Forum:Updates and changes to clan information

Forums: Yew Grove > Updates and changes to clan information

Hey everyone,

I am proposing some changes to the information that we give about RSW on the clan related pages here on the wiki. I would like to update these pages to remove some of the more outdated and general information about clans and to add more useful information about our clan specifically.

RS:CC is the main clan information page: new members are instructed to read this if they are joining RSW. I want to update this page to make it more inviting and to give more relevant information for players who are interested in joining the clan. I've created a draft of a new version of RS:CC in my sandbox but, as this is significantly different to the current version of the page, I want to give other people chance to contribute before altering the page itself. Leave a comment on this thread if there's any other alterations that you would like to see, or if you don't agree with the changes I have made in this version.

Additionally I am creating this thread to suggest some changes to the rules and policies of the clan, some more significant than others, which are present in the draft I have made - but these are still subject to discussion here at this stage. For clarity here is a list of changes to the content of the page:

• Add to the rule about flaming that this should not occur regardless of whether the person discussed is present or not in the clan chat.
• Change guidelines about profanity to a formal rule that highlights conditions where using profanity is not acceptable (in personal attacks and use of derogatory/discriminatory language). This is in line with similar rule for the onsite chat.
• Remove "quest spoilers" as an example of a topic that people may reasonably ask others to stop discussing. Content of new quests is a legitimate topic that players often want to discuss after an update and this makes preventing players from talking about new quests too difficult to enforce.
• Following Forum:Security of sysop accounts wiki users' administrator or bureaucrat rights may be removed if they have been inactive on the wiki for over a year, with users having the option to reclaim their rights if they become active again in future. Add to the clan rules that users' clan chat ranks should also be removed/reinstated on these occasions.
• Similarly, add a rule relating to the ranks of clan members who gained their rank by making a request on wiki: previously ranked clan chat members who have lost their rank due to negative reasons, inactivity or leaving the clan should discuss regaining their previous rank, if they wish to do so, with the clan owner. Depending on the situation, users may be asked to make a new request for rank in order to reaffirm that the community still supports them.
• Remove "pass phrases" from the page.

I am also planning to rewrite our other clan information pages. These changes will mostly involve changes to the organisation and wording of information, though I am suggesting these changes for the content of relevant clan information sub-pages:

• Combine RuneScape:Clan Chat/Rank guide and RS:CC/P to a page giving an overview both of permissions associated with clan chat ranks and of how to use these abilities.
• Combine information from RS:CC/C, RS:CC/C/G and RS:CC/C/I to a page giving relevant information about RSW's citadel.
• Remove the suggestion that recruits ask clan mates with admin+ rank for a promotion to corporal (mentioned on RuneScape:Clan Chat/Rank guide under "About and earning ranks"). It is too difficult to enforce the current guidelines against forum shopping, so I would suggest that we leave awarding this rank entirely up to admin+'s discretion and do not encourage users to ask for the rank.
• Change the clan chat rank given to former Events Team members from sergeant to corporeal. Requests for sergeant rank have been closed for some time now and it looks unlikely that they will be re-opened in future. As the rank is otherwise not being given out, it doesn't make sense to use it in this one specific circumstance. If this is introduced, change rank of current former Events Team members with sergeant rank to corporeal.
• Add information that permanently banned players can request an unblock on RS:YG to RS:CC/B.
• Add suggestion to RS:RAFFLE that, if no raffle helpers/organisers are online to do so, clan mates may use the resource checker to take a screenshot of their gathered resources and add the screenshot to the talk page of helper/organiser so that the clan mate may be entered into the raffle when the helper/organiser is next able to do so. Add a list of wiki account names of helpers/organisers who are active on the wiki/happy to be contacted in this way to the raffle page .
• On RS:CC/I clarify conditions where clan mates who have been identified as inactive should be removed from the kick list:
  • Remove suggestion “If you see a name here that has logged in recently, please contact a clan admin" and replace with "if you see someone online who has been identified as inactive, feel free to tell them that they have been identified as inactive and let them know that they should contact an admin+ and ask the admin+ to remove them from the kick list if they wish to remain in the clan".
  • Add “if a player has confirmed to you that they wish to remain in the clan after being notified that they are under consideration for removal from the clan” as situation where admins+ may take a player off of the list.
  • Add that clan mates may be contacted via the wiki, if their wiki account name is known, to notify them if they have been identified as inactive.
  • Add information that any clan chat member may be removed from the clan, regardless of clan chat rank, previous activity or status on the wiki, if they are identified as being inactive and do not confirm that they wish to remain a member of the clan. As per rule of "all users are to be treated fairly and equally".

