FANDOM


Forums: Yew Grove > Sexual topics in clan chat
Replacement filing cabinet
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 17 January 2014 by Liquidhelium.

Right now, our Clan Chat's Rule 9 states that "users are not allowed to discuss sexual topics in the clan chat", per this thread. Now as anyone who spends time in the CC will know, this rule is hardly followed - sexual topics are brought up very often, but whenever someone asks for it to stop, it does. Everyone seems to be fine with this system, so it seems like a good idea to formalise it.

My proposal then is simple: change rule 9 to "Discussion of sexual topics in the Clan Chat is allowed, unless a user asks for it to stop", akin to rule 8.

Discussion

Support - Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 20:49, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Slight Support - I believe that the clan has grown to a state where it is mature (or immature, depending on how you look at it) enough to handle such topics in discussion. I feel that the majority of members would not mind this amendment, as many of them participate in such discussions already. Those who feel uncomfortable need only ask for the banter to stop, and it will. My concerns include: reputation (that the discussion of sexual topics can make the Wiki come across as a childish or immature community), extremeness (when such topics go to far, and participants in the discussion are unwilling to stop, or that they have already violated a user's comfort level), and approachability (it's hard to join into a conversation of such topics, for newcomers and for people who feel uncomfortable talking about such things). All in all, I do support the proposition, and I think implementing it is the only way to discover if these potential issues can be resolved. Lord Zaros symbolWayfind3r Talk Quest Icon Crest 20:59, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Reasonable enough to make it official. -- Spined helm SpineTalkBook of knowledge 21:04, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Support - per Spine.--Cheers, Off-hand Ascension crossbowYodaAscension crossbow 21:28, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't have made it a rule to start with. Anyone who was regularly in the chat at the time we created this rule knew it was going to be unenforced. User:(wszx)/sheeeeple 21:29, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Nobody listens to it. Besides, most of the topics discussed are (immature) jokes rather than pr0n. -- Megadog14Talk 21:32, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - A rule is a rule. The consideration of allowing it if nobody objects disgusts me. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 21:39, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Just because it's a rule that doesn't mean we can't change it. Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 21:44, December 30, 2013 (UTC)
Why does it matter to you, if you're never in the clan?--Cheers, Off-hand Ascension crossbowYodaAscension crossbow 21:57, December 30, 2013 (UTC)
Yoda your comment doesn't concern me in no way but I shall reply with a comment anyway. Elune (talk) fetus is a good boy 22:19, December 30, 2013 (UTC)
Fswe is ban even if you're not in clan -- Spined helm SpineTalkBook of knowledge 23:24, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Support - I agree with Wayfinder's concerns, but this is still better than the current system. User:Stelercus/Signature 22:02, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose - If someone tells you to stop talking about something sexual, that means you don't bring it up again. If you do it repeatedly, we shouldn't just abolish the rule, you should get a punishment. The rules are guidelines to follow, they aren't to be adjusted to a small group of people's needs. Haidro (talk) 23:20, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

..."needs". K, Haidro, K. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 10:06, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - While I personally consider clan chats to be a separate space (shades of grey) where the permissible topics are governed by the community, rather than jagex, I think this discussion might be pointless.  Consider rule 1 (and 2nd bullet prior to the list) "All in-game Rules of RuneScape apply."  The respect section of these rules includes the clarification "Seriously offensive language includes racism and chat of a sexual nature."  Given the wiki's status as the best source of information related to runescape, I don't know if it'd be wise to implement a chat rule that strictly speaking is arguably in direct violation of the respect section.  It's been mentioned that the rule hasn't been well enforced.  I brought up in CC the side note of rules 2 and 4 (flaming and mature/cool headed) also being poorly enforced, and often broken by those who should be enforcing them.  An interesting example of this occurred shortly after, where Gaz was instructing a guest prospective member to read rs:cc.  During this conversation Gaz was told to shut up, and an admin was discussing twerking with someone else.  My point is, what is this prospective member, who mentioned his great respect of the RSW as a source of information when he introduced himself, supposed to think as he reads these rules and observes the clan owner being disrespected? (granted in jest, but did he know that?)Xerien IX (talk) 23:54, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts - I am not sure I can support this. I do realise the rule is basically not followed unless someone says to stop, but that could be a sign that the moderation is poor, rather than the rule is bad - I'm not sure. It is also true that most infractions of the rule are more jokes than actual sexual discussion or solicitation - any actual solicitation or cybering would be silenced quickly I'm sure.

