Forum:Reforming the Clan Chat

Forums: Yew Grove > Reforming the Clan Chat

Discussion up to this point can be found here.

As has been pointed out, this thread has become confusing and off-putting for many people. Therefore, in the interests of achieving something where other threads have failed, I have summarised the various proposals below:

1. Stricter enforcement of cc rules - It is generally agreed that the atmosphere in the cc is "toxic". One method to address this is to enforce rules more strictly whilst adding the additional punishment of temporarily muting problem users (detailed below).
2. Create a mute rank - Recruit becomes a mute rank, whilst still allowing guests to talk. This requires the other ranks to be boosted, e.g. corporal's ability to invite moves to sergeant, etc. This also potentially requires invites to be restricted to admins+ to avoid periods where new recruits can't participate in the chat. However, if we consider de-ranking to be a viable method of punishment, it follows that admins are considered active enough in the cc for one to be almost always be available for invites as well.

   Following a test, it appears that muting recruits means guests are unable to talk in the cc. User:Cqm/Signature

3. Create a system to monitor and document mutes - Related to the above, this is just a way of tracking which users have been muted and how long they should be muted for. I'd imagine a table on the wiki would suffice, but remembering to update it is normally where we come unstuck. It has also been proposed that mutes should require image evidence of infractions. As for mute length, should this be 1-2 hours, perhaps extending to days as a way of escalating punishment?
4. Admin-deranking - In the cases where the users are admins in the cc, the users have either left altogether or left and subsequently rejoined. One of those to rejoin is currently undergoing an RfCCA. With regards to the other two, should they need to re-do a RfCCA should they wish to re-obtain the admin rank as a way of re-affirming the community's trust in them? The concerned users here are Sly Fawkes, Oil4 (5-x has re-requested his ranky through RfCCA). On a side note, Sly Fawkes was discovered to have engaged in sockpuppeting on the wiki in a possible breach of RS:UTP.
5. Final warnings - Issue last warnings to Cursed Pyres and The Mol Man, the former already having a last warning issued at the conclusion of Forum:Regarding the user "Imxor Solmo".
6. General warnings - Issue more general warnings to various combinations of Clv309, ThePsionic, SacreDoom, 5-x and Bluefire2 based on their behaviour. However, the reasoning behind these general warnings is vague and a little inconsistent, thus I feel these warnings could be better implemented as a stricter enforcement of cc rules (see #1).

   #6 modified to include 5-x per Christine's comment below. User:Cqm/Signature

I realise this list is still larger than many of us would like, but I'd encourage this to be advertised in the cc when possible to get the maximum input from everyone it concerns. User:Cqm/Signature

Discussion

Support - Though I would still like clarification on what behaviour my warning is based on. User:ThePsionic/Sig/2

Support 1.Neutral 2 Oppose 2. Soft Oppose 3- If it comes into fruition, I think we should be able to trust admins to use this tool without policing them. The mute rank is after all a lesser and more temporary punishment than a kick/ban. If a muted individual is forgotten about there are plenty of avenues of communication through which another admin can ultimately un-mute them. Oppose 4, 5, 6 - In my opinion, not needed. Individual de-rank threads can be raised against any admin in the future if needed. At this stage we should assume good faith moving forward. Same goes for blanket warnings. Raglough (talk) 11:53, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the documentation of mutes is needed in case we forget about them, but as a record of what has happened before. In the case of on-wiki blocks, if I discover someone has been blocked before I'll either match that block length or extend it. However, I'm not sure if we want to continue this practice in the cc. User:Cqm/Signature

