4 ^Talk 02:14, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Can I just say"? - As one of the oldest remaining-from-the-early-wiki-days wikians, I am surprised I decided to come from the skilling clan that Warthog persuaded me to join a couple years ago back to the wiki CC. Why? Because the massive immaturity and shit that goes on bothers me. I was afraid to post here because I figured someone would make a laughingstock of me (like Mol or Fawkes or someone), but I guess I don't have to worry about it?

Speaking of Mol, I would REALLY love to see some sort of punishment for the Skype conversation about cancer and autism which he cast in a negative light; if you are around me, you do NOT make jokes like that. It will get me on your case for weeks, because not only am I high-functioning with autism (but I still have the disability), but I stand up strongly against any sort of attempt to use the term in an offensive manner. To Mol personally, I say this: You disgust me a LOT.

Iunno, I'm just really tired of being in this CC if this is how its going to be. The negativity seems to "spill over" into YG, from what I can see, as well, but I've been annoyed by that so much over all these years that I kind of came to expect it. Most of the time when I post in the YG it gets lost in translation through my brain anyway...sooo, yeah.https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 01:50, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Amen. User:Jr Mime/Signature 01:52, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

But we weren't around you. The Skype conversations that were participated in had the expectation of privacy. Just because you're autistic doesn't mean we should stop making any reference to it. You could not police the real world, or anyone you overheard speaking that way, so dont assume to do so now. The world does not cater to you. Immo Voted Worst Wikian 2013 05:23, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, it still amazes me Mol hasn't been blocked yet. User:ThePsionic/Sig/2

<removed unrelated comments from mol and psionic> Christine 16:04, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Can we please focus on reforming the CC, as is the intention of this thread, instead of more mud-slinging? It's not helping anyone. Oil4 ^Talk 15:30, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

I call it evidence. I want a warning for Bloo and Night Fears too. Autism jokes are completely unacceptable in any form, and they need to get slapped on the wrist. MolMan 15:31, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Support warnings, not sure about permanent de-ranking - The warnings are definitely warranted, but I'm not sure permanent de-ranking is the right way to go, and I don't think those who have left should have to submit new RfCCA's if they return.  I'd rather see their ranks temporarliy suspended (whether they're still in clan or they return now) for a month, in the hopes that they will take this oppotunity to learn from their mistakes. I hope that taking these steps will encourage people to stay/return, encourage admins to be more pro-active in de-escalating negative behaviour, and in general encourage everyone to treat each other with respect and diplomacy. It makes me sad when people are unhappy.  Ms ZuZu ^Talk 01:54, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Support both proposals, neutral on specifics of hypothetical second RfCCA - All proposed warnings and de-rankings seem fair, as does Gaz's proposal that any of the admins who left recently be required to undergo another RfCCA should they ever wish to re-obtain their rank. Temujin 02:06, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Support - The proposals by Gaz Lloyd and 5-x are reasonable enough, and in tandem with more mindful admin enforcement, should hopefully make RSW a better place than it has been for a while now.--Cheers, Yoda 02:32, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Proposed slight amendment - I mostly agree with this, but I'd like to change it a bit:

• Fly Fawkes and Oil4 have both left the clan; they are free to rejoin, but must get community consensus before getting clan admin status back - this would be in the form of a short (let's say 1 week) re-RfR which amounts to "does the community still have faith in this individual to fulfill the clan admin duties?"
• The Mol Man and Cursed Pyres will be at the highest point on the ban meter, so to speak - any further transgressions of the clan chat rules will lead to an immediate kick and possible ban, based on the judgement of a CC administrator.
• Everyone is encouraged to look at this situation as a lesson for the future. In particular, Bluefire2 and ThePsionic should also view this thread as a warning - however, since their behaviour has been comparatively mild, just a warning should suffice.

I feel that a "general warning" isn't really necessary - this thread should be enough of a warning as it is. I doubt any of this shit will happen again after this. Oil4 ^Talk 02:50, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

The warning is implied anyway, so there really isn't any harm in making it official just to drive the point home.--Cheers, Yoda 05:00, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I think it's important to make it official, just in case further action is required down the road.  Ms ZuZu ^Talk 05:10, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

I changed it. I don't think warnings for Sacredoom (who only really ever talked about the girl he has a crush on) or Christine (who didn't involve herself in any of the bad things that happened) are appropriate. Oil4 ^Talk 09:49, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how exactly are Christine and Sacre exempt, yet Psi and I are not? Bluefire2^{Talk edit my sig}Oil4 I made this 12:01, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

That is something I'd like to know as well. User:ThePsionic/Sig/2

I think the RFCCA should be just like a brand new RFCCA, full length and all. User:TyA/sig 05:46, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Since this has somehow come back around to me, as most of these threads tend to do at some point or another, Gaz is free to boot me without reprisal or waste of time YG thread if he deems fit. There will be no arguments from me Immo Voted Worst Wikian 2013 05:27, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I think we've had enough "evidence" in this thread to show that certain users' behavior is inappropriate. This is a formal request to stop trying to slander everyone. Discussion from here-on-out should be about specific actions that should be taken to reform the cc or against particular users who have been disruptive. Christine 15:50, December 24, 2014 (UTC)