I definitely do not like the proposed rule's wording. It implies the wiki is condoning such discussion, which I am not comfortable with - especially with the RS rule regarding this. A reword is definitely necessary - "if a discussion on a sexual topic is becoming uncomfortable or offensive, please ask for it to stop" or similar. Maybe it should be broadened to "any topic", with provision that it is reasonable to ask it to stop (UCS and all that - with agreement of others?). I'll think about writing something up when I'm not so dead.

But yeah, the new wording is bad and probably implies things it doesn't mean to. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 00:42, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Addition: I agree with Xerien that the maturity of the CC has been in somewhat of a decline for awhile, but I don't know what to do about that. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 00:42, December 31, 2013 (UTC)
I also agree that the...maybe not the maturity, but the seriousness of RSW isn't what it used to be. I personally enjoy the more lighthearted atmosphere, but I don't know if that's the popular opinion. Ultimately, it's a group of people who have in some cases known one another for years and enjoy joking around with one another. None of it really seems to be malicious to me.--Cheers, Off-hand Ascension crossbowYodaAscension crossbow 00:51, December 31, 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I may not belong to the wiki clan anymore, but I could not agree more. While saying that I was chased out of the wiki clan is a bit of a stretch, it is true that I left because of the maturity level/seriousness of the clan had become so abysmal that I just said "fuck it" and left. So in a way, I was chased out, but not by the community. Instead, I was chased out by the lack of maturity and feeling like I needed to be lewd to be "cool". I could go on about how that attitude that made me leave has spread and is still around on the wiki itself (I'm looking at a few select users who I do not think are serious enough, but I will not name anyone)...but that's not the topic to talk about here. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 01:04, December 31, 2013 (UTC)
Wait I thought it was me and Bull being nasty that chased you out of the chat? I'm pretty sure that accusation was leveled. For what's it worth, though, I'm much more mature now and have toned down my sexual discussions. Dildos hardly ever come up any more. User:(wszx)/sheeeeple 01:46, December 31, 2013 (UTC)
It could have been, I don't remember specifically anymore. It's been a while. >_< 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 01:47, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Question - What does everyone think on how we handle it at the moment? Are we doing too much to stop such conversations? Are we allowing too much of such conversations? Are we in the middle, doing well? (If we do not change the rule, do we continue as we have been or enforce it more? If we change the rule to we continue as we are or enforce it less?) Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 00:58, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Well, for starters, if we want to rigorously enforce the rules, it has to begin with the people charged with enforcing said rules, namely the clan admins. I've participated in my fair share of sexual topics in the clan chat, almost always with other clan admins. It's not hard to drop the clan admins a memo about enforcing this rule strictly if we so choose. I can't see things getting out of hand if we don't want them to.
As for the larger question of whether this is an issue, my (admittedly biased) opinion is that it's not. No one is actually talking about salacious, NSFW details. It's mostly been stuff about dating and relationships, with a little bit of sex talk peppered in. Most of that stuff is filtered out by the game filter anyway. (If people have turned the filter off then they should be fine with seeing something like this.) Maturity-wise, I would say that all the stuff about "(user) is ban" does a lot more to lower the maturity level of the clan chat than any sexual topics do. --LiquidTalk 04:04, December 31, 2013 (UTC)
Like Kevin said, I (and other admins) are usually the ones perpetuating these sorts of conversations. I personally don't think it's a huge issue, but if anyone other than the "silent majority" is bothered, I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say I'll be willing to cut it out.--Cheers, Off-hand Ascension crossbowYodaAscension crossbow 04:35, December 31, 2013 (UTC)


Slight Oppose- Although I feel that status quo whereby the rule is not enforced heavily, at least, not that I have seen it heavily enforced yet, I feel that having the rule there by itself is still fine, even if it is not 100% enforced, since having the rule there shows that it is frowned upon, reducing the amount of said content in chat, though having a bit is fine IMO. EDIT: Shifted it to the time spot where it should be because I am an idiot and placed it at the top. (Zapdos678 (talk) 13:25, December 31, 2013 (UTC))

Support - Obviously we have to be very careful with a subject like this - as Gaz said, it does need rewording a tad. But like Yoda said, the admins are part of the immaturity issue that has been cropping up too... I think the point I'm trying to make is that yes, we have this rule, but no, no-one is enforcing it unless asked. Should that not suggest to everyone that it shouldn't be a rule (at least in it's current form)? I think that the allowance of light discussion should be adequate, and people can ask for it to be stopped, but that the discussion of heavier topics (e.g rape, though I can't remember something like that coming up) should be off the table. A rewording of the proposal might go something like;

Discussion of sexual topics in the clan chat should be ceased immediately if asked by any member/guest of the chat. Discussion of serious sexual topics will not be tolerated by admins.