Support 1, 2 - Per archive.
Neutral 3 - I think it would just fall into disuse very quickly.
Support 4, 5 - Per archive. 5-x should not be associated with the other two though and shouldn't need to re-RfR.
Neutral 6 - I think 1 would cover this just fine, and I think the relevant people have had plenty of warning from this thread. Oil4 ^Talk 13:20, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Yes - Thank you based cam. WRT #3, I kinda feel like 'short' (say <=1 hour) mutes are just a slap on the wrist that don't necessarily need documentation, and longer than that should. However, I fully see the benefits of keeping track of everything. The problem comes with making sure everything is documented well. For image hosts, we still have w:c:runescapeimageshost for storing stuff without having the wiki spammed with these images and without it being tied to someone's personal imgur/puush/dropbox/etc account turns out liquid/someone closed it, that sucks.  @Gaz#7521 14:05, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose 2 - This proposal is just more pussying around of the rules. It's showing a negative trait of minimizing punitive action, which is already characteristic of us. I think it's taking a huge step back. I'm also confused as to why I get a final warning for the clan chat when none of the evidence against me is from a public medium. I'll graciously accept a warning not to be such a cuntnugget like that again, but it's certainly not fair to pretend like I've said anything near that magnitude of egregiousness in the clanchat. MolMan 14:08, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

I'll note and admit I had a very poor fight-or-flight response to this thread and some of the evidence and allegations against me. Those were wrong, and a poor reflection on me. I'd also like to clarify: I don't think what I did was right, and I think it's a shame that I had to lose a couple of good friends that way. It's just everything I said was in private. I do understand that it's so awful that I should probably get a general warning as well, but again, I don't want a picture painted that I was ever that awful in the general chat medium. MolMan 14:14, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

As I've said in the archived thread, I really don't like the idea of punishments doled out for things said in private, outside of CC. However, I think we need to acknowledge and address that in this case, it did contribute to a sort of mob mentality and/or grudges that carried over and did affect the CC. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 15:47, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

I think everyone has seen by now what happens when you participate in an echo chamber. In that sense this drama has definitely been a good lesson for all of us. Oil4 ^Talk 16:54, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Support all - Let's put this to bed and do better in the future. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 15:50, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose 2 & 3 - Muting is no longer a viable option due to the unfortunate side effect of also muting guests, which is unnacceptable.

Strong Support 1 - Increased vigilance and intervention on the part of admins is badly needed. Let's trust them to decide amongst themselves when and what kind of :intervention is warranted on a case-by-case basis.

Soft Support 4, 5 & 6 - By now I think these actions are largely for show, but formal action of some kind is required on account of what a mess was made by the :situation(s) and people involved. As I have no alternative suggestions, these proposals will have to do. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 03:14, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Support all - Thanks Cqm, that's a well-compiled summary. It seems everything previously mentioned is included. As a small addition to the 2nd point, I don't remember ever seeing the CC without at least one administrator+ available, so this shouldn't be a problem. 5-x ^Talk 17:00, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, or at the very least, modify 6 - I have said and will continue to say that no one in the Skype chat allowed their feelings to overflow into the cc with the exception of Fawkes, who, after losing his rank, has already been inherently warned. I am firmly of the mind that RS:NOT#OFFSITE applies, not just because of the assumed privacy but because nothing that we talked about in Skype had an effect on the cc. However, 5-x wrote the original warning list, so of course he kept himself off of it. Let us not forget the move that made him (rightfully) lose warden, the same conversation that he is using as a basis for warning myself and Immo. The other people on his warning list were simply participants in the Skype chat, not instigators. I would like to completely do away with #6 because I don't feel these warnings are valid, but at a minimum, 5-x deserves a warning too, because his actions in cc that same day certainly can not be considered respectful or community-oriented either. Christine 19:29, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

I was well within the then-current area of avatar guidelines. However, I did handle that particular situation in a wrong way, which upset people and created an atmosphere of hostility. I regret that, and I apologise. Please, kindly notice that I have already been warned and received a punishment for my actions of that day. 5-x ^Talk 22:14, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

A move that you have been campaigning to undo. If any formal written warnings are issued (and again I do not think they should be), your actions most certainly are not exempt. Christine 00:16, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you implying that 5-x was deranked as punishment over the avatar? Because that's not true. Oil4 ^Talk 01:45, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