Obviously re-word that to your liking, but the idea is that people shouldn't be punished for joking about it, within reason.

As for the maturity of the clan chat, I don't think that's an issue, or really relevant in this thread anyway. But some of our most active and recognisable users right now are also some or the less mature ones. I don't think this is a bad thing, they are more than capable of being mature if the situation calls for it. But as stinko said, if anyone is feeling 'like [they] needed to be lewd to be "cool"', then maturity probably needs a discussion thread here too. I don't think so right now though. 13:40, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Question - Why not just remove the rule since it's covered under following RuneScape's rules (#1)? User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 19:30, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new rule

Suggested new rule - As I said above I'd make a suggestion on a new rule, so here you go.

  1. If the current topic of discussion in the clan chat is becoming offensive or making you uncomfortable, please ask for it to stop. If a user asks for a topic change on this basis, please do so. Be reasonable and use common sense about what you ask to stop - this rule is not to be used as a sword to strike down legitimate topics you do not like, but as a shield to prevent possibly inflammatory or offensive discussions becoming so. Users should also be reasonable about what discussions they start in the first place.
    • Topics where this may come into play includes (but is not limited to): politics, religion, topics of a sexual nature, possibly offensive jokes, new quest spoilers, etc.
    • Note that, per above, the user treatment policy and the RuneScape rule Respect (notably Inappropriate language or behaviour) always apply, and so discussions must not breach these rules

Could probably do with some minor wording/grammar changes but I think this is much better. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 22:00, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Would this also replace rule 4? Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 22:05, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
Maybe not in its entirety, but there is some repetition that should be removed (from one or t'other). Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 23:00, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
To me it doesn't seem like it would replace rule 4. Ive seen a lot of heated discussions (to say the least) about gods, politics ETC., stuff that isn't offensive on its own but quickly escalates into fights. But like Gaz said, theres some stuff in the rules that could be removed or edited. -- Megadog14Talk 23:31, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Support Gaz's proposal - This seems like a very reasonable way to permit some of the discussion that already goes on in RSW without making it seem like we strive to make the CC as X-rated as possible.--Cheers, Off-hand Ascension crossbowYodaAscension crossbow 05:05, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Support Gaz's proposal aswell - Most reasonable perspective on how to deal with this, considering it's pretty much RS:UCS.  Speak up or shut up (or go with it, of course), basically. S T Y G 05:49, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Support Gaz's proposal - Much better worded than mine. Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 10:26, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Strong Support Strong support of Gaz's proposal - User:King kolton9/Signature 16:32, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Support Gaz's proposal - As far as I have observed, the clan seems to be fine with light sexual discussion. As per the rule proposed, we should be able to stop offensive and uncomfortable discussions while still allowing discussions which are generally accepted as not being harmful. This is probably in the best interest of the clan. FishRCrazy (talk) 16:48, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Support Gaz - He is the queen of green, we must listen to the gayest butterfly. I haven't heard any sexual topics, nor complaints. Personally, I feel that the clan chat is highly mature for the most part (Yoda) that, even if the occasion were to arise, there wouldn't be a big deal about it. WgvxeSr.png - frouZAC.png 23:44, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Support Gaz's proposal - People in the CC are mature enough to have fun whilst being able to change topic or otherwise avoid an offensive topic if a complaint is made or any other problem arises. Raglough (talk) 02:30, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Gaz's proposal - Yes, I am not in the clan, but Gaz's proposal boils down to "allow until someone asks to stop". I think it should never be allowed in the first place. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 08:51, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

If no one in the clan at the time sees any problem, then why does it matter?User:King kolton9/Signature 13:50, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
Once again, and you said it yourself, if you're not in the clan, how can you fairly judge whether or not the rule is in the best interests of the clan? Very rarely does anyone seem bothered by the conversations in the clan, so why not allow them until someone IS bothered? The point of rules is to protect the users, not to punish them. If none of the people being "protected" want the rule, there's no point in having it.--Cheers, Off-hand Ascension crossbowYodaAscension crossbow 20:26, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
So you would prefer that the moderation be much stricter in the CC (having no experience with how strict it is currently)? Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 20:42, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
Does it matter if nobody's bothered by it? I could go stab that old hermit next door whom nobody likes for no reason whatsoever and nobody would care; I'd still get arrested. Point is some "standard" rules should just be enforced unconditionally, such as "don't insult others", "don't spam, troll or flame", "do not bot" and, yes, "do not discuss sexual topics". 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 10:15, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
I think the hermit would be pretty bothered by that Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 16:15, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Support Gaz's proposal Per the pen of Yoda. -- Megadog14Talk 21:37, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Support Gaz's Proposal - As a member of the RSW Clan Chat, I am entirely satisfied with the above proposal and would be happy to see it implemented. 02:39, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose proposal - As I highlighted in a discussion last year, people (including Admins) have a hard job stopping a discussion when asked politely, changing the rules to make this potentially more common, in addition changing Rule 9, seems to me that the clan would then be pushing the rules of the game past the limit, in a way that is potentially tantamount to encouraging rule breaking, I would likely leave the clan again, if this came into force for that reason alone. -- RSDaftVader (talk) 02:54, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Another Consideration - Another consideration, what if one (or more) of the perpetrators of a conversation that barely crosses the line (keep in mind, that the 'line' becomes extremely murky), has the person requesting the conversation to stop is on ignore (which is not unreasonable), someone could unwittingly break the rule. Status Quo leaves little doubt at least for these type of discussions -- RSDaftVader (talk) 04:46, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I'd really like to hear some input from people outside this inner loop of the clanchat. Most of the support is coming from those who do their fair share of these risque discussions; it's really not fair to have them dictate this rule just because no one else has posted. There's a very clear divide with those supporting and those opposing here. Myself? I don't visit the CC regularly... it's more like never; I've only popped into it a few times (and I never spoke nor did anyone recognize me), but I can't say what I've seen makes me want to. There's a fine line between sexual and vulgar that I think most of the clan chat fails to understand. A mature individual can talk about sex and other touchy topics without being inappropriate. Though they won't need to often, they can at least handle. Things like this and this are way past the aforementioned line. Oh, and those are people who are against such a change.

This stuff I'm reading about how such a rule to disallow touchy topics is any sort of "punishment" to those who are involved with the topics is ridiculous. You lose nothing but a sophomoric joke or two from the sort of stuff this rule should disallow. Honestly, that's going to significantly improve every one of you whom this affects.

I understand each facet of Rune Wikia has its own little community, its own set of rules, its own standards; but the clan chat is the most used medium. It's going to be the place where we get the most visitors who look at our site. I can't tell you how many people have come into the onsite chat just to ask if the Wiki had a clan. My point isn't anything about roping in editors or whatnot, but you guys really oughta make a reasonable reputation for yourself. I can't say I know anything topical with the clan, but I can say I recognize almost all of the names on this thread. If a rule is going to affect what every hears and what everyone can say, you need more than just the same 15 people giving input.

At the very least, the rule should be rewritten to put an extraordinary amount of stress on the responsibility of the participants in the conversation to control themselves. While the ability to ask a conversation cease is a freedom that shouldn't even need to be said, it's not something that's easily done, especially when you're uncomfortable with the topic.

Sorry for not being in the clan and writing this, but it saddened me to see this topic going down the road it was. I'm an outsider, yes, but part of the reason I avoid the clan chat is what I've seen. I do enjoy a good "penis" joke every once in a while, but you guys can go way overboard. I understand where some of the opposition are coming from; some of you supporters seem like you don't.