No, but 5-x has already made it clear that he wants warden returned, and I would like to make sure that we do not forget what caused it to happen in the first place. If there will be written warnings, everyone should get them. Christine 02:01, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on 6 please - Before we continue I think we need to clarify exactly what #6 is talking about. Do we want to focus on the things that bled into the clan chat, or do we want to focus on the things said in the Skype channel? Do we want to apply UTP or other wiki policies to all forms of communication regardless of location or alleged secrecy? It's not the first time that things said in private have come up and been used against someone, and it certainly won't be the last, so I would like to clarify this (at least for this case, so we don't have to make another thread..). User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 20:01, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to punish people for things they say in a private Skype group. This is the YG, not the thought police. Any punishments (such as these warnings and/or deranks) should be based purely on things that bled over to the wiki (including cc). Oil4 ^Talk 20:08, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

I think private conversations should only serve to provide context and background with regard to actual CC or otherwise wiki-related behaviour. Which I believe it did in this case. So I don't think any punishments should be doled out based on the Skype conversations, but on the effect they had on behaviours in, and general tone of, the CC. If that makes any sense.  Ms ZuZu ^Talk 20:59, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Support - as per my support of the proposal in the archive. – Ozank Cx 20:37, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Support all but 6 - The involvement of the users mentioned in proposal 6 was for the most part minimal, so there's no real reason to single them out in my eyes. As far as keeping a mute log, Gaz summed it up pretty well: short, slap-on-the-wrist mutes shouldn't need to be logged, but it's a good idea to keep track of more severe punishments.--Cheers, Yoda 21:20, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "more severe punishments"? Oil4 ^Talk 21:48, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Just any mute lasting longer than an hour or two.--Cheers, Yoda 05:03, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - If we are going to go ahead with 4, 5 and 6 I think we should do so in the fairest way possible. In my opinion that would be a situation where anyone was able to suggest deranking/warning anyone else in the cc with a short explanation of why they're suggesting that person (e.g. [person x] - breaking UTP). We should then discuss if the people who've been identified have done anything that breaks the clan rules and what action should be taken. Right now we have a problem with a "cabal-like" atmosphere in clan - I don't want us to overcome this by only taking action against the people that we believe were responsible for this and ignoring that there could be other individuals who have caused problems in the chat who warrant attention.

In particular, if we're going to give out warnings I think we should make them based on specific things that person has done rather than having "general warnings". Since this thread has been made I think everyone who's followed what has happened has been made more aware that future rule breaking will not be tolerated as it has been in the past (and hopefully taken the chance to reacquaint themselves with the rules and standards that we expect to be followed). So if we decide that an additional warning is needed I think it should be in cases where someone has previously been doing something particular that requires thi. Again I think we should discuss in these cases if there is any need for the specific user to be given warnings and what the warnings would be for.

I support point 4. I think that if any of the admins who've left the chat recently want to return as ranks then they should redo their RfCCA, because confidence in some of these admins has been undermined and clan members may feel that they no longer want these individuals to be admins in the clan. I think this should also be the case in the future also, if these admins do not wish to RfCCA now but decide to do so at a later date. I also thank that the people who this applies to should avoid making RfCCA while this thread is still open, as part of this thread is still to discuss whether this is the right course of action or not. IsobelJ 22:06, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

"In my opinion that would be a situation where anyone was able to suggest deranking/warning anyone else in the cc with a short explanation of why they're suggesting that person (e.g. [person x] - breaking UTP)." - What format do you envision for this? A place on the wiki where you can complain about others' behaviour? Anonymous or not? Oil4 ^Talk 22:12, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

I imagined more along the lines of it being part of this thread (not a permanent thing) - perhaps we could add a section to this thread above the discussion section just for these nominations. IsobelJ 22:47, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Surely though we should use this thread as a lesson for the future, instead of just a one-time thing? Oil4 ^Talk 22:49, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's true - I'm hoping that in the future we would be able to handle things differently so it won't get to this point (i.e. problems will be dealt with before they end up snowballing into a thread where multiple people are being suggested for warnings/deranking/reapplying for cc admin). Right now we have suggestions to do these things so I just want to ensure that if we do do them, we do them in a fair way that makes sure the issues we've had in the past are resolved as much as possible and we can move on from them. IsobelJ 18:23, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I personally would like to respectfully propose the opposite of the general consensus here. I believe that to get rid of the dramas and toxicity, the rules should be less strict instead of more. The way I think is that running a tight ship probably looks better on the surface but it is bound to create bigger explosions in the form of massive dramas eventually. Before I explain this further I would like to offer an anectodal evidence about the relationship between me and my best friend of many years.

We met through a common friend and decided to keep in touch because of our many common interests, initially we were extremely polite to each other, the relationship between us was rather cold. I'm sure you know what I mean from experience. Even though we hanged out very often, out actions almost always seemed forced to behave in a certain way just so we don't offend each other and stay polite and respectful. This caused us both to feel uneasy and get more irritable about the smallest things that turned toxic, and for two years we would just stop talking to each other for a long time and block each other on MSN, etc every once in a while. Eventually what happened is that we agreed to just say anything that comes to our mind which allowed us to swear at each other freely whenever we wanted and call out on the stuff we disliked or disagreed with, which made us feel a lot more chilled as there was no fear of offending each other and lead to dramas, basically allowing us to become the best friends that we are currently.

I can relate this experience from the past few clans I have been to where the moderation increased and became rather unforgiving. In every situation similar to this, not only the approach forced people to behave nicer in an unnatural way that basic chat interactions became awkward and making a lot of people prefer clans with a more comfortable environment, it also led to power abuse from moderation and inner strifes from the upper echelon destroying the clan from the core. Please don't think that I advocate pure anarchy like Zezima's clan chat, of course that would be gullible to think people will naturally be relaxed and nice to each other, moderation to some extent is vital for the longevity of the clan. Far ends of the spectrum in politics in real life also lead to ruthless and short lived governments that warrant a radical change. I'm advocating for the golden mean, and I'm suggesting that it's closer to the relaxed side.

I believe that a clan grows strong from how much the common member feels comfortable and welcome within, instead of strict rules from the top interfering with dramas, escalating them unwillfully in many cases. I believe that no one should be afraid to speak up their mind and argue as much as they want, even with the player mods and the clan staff without the persecution of getting muted or kicked. I also think that moderating banter and light swearing also addresses to the symptom of the issue instead of the actual cause, like slapping someone for crying which would lead them to cry even more and cause drama. I believe that the root cause of the drama is the tension in the environment in the first place. Humor in any way, could be in the form of shitposting, should not be moderated at all either, as it only leads to a more serious and a boring chat that people will use only for personal gains and asking for information. Of course after some point harsh personal attacks involving things like actual threats or relentless degrading insults can turn very sour, which I believe would be a good time to enforce the rules but I doubt there would be many immature people like that in the clan chat anyway.

While in the initial stages this could make the clan chat seem worse off than before, personally I think my suggestion will eventually lift the weight of the shoulder of the moderators, prevent power abuse and strife from the ranks, form bonds and friendships like a secret club and build a relaxed and a welcoming environment for all members while eliminating the drama. I'm interested in your responses to this. Thank you for reading my huge wall of text. -- Princesscold 22:24, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

I think you somewhat overestimate the degree of extra moderation being called for. I don't think anyone here wants to get rid of #bantz or genuine debates. Oil4 ^Talk 22:30, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

There's also a 'minimum' level of rules one must adhere to while playing, which includes our clan chat. Our standard clan rules aren't really much more than that.  @Gaz#7521 23:34, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

I doubt we'll ever see banter or light swearing considered offences in CC, and respectful debate within CC is great. I don't think anyone's suggesting those should not continue.  This thread, the one that came before it and these proposals are dealing with situations and behaviour that was not playful banter or respectful debate, that did make people feel uncomfortabloe and unwelcome, and was not dealt with.  Ms ZuZu ^Talk 01:51, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