For the third time: I don't visit the clan chat really at all. Thus, whatever the outcome is, I am unaffected. Though, I think it's always good to have an outsider opinion. Do what you will, just remember, though: the clan chat is more than these 20 or so people on this thread. MolMan 03:35, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been in chat as much as usual over the past few months, but overall I'd have to say that I've seldom been offended by anything I've seen. On those few occasions when I have been offended, it was not a sexual subject that offended me. There have been times when I've thought things might be getting a little out of hand and inching ever closer to the point where someone might be offended, but nothing that has bothered me personally. I'd speak up if it did. Mostly it all comes across as "all in good fun" to me, and I'd hate to see it become so restricted that people feel they can't kid around. I do think, however, that we ought to be mindful that there are many in chat who don't actively talk while there, and who might not be comfortable coming right out and asking that people tame down the banter a bit. Perhaps stressing somewhere within the rule itself that clannies may make their discomfort known via private chat to an admin who can take action without saying who specifically is bothered. --Farming-icon Ms ZuZu Talk Quest icon fixed 06:22, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Mol, I am of the opinion that you are taking this too seriously or over-sensitively. I have to be careful to sound insensitive, but the two examples you gave didn't seem in any way past the aforementioned line. Obviously this is in moderation, if those two examples had been taken with about ten minutes of the same thing it would be unacceptable. Of course if for example you were in the chat and found something I wouldn't find offenisve, well, offensive, you should be able to ask for it to be stopped. And if the moderators are not mature enough to help you, that is a problem with them which should be addressed.

Perhaps the problem is less with the rule in it's current form, but more that it is not addressed at all. This suggests two things: 1. Our moderation is quite lax 2. Most people in the chat do not take heed of the rule in it's current form, thus it needs to change.

If Gaz's solution solves 2., how do we propose to change 1. (seeing as the main perpetrators seems to all have ranks higher than me anyway).

I'd also like to point out that I for one have never actually seen anyone ask for these discussions to stop in the cc, except maybe myself on one occasion. -- 16:59, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, mine may have been a bit too far. Someone (probably Mol, to be honest) noticed that, reported me, and I was muted. However, that was over 6 months ago, and not at all indicative of the typical conversations in RSW nowadays.--Cheers, Off-hand Ascension crossbowYodaAscension crossbow 19:28, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't there for that statement actually. Someone else asked if I wanted pictures of some line crossing things when I mentioned what I planned to pontificate here. I'm not here to call anyone out, but this just illustrates the lack of control and communication that sometimes exists for this sort if issue. MolMan 19:36, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
Not going to argue about what you do or don't think is inappropriate because I'm trying to not hold any stance here. My point is more that every Clan Chat thread that has happened is more or less just a discussion between the same few people. Maybe I'm wrong to stick my nose in this (and I usually stay away from CC threads), but I feel no worthwhile discussion has really happened for this issue's divide. Neither side is really undestanding the other (though I personally think th support is being is being a bit more abrasive). I don't want to try to sway this discussion one way or another because my lack of activity in the CC makes my opinion more or less irrelevant; regardless, I feel everyone in CC should know. Are you guys not making note of this thread to the regulars? Do they just not care? Not everyone has the gonads to ask for a topic to stop, especially when it's so long been the norm as to make them feel like it'd be going too much against the grain. If that's the only solution supporters can give, this discussion won't have gotten its due process. I speak for the little people. MolMan 19:36, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
I advertise this thread often and try to stress the importance of it, and encourage everyone to at least read the thread, if not comment. I've also offered to aggregate comments and opinions and post them (with screenshots of course), but I rarely get comments from more than just the usuals (e.g. Xerien, Zapdos and Daft Vader posted above, but everyone else is basically a regular commenter on such threads). I'm doing what I can to get comments and invite discussion, but it seems no one gives a damn. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 20:15, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
Efforts for communication are always fruitless, sadly. MolMan 03:30, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
Well a lot of people (in general) probably just feel as though these things just aren't their problem, and won't look at wiki stuff. Also, Gaz can't be on 24/7 to advertise. Aside from that, I don't feel as though sexual topics are a norm in the cc, or that to ask people to stop would be going against the grain, but I appreciate that people may not wish to ask for it to stop or feel uncomfortable doing so. The problem is that I don't think it's fair to restrict this in favour of assuming people who don't want it just aren't mentioning it. There have been voices saying that they dislike this behavior, and they should have their opinions respected, but the majority have said they are ok with it, and their opinions need to be respected too. I don't want you to think that I don't appreciate the outside opinion though Mol, as arguing about something is a good way to improve it, so tell me how you think Gaz's proposed rule is flawed. I also hope my responses aren't offensive to you! -- 01:33, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
I'll just take your word for it. I do trust what you say is true, though it is hearsay. Gaz says people don't give a "damn" (excuse my fucking French) about communication. So from the outside looking in, it looks like only a few opinions are being considered in the matter; though I've been confirmed the reason for that is lack of interest (I had a hunch!). I honestly never belonged on this thread (this is my own opinion, don't think anyone here can scare me), and because I don't want to be part of any sort of refining of details for a rule that will never apply to my, I'll just say the rule needs more explication for what it says. It acknowledges that line between sexual and vulgar, but where is that line? Though, Likwid has already brought forth this question. Hopefully no one misinterprets my uninvited comment beyond what it's meant to mean... Here's hoping I never comment on another CC thread. MolMan 03:30, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
Though I doubt you will read this given what you've said, let's be clear that your comment was never uninvited. Heck, I welcome the outside voice. Don't think that cc matters don't concern you or that you can't have an opinion. 17:53, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
A lot of the advertising/mentions for the thread that I've seen is in the form of "Can't wait for Rule 9 to be changed, then I can comment about <insert potentially inappropriate for RS/Clan Chat subject here>", admittedly I'm frequently not on when Gaz is on, so I'm not seeing his undoubtedly more neutral advertisements of this thread. In addition to what The Mol Man has said in regards to people not having the courage to speak up, I think the most common reaction would be for people to fearful that they'd be called a prude. --RSDaftVader (talk) 01:43, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
If anyone called anyone else a prude/etc. after they asked for this to stop, I'd insist the person who did so was punished, because whatever about sexual topics, that's too far and I hope everyone else would see that. As for people saying they can't wait for Rule 9 to be removed, they shouldn't be breaking Runescape rules anyway, which should be enforced by our mods. 17:53, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Perhaps it would be helpful for people if we defined exactly what we mean by a sexual topic. I've always treated the term as describing more explicit or salacious details rather than talking about the subject (or even more broadly, dating/relationships) in general terms. Others may have broader or narrower definitions. It'd be nice if we had a standard definition before arguing over details. --LiquidTalk 10:49, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

++; Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 16:28, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
Kolton defined it as "Any overzealous, needlessly in depth or out of hand discussion of or pertaining to sexual matters." The problem of course is that we can't have a clear definition of something most people have different opinions about, but I think this definition is a start anyway. -- 16:59, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
I consider sexual topics to be things relating to sex. Innuendo, mom jokes, word pr0n, etc. -- Megadog14Talk 19:54, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
Liquid, I agree 100%, although the question is further compounded by the fact that there is such a wide arrangement of ages in this clan chat (even some younger than 13 - although they are MEANT to be restricted to Quick Chat, so participation would be one-way). As far as I'm concerned chat along the lines of "Me and my (b|g)f went on a date night at the movies" sort of thing, is perfectly fine and fitting within the rules (heck, 5 year olds understand the concept of boyfriends/girlfriends), it's when the chatter starts becoming a bit more off colour, maybe the definition should be no more than what you'd see in an M-rated (or similar - I believe from reading the MPAA website, Americans would call this PG-13) movie. --RSDaftVader (talk) 01:43, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
[bg]f is a cleaner regex to work with than (b|g)f MolMan 16:40, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
Those restricted to quick chat due to being under 13 can only use and see quick chat (as opposed to those muted who can only use quick chat but can see all chat). Really, we shouldn't need to deal with under-13s, because both Jagex and Wikia comply with COPPA and so are obligated to limit or remove children under 13 years old (by removing free chat and globally blocking, respectively). I am aware this is often not followed by the child. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 17:38, January 9, 2014 (UTC)
A very valid point. What I intended with the original proposal was more with regards to innocent things, nowhere near as explicit as say Mol's examples. I kind of assumed that our clanmates would be wise enough not to go that far (especially considering that's against the RS rules anyway, as pointed out above) - I hadn't considered the possibility that others might define "sexual topics" differently. Maybe something like "If it's not appropriate for a PG-13 film/movie, it's not appropriate for the clan chat."? Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 16:14, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to stop you right there, daft. PG-13 should NOT be the limit for chitchat.
I'd say coast at PG-13, move to R if you feel like it and no one desires to speak up, and NEVER move to X, that's going too far. I feel like some people here are over reacting. Unless you're a cast member on the view, or 5, saying "penis" is not dirty.
I know this is coming from me, but use common sense. Saying the word "twerking" is by no means pushing any boundary, unless you are literally Ned Flanders, oogley doogley. The clan should be a place for mature discussion, and as such, mature topics are going to come with that. The whole reason it's not enforced right now is because it's ridiculous. For example, in Hawaii, it's illegal to place a coin in one's ear. That law's ridiculous, and you'll be hard press to find a soul that's actively enforcing it. This is the same thing, and this is why the rule needs some kind of rework.
tl;dr, Hawaii has a weird law, don't hold everyone down because there's 12 year olds in the clan.User:King kolton9/Signature 22:13, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Support Gaz's Proposal - Personally I don´t find any of the topics offensive, as long as they don´t go into much detail. I can understand that for some people this is different and I respect that when a moderator asks me to stop. And for the people who don´t respect that, a temp/ban helps to get a point across. 82.156.223.110 17:08, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know it's not possible to temp kick someone from a CC without removing them from the clan completely. Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 16:14, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I oppose on the same reasons others have given but also want to add another view. Our CC is made up of many different people, from many different countries, males and females, young and old.  What one person may find not to be offensive may be extremely offensive to another.  When it comes to sexual topics the range between offensive or not is just way too varied, so I think the rules should stick AstrasGirl (talk) 11:55, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Where does the fact that the game has a profanity filter come into this? Could we assume the majority of people who are uncomfortable with hearing this sort of stuff would just keep it on? -- 17:53, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
The profanity filter only stops explicit language it doesn't filter most of the topics that this thread refers to. Sly Fawkes (talk) 23:15, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
It changes "anti-climax" to "anti-******" and "Forum:Sexual_topics_in_clan_chat" to "Forum:******_topics_in_clan_chat." In fact, I'd hazard a guess that it does in fact censor most of the topics that this thread refers to. Temujin 13:54, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