I think the real intention of "enforcing the rules more closely" is recognizing when the banter has transitioned from friendly to hostile/confrontational and stopping it there. That's something that the admins in general have been a bit bad at lately (partially because the admins have been involved in much of this unfriendly banter). I do believe that RSW will always be a fairly colloquial environment, we just want to ensure that it's colloquial in a manner that doesn't compromise the ability of users to enjoy the chat at all.--Cheers, Yoda 05:01, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Lately I've found this difficult. Users need to be more clear on when they are having problems with the direction of conversation. Also users need to not be afraid to tell an admin directly or the chat in general that they feel line is being crossed. I think this will help the admins to recognize that transition and be more confidant in their intervention. Raglough (talk) 05:07, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Previously at least when users PMed me issues I was generally able to shut down the topic if the concerns were legitimate. It didn't happen that often, but even if admins are involved it's not that big of a deal. I definitely agree the biggest barrier is going to an admin with these concerns. --Liquid^Talk 05:19, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Support 1, 3^*, 5, 6, Oppose 2, Neutral 4 – Per my comments in the archive. ^{* only if 2 is to be implemented} Temujin 04:41, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Support 1, 2 and 3 - This system should have existed a very long time ago. Inaction doesn't produce results, thus it is time for you all to act. As for 4-6, I am indifferent to the situation, given the lack of presence. Rhys ^Talk 05:56, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Strong Oppose all but 1 - It's unacceptable to have guests restricted from clan chat discussions. Administration needs to pick up their game instead. Act when needed, rather than providing final warnings to people whom have been warned several times in the past. It's kind of sad that someone who has gotten a final warning in the past is being stood for a final warning in point 6 of this discussion. Rhys ^Talk 02:47, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Caution on #2 - TL;DR: New recruits cannot talk until an administrator adjusts their rank. This change will also be annoying to undo so choose wisely.

Just so people know what we're getting into: If we create a mute rank we will essentially be deciding that the utility from being able to mute clanmates for short periods of time without kicking them outweighs the downsides from muting new clanmates (potentially quite annoying) until an administrator is around to rank up. (I personally think it's nice, but others would disagree.)

I want to make it very clear this point very clear to people because if this is implemented, then it's going to be a big change. It's also going to be very annoying to undo so I want to make sure people understand the change if they're supporting it. --Liquid^Talk 07:28, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

It seems simpler to me to restrict invites to admins+. It appears there's enough admin activity for us to think muting clanmates is going to be a viable option, therefore it follows there is also enough admin presence to handle any invites that may arise. It's not an ideal situation, but it's a workable. User:Cqm/Signature

Muting does not require world hopping and running across runescape to find someone. Inviting does. That's what corporals are for: the grunt work. I believe that corporals should be able to invite still. If admins are online enough to invite, then they are online enough to rank up a new member relatively quickly. I assume there are substantially more corporals than admins in the clan. Raglough (talk) 11:38, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

I think the lower ranks could be encouraged to co-ordinate invites with an admin by ensuring there is an admin available to rank a recruit up before completing the invite. That way the admins don't have to leave whatever they're doing. Ms ZuZu ^Talk 12:33, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it is worth removing invite from all current corporals (i.e. leaving them at corporal, moving all recruits to corporal and moving the invite ability to sergeant), and making them ask for the invite ability again so that we can make sure that they understand that inviting also requires an admin now (similar to this).  @Gaz#7521 14:04, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 14:28, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

What does this mean for the Sergeant rank? Oil4 ^Talk 14:44, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be the same thing Liquid outlined in the previous thread.

• Recruit: Unable to talk in clan chat
• Corporal: No longer able to recruit
• Sergeant: No longer able to kick; can recruit
• Lieutenant: Can recruit; can kick
• Captain and above would have no change

-- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 14:59, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good Oil4 ^Talk 15:05, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

During peak hours I see no issue with administrator availability. During the nights, not so sure. (You can yell at me for being American-centric later; I'm referring to peak hours and late nights in the normal US time zones.) As long as someone who gets invited when an administrator isn't on doesn't mind being muted for a short while and there's a reliable way to let the next clan admin know I don't think there's too big a deal. I don't anticipate that much of an issue anyway since invites aren't that common. --Liquid^Talk 02:19, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

I really like the idea of this mute rank - but if we implemented it how would admins know when a person sent there for punishment was to be unmuted? Could this potentially lead to problems where people sent to the mute rank were dealt with inconsistently (e.g. some rulebreakers could claim that they were eligible to be promoted again too soon or others being left there for a very long time, if the admin that demoted them logged off)? IsobelJ 18:23, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

Well this mute rank would (should) only be used as a way to quickly and painlessly shut someone up, not as a long punishment. That's what kicks are for. If someone is muted for so long that the admin doing it logs out, then they should probably have been kicked instead. Oil4 ^Talk 19:19, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - This discussion (& associated threads) makes me sad, particularly as some parts appear to have become an unnecessary bitch-fest. As a Clan Admin, if I observe people being disrespectful in CC, I usually make a comment to calm things down or instigate a topic change. I appreciate that the initial conversations were on Skype and I read the logs purely to gain perspective for this thread. Having read the logs I am appalled & disgusted at some of the content. I have not personally witnessed any of it overflowing into CC and had I done so I would have tried to deal with it.

If people adhered to Point 1 we would not be in this position. The definition of Clan is "a group of people with a strong common interest" - in this case, RS. Derogatory and personal remarks are not welcome and we all have a responsibility to speak up, no matter what rank we are. --Ceejay1967 14:17, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

It always makes me sad when we have situations like this, mostly because I'm the sort of person who just wants everyone to be happy. And I agree that it shouldn't fall to just the admins - every one of us should make an effort to de-escalate situations before they get this far. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 14:28, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have no problem with the things that were said about me in the initial logs (which later in the discussion caused some attacks flowing both ways involving other people). While the content may upset other people who read it, the fact of the matter is that those things were said on Skype, I was present in the chat so it wasn't behind my back (though I was not paying attention at the time), and even reading back I don't have a problem with what some people said about me. Had it flowed into the cc it might be a different story, but it didn't. That's why you never saw it in the cc and that's why this isn't a wiki problem, imo. Christine 14:49, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - We just tested it, and it's impossible to have recruit as a "mute rank" without also muting CC guests. This is, in my opinion, and unacceptable side effect. I think we should look for a different solution than a mute rank - maybe, as Mol (iirc?) suggested earlier, just being bolder with kicks? Oil4 ^Talk 21:13, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

I'm unaware of what/if Mol detailed anything along with that suggestion, but if that were to be implemented, how about a limit of 3 verbal warnings before a kick? Otherwise there would potentially be some problems should someone just cause trouble once in the cc and consequently be kicked (varying opinions of what should grant a kick, bias towards some users, kicked users wanting to rejoin the clan etc). Star ^Talk 21:28, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

If you mean there has to be 3 warnings before a kick, I oppose. The admins should be able to use their judgement on how many warnings are necessary. User:TyA/sig 22:04, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

No, I just meant that the user causing trouble should get at least one warning, or more and 3 as suggested maximum, before being kicked (dependent on the severity of their troublemaking) Star ^Talk 22:25, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

RS:UCS. If a clan admin can't use common sense when kicking someone, they shouldn't be a clan admin in the first place. Oil4 ^Talk 22:15, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

Question: how often do you think a kick would be used if admins were to be bolder? Star ^Talk 22:25, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

If creating a mute rank means guests are also unable to talk, I agree that it's not a viable solution. Ms ZuZu ^Talk 21:57, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

._.' Perhaps it should just be left up to the admins' discretion on whether to permanently remove or warn. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 22:10, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

Java Gaming Experts, everyone.  @Gaz#7521 22:38, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

FUCKING HELL JAGEX. ARE YOU SHITTING ME?!? --Liquid^Talk 18:20, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose admin discretion - They lack it, simply put. That's part of why there's this mess. MolMan 03:56, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

How else can the rules be enforced? There's no way to create a list to cover what should be done in every eventuality of rule breaking - there will always be an element of the admin's judgement involved. Part of the admin's role is to be able to handle this responsibility properly. IsobelJ 08:22, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. And also when the admins are being the bad ones, well... that wouldn't be a feasible solution, would it? – Ozank Cx 11:05, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