RE: Define 'sexual' - Because "sexual"/"offensive"/etc is vague and doesn't really explain anything, I made a short list of 'common' 'sexual' topics, and threw on labels which somewhat represent status quo and/or my opinion on said topics and their appropriateness. I ran it by liquid (and jim, and whoever else bothered to click the link in IRC at the time), and they agreed that it is roughly status quo. This is by no means a complete list.

  • Talking about dating/married life in general - fine
    • how the date went - fine
    • how the date led to the bedroom - saying it happened, fine; details, no
    • how much said time in the bedroom was enjoyed (or not) - context dependant, but probably not; definitely no details
  • Innuendo - context
    • "Quick chat buttonI like your item: Wet pipe" - fine unless spammed (quick chat is never reportable unless it is being spammed, which is hard for one person to pull off alone - if group effort, tell them all to knock it off)
  • "*twerks*" - context, probably fine
  • Descriptions of a sexual action of any kind (usually vulgar and often used as an insult of sorts, especially if directed at a person or group) - almost certainly bad
    • Directed at a fictional entity, e.g. "jad can go suck a cock" - bad, but excusable; don't make it a habbit
  • Mentioning that one of your christmas presents was underwear - fine
    • ...pink panties - probably fine, context
    • ...lacy pink underwear that make you feel sexy - definitely too far (though that's probably more TMI than anything else)
  • Talking about your turn-ons - bad
    • something mundane, like speaking a foreign language? - not that bad but not a conversation to continue
    • wording ever important:
      • "the way you speak french makes me weak at the knees" - generally fine
      • "i'm super turned on by people speaking french" - bad
  • Talking about sexuality - context
    • Positive, actual discussion - fine
    • As an insult or as a target of insults - obviously bad
  • General bad words: eg User:Cblair91/badwords (WARNING: much profanity, many offense, click @ own risk, wow, very regex)
    • As an insult - bad, covered by UTP
    • On its own (randomly or otherwise not part of a multi-line sentence) - not fine but not followed up if there is no other uses or infractions
    • Spammed, either one per line or a bunch all at once (or a series of such) - duh, bad
    • Peppered throughout general speech without being one of the above - depends on context and word, but generally ok, if spelled correctly (so profanity filter gets it), but overuse may mean warnings; see also RS:PROFANITY
  • Sex-based jokes - context, presume bad
    • Yo mama jokes - generally bad
    • Dead baby jokes - 0/10 would ban
  • Abbreviations - generally fine (abbreviations generally not reportable)
    • Word shortenings - generally fine, unless its obviously bad e.g. 'fgt'