That's just ridiculous. Admins need to be able to judge this sort of thing properly. If an admin is incapable of doing it then why are they an admin in the first place? Oil4 ^Talk 11:34, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Admins are supposed to have discretion. If they don't have that, de-ranking is just a mouseclick away. The solution lies not in modifying the rules - it lies in those who have to make sure they are followed. User:ThePsionic/Sig/2

"de-ranking is just a mouseclick away." Ha...ha...ha. ʞooɔ 13:59, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

All of you - Think about the amount of misbehavior that occurs in the chat and how often kicks are actually administered. Now think about how most of the non-sysop admins are chosen. We've not been ranking up valuable mediators or strict-but-just arbiters; we've been ranking up the people that are everybody's friend. We've come to enforce rules so leniently that it's become an enabler for bad behavior. "Hey, Player B, stop being a dick." \ "Or what, Player A, you're going to kick me?" We all know that won't happen. For the most part, a lot of our admins are just escorts for avatars and winners of the "We All Like You" trophy. MolMan 14:03, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

"All of you" Expect me right? Cos I agree with you. – Ozank Cx 14:08, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

The perhaps a review of each clan chat admin is needed, but review them based on different values rather than them being popular. I agree this is where the process is fundamentally flawed, but unfortunately it's based on what the community views as an acceptable standard. Until that standard changes, the administration of the clan chat isn't going to improve. User:Cqm/Signature

Granted, it's not necessarily a bad thing to have different clan admins for different purposes. Just like we have some "countervandalism" sysops and some "maintenance" sysops and some "I'll do nothing but sit on my ass and pop into the YG and close shit every now and then" sysops on the wiki, it's acceptable (and probably desirable) for different clan admins to do different things. Not everyone wants to babysit avatars, for example, so a few people whose primary role is to be avatar wardens is not necessarily a bad thing. I do agree that it becomes a problem when said people participate in rule breaking (and/or not enforce rules). --Liquid^Talk 18:19, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Mol, in the absence of any other viable suggestions, this is what we have. So let's use this opportunity to ask our admins to be more vigilant in not only enforcing the rules but abiding by them. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 18:57, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

It's the system we already have, with a useless feelgood suggestion. MolMan 19:04, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Come up with a reasonable and practical alternative and I'll happily support it. Until then, the only choices we're left with are what we have, or nothing. I think we can all agree that nothing would be a no good, very bad idea. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 20:10, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Follow the letter of the law. If the letter of the law needs slight modification to prevent arbitration from being too strict, that's fine. We just need a binding set of rules. MolMan 20:14, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

You will not get rid of arbitration until discretion is abolished and a true set of binding rules is imposed. – Ozank Cx 20:20, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Show me the set of binding rules you are proposing, if you have one. Identifying a need is important, yes, but it's hardly a solution. Show me the solution.  Ms ZuZu ^Talk 22:07, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Ummmm... I said the rules we have need to become binding, whether they need a change or not. MolMan 22:11, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, just so we're clear. What I'm saying is that the rules need to be enforced and obeyed and you're saying that...the rules need to be enforced and obeyed. You however don't like the verbiage being used to say the exact same thing and you don't like the reality that the rules include grey areas that may require judgement calls on the part of the (human, not bot) admins, and would prefer a more specific, absolute, black and white enforcement regardless of context. Does that about sum it up? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand your position and whether or not you're actually proposing anything concrete that could be practically implemented. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 23:49, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

My concern is more that: no matter the verbiage, most admins seem more lenient in their interpretation. So yes, things need to be black and white, because nothing else appears to work. MolMan 23:55, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

I do get what you're saying and agree that it's a major concern, I just don't think a black and white interpretation is particularly realistic. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 00:04, January 1, 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that a black and white approach to the rules (any slip up = ban) would only cause resentment towards the admins Oil4 ^Talk 10:23, January 1, 2015 (UTC)

If we rewrite the rules before setting it in motion and force everyone to give an opinion, then the bad eggs would only have themselves to blame. You'd be breaking a rule you wrote yourself; if the admin enforces it exactly, whose fault would it be? The resentment would then be completely invalid; i.e. who cares? MolMan 15:09, January 1, 2015 (UTC)