Please comment on the list: anything to add to it, any corrections, anything we should change (i.e. change how we moderate), any other improvements. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 17:38, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to explicitly mention bad words? Those are already covered by the chat filter and RuneScape rules. Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 19:10, January 9, 2014 (UTC)
I see a few problems. For one thing, you shouldn't go after someone about a misspelling (talk about bad atmosphere). You shouldn't presume anything's bad, either. Someone is innocent until proven guilty. Saying "I'm turned on by the way you speak French" is bad is a little too extreme, don't you think. It's staring to seem like what we have is fine in the first place.User:King kolton9/Signature 01:01, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
Intentional misspelling to evade the profanity filter is definitely reportable. RS:AGF is covered by rule '0' of the clan chat. The issue I take with that sentence is that it is a gateway into very definitely inappropriate things. Its not very appropriate to be talking about turn ons or fetishes or such, anyway. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 01:50, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
I see no problem, then but I STILL think we should have generally free speech until someone speaks up.User:King kolton9/Signature 03:04, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
Overall, your list makes perfect sense to me. As you pointed out, there will be times when the context will dictate whether or not something is offensive, but even then people can speak up if they find something offensive, and at that point the subject should be dropped.  It might not hurt to add something to the rule that makes it clear that once a clanmate has indicated that a subject or phrase is making them uncomfortable, it should be dropped with no discussion regarding WHY they find it offensive. I don't often see anyone complain in chat, but when someone does speak up it usually sparks a "Why?  What's wrong with what I said?" discussion that drags on and on. It shouldn't matter whether 99% of the people in chat are fine with what's being said.  What should matter is that, if it's offensive or upsetting to even one person and that person says so, we respect that and tone down the discussion or change the subject entirely. Chat should be a comfortable place for everyone, not just those who agree with the majority or share the same sense of humour. Farming-icon Ms ZuZu Talk Quest icon fixed 06:22, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree; also with mentioning PMing an admin/someone in the rule. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 15:25, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Seems fine, except the abbreviations. FMA is obviously offensive and should be insta-ban.--Cheers, Off-hand Ascension crossbowYodaAscension crossbow 20:38, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

How is Fighting Many Animals offensive? /troll, but what happens if someone thinks an abbreviation means something innocent, but it actually means something offensive? Are they punished? -- Megadog14Talk 22:14, January 9, 2014 (UTC)
"You don't need to report players for using abbreviations such as 'lmao', 'wtf', 'gtfo'." - Right-click a player, report abuse, click the ? next to Respect.
I tried to find a better quote/forum post/ORSW Jagex-edited page/etc about abbreviations but I couldn't find anything. In general, if the meaning is not obvious, assume it is okay. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 22:36, January 9, 2014 (UTC)
I was just having a playful jab at the old FMA rule. I obviously don't find abbreviations to be a problem.--Cheers, Off-hand Ascension crossbowYodaAscension crossbow 23:46, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I think it should be specified to say anything rather than just "Rule 9!" At this point, I can't tell whether people are objecting to what's been said or trying to be funny. User:King kolton9/Signature 23:16, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

Closed - There is sufficient consensus to edit the rule giving a blanket ban to sexual topics in the clan chat. While most users who commented supported the change, there exist legitimate concerns about protecting clanmates from unwanted harassment by these discussions. As a general rule of thumb, explicit details are inappropriate and are still disallowed. Anything that violates the user treatment policy is still disallowed. However, there is no longer an explicit ban on all types of sexual discussions.

However, if any user feels uncomfortable with a sexual conversation and asks that it be stopped, all users involved in the conversation must stop. Don't harass the user who made the request. If any user feels uncomfortable making said request, he or she may ask another clanmate to stop the conversation, preferably a clan administrator. As a reminder, clan administrators are tasked with enforcing this rule, including kicking offending users when necessary.

The text of the updated rule will be as follows:

  1. If the current topic of discussion in the clan chat is becoming offensive or making you uncomfortable, please ask for it to stop. If a user asks for a topic change on this basis, please do so. Be reasonable and use common sense about what you ask to stop - this rule is not to be used as a sword to strike down legitimate topics you do not like, but as a shield to prevent possibly inflammatory or offensive discussions becoming so. Users should also be reasonable about what discussions they start in the first place.
    • Topics where this may come into play includes (but is not limited to): politics, religion, topics of a sexual nature, possibly offensive jokes, new quest spoilers, etc.
    • Note that, per above, the user treatment policy and the RuneScape rule Respect (notably Inappropriate language or behaviour) always apply, and so discussions must not breach these rules.

--LiquidTalk 00:59, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.