Forcing 100% participation in anything is, again, not realistic. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 01:57, January 2, 2015 (UTC)

Those who don't participate only have themselves to blame. MolMan 02:06, January 2, 2015 (UTC)

Support 1, 4, 5, 6 - Opposing 2 and 3 because of the whole guest-muting thing. Anyway, in my opinion the solution to these problems is firstly, to strictly enforce the rules - which means actually kicking the users who break them, whether it's a random guest or a CC regular - and secondly, to have admins who are willing to do that fairly. Right now, it seems like when admins are chosen, nobody actually expects them to kick anyone, except maybe a random troublemaker. Nobody thinks of that, they only think 'do I know this person?' and 'do I like them?' That isn't the way to elect those who are supposed to enforce rules. Ranks in the CC are a responsibility, not a badge of honour, and the current admins (and other ranks) ought remember that. If the current admins aren't comfortable with enforcing the rules against their friends, they should be deranked. Otherwise, what's the point in them being ranked? -- Cycloneblaze ^{(user - talk - contribs)} 23:40, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, if TheMolMan was already issued a final warning in a previous thread, he shouldn't get another one, he should get some length of ban from the clan chat. -- Cycloneblaze ^{(user - talk - contribs)} 23:43, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't though. MolMan 23:50, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Proposal - Since much of the discussion is now centered on current admins reluctance to either follow or enforce rules, I propose future applicants for clan ranks must include in their applications responses to a set of specific "What would you do if..." scenario-type questions (I'll try to come up with a few) so that we may try to better judge them based on how they would enforce and obey rules rather than whether or not they seem to be friendly and helpful in CC. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 00:04, January 1, 2015 (UTC)

Although that may sound good in theory, in reality I don't think it would work out very well. What's to stop someone from copying answers from a previous RFR? And if you intend to have them be different for each application, no one has the time for that. For RFAs on the wiki, people are judged off of the things they have done on the wiki and their involvement in the community - in other words, if they're trusted or not. There is a difference between "he's nice and friendly" and "I trust that he will make the right decisions with these tools". The same thought process could easily be applied to the RFRs. The closing admins need to realize this and outweigh the "he's my friend" supports against the "he will actually do the job" supports. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 00:21, January 1, 2015 (UTC)

I thought about proposing a Q&A period for RfRs, but let's face it, we barely get any participation as it is beyond "Oppose or support per so-and-so". I don't see a problem with asking the same questions to all, and there's nothing at all wrong with learning from past RfRs. In fact, I'd encourage it. Looking over past RfRs, both successful and not, may tell them they're on the right track, or help them gain a new perspective they hadn't thought of, or even cause them to reconsider whether or not they're up to the task. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 00:42, January 1, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think specific questions would work, but a set of more vague questions, like RfA has, might. If we're looking at how candidates react to conflict, then ask them what conflict they've been in, how they resolved it and what they learned from it. Ask them what rule breaking they've seen in the cc, how it was dealt with and what they would do (bonus points for how to handle it better). User:Cqm/Signature

Do we also want current ranks to re-do their requests with this new system, or do we trust that they'll behave well and that if they do do something wrong, someone will make a YG thread about it at that moment? Oil4 ^Talk 16:38, January 1, 2015 (UTC)

Few issues with that. Firstly, it's pretty hard to accurately glean how one would react to conflict from these vague questions that are responded to over the internet. I'm really not sure that will be anything different than the current system. I've also never been a fan of making people redo these requests because they all seem like extra and unnecessary bureaucracy to me. I trust that people who have issues with some people will speak up about them. Let sleeping dogs lie. --Liquid^Talk 19:40, January 1, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any benefit to asking current ranks to re-do their requests. They've already gone through the process and were awarded their ranks based on the system we had at the time, and we should honour that. The only time someone should have to do a new request is if they've lost their rank, voluntarily or otherwise. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 23:17, January 1, 2015 (UTC)

cqm, that would work. I like that better. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 23:17, January 1, 2015 (UTC)