• Clarify the requirements/guidelines for requests for rank to:
  • The player should have had a wiki account at least 3 months, even if they do not actively use the account.
  • Change "the user must be recognised in the clan chat, and must have been in it consistently for 1-3 months" to "the player must have been a member of RSW for at least 3 months and should be a recognised and active figure in clan chat". Increase the period of time as a clan member required to make sure that candidates have shown a significant commitment to being a member of the clan and to allow for more informed discussion by increasing chance that the candidate will be encountered by clan mates.
  • Remove "candidates should have been an active contributor to the wiki/clan chat for at least eight weeks to a few months" as a guideline. These things are already covered in the requirements for requests.
  • Change guidelines to "candidates should be well-known, helpful and trustworthy clan members who have demonstrated that they have the necessary qualities to handle the additional abilities awarded to ranked users".
  • Change "if a request fails, it is generally a good idea to wait a few weeks before nominating that person again" to "if a request fails, a candidate must wait at least 1 month before making another request for rank". Increase period of time that must have elapsed to give players chance to address any issues that were raised in their previous request and to allow others greater opportunity to assess whether improvements have been made.

Sorry for text wall of my thoughts,

IsobelJ 12:25, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Question = Since I'm not an admin on the main site, should I also lose my rank on the CC? I'm rather more active in the game now than the wiki. It's mainly because I think admin+ can only be wardens. Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 12:51, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I see no reason for you to lose your rank. You are active on RuneScape but not the wiki. But because of how you lost your admin privileges, you can literally just say "I want them back", and you will regain your user rights. The removal of your rights was for security reasons. That said, what are we securing by removing an active player's rank? Nothing. MolMan 12:55, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

God damn Powers making things difficult by being pretty much the only person in this situation :p How about adjusting the rule to this "If a wiki administrator's or bureaucrat's rights are removed due to inactivity or for negative reasons then their clan chat rank shall also be removed. If a user regains their rights on the wiki then they may also request back their clan chat rank. If an administrator or bureaucrat gives up or loses their rights under amicable circumstances and wishes to keep their rank in the clan chat then they should discuss this with the clan owner. Users may be asked to create a new request for rank if the clan owner believes that this is necessary, in order to reaffirm that the community still supports them."? I think this would cover the situation that you are in. Someone who kept clan chat rank in this way would still need to keep up clan activity requirements in future though. So if the person then became inactive on RuneScape and we ran RS:CC/I they would have to say that they wanted to stay in the clan or otherwise be kicked and then re-ask for their rank back if they started playing again. IsobelJ 13:43, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

I quite purposefully allowed cc admins to retain their rank in the CC when writing that thread, both in terms of eligibility and possession, because of admins such as Powers (although others such as Karlis and Rich Farmbrough also caught my eye). Loss of rights on the wiki did not signify a loss of trust, so I don't see why it should be carried over to the CC/IRC. User:Cqm/Signature

Strong oppose removal of pass phrase - "Gosh, you're competent." is an important phrase in the history of the clan. Above all it proves a person knows where to find the rules. There's no way to prove a person read the entire page, but that's also not important. As long as a person knows how to find the rules, they're in the clear. Having a single simple phrase in an easy-to-find place is the best way to prove a person can find the page. I am personally offended that you want to remove the literally competent from the clan.

On a positive note, I became frustrated yesterday with the constant edits people make that mess up a page in some way just because their cache failed to load the page. Gaz and I spent some time trying to find one of these blank pages to no avail. When I opened your forum, I was delighted to see a blank page, thank you for that! I have copied the source code and sent it to Gaz.

Anyways, sorry for the text wall, but it was completely intentional. MolMan 12:55, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

We can put the pass phrase back in if it actually does help to prove that people have found the rules. We currently have a couple on the page though - what one(s) should we keep and where should it go on a rewritten page? IsobelJ 13:43, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

I am for keeping a pass phrase. As to the rest I am all in favor of all the other stuff that was mentioned above.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.128.179.64 (talk). - Exeter_Fun (The tree lives on...)

Pass phrase is a waste of time. I havent seen anyone recently either try and find it before they join, or have the inviter check they've seen it Immo Voted Worst Wikian 2013 09:42, October 9, 2015 (UTC)

Comments -

• Support - the majority of the proposal, exceptions below
• Oppose - Removing the pass phrase and changing former ET member ranks from sergeant to corporal.
  • + Oppose to changing the inactivity guidelines, per Zuzu below.
• Also iffy about removing the rare admin ranks in game, who are active in game but not on wiki (and therefore had their wiki rank removed), per Powers. I don't see why an active admins rank should be removed just for them to request it back I guess

Star ^Talk 17:24, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

Are you opposed to the whole idea of giving former ET members sergeant instead of corporeal or just the suggestion of changing the ranks of people who already have sergeant for this reason? For admin situation, I would suggest that on future occasions where rights are removed on site we try and check during this process if people who are active in the clan want to retain their clan chat rank. You're right, it makes no sense to remove the rank and then have someone immediately request it back, so I think this would be more sensible. However I do think that the vast majority of people who are inactive on site are also going to be inactive in game, and either will not want to keep either clan chat rank or will not be contactable to confirm if they want the rank. In these cases the clan chat rank would be removed at the time of them losing their on site rights, but they could then request it back if in future they became active on the wiki and re-requested their rights or if they become active on RuneScape/in the clan in the future they could request clan chat rank back at that time. IsobelJ 09:24, October 9, 2015 (UTC)

Opposed to the suggestion of changing the ranks of people who already have sergeant for this reason, and future former et members getting a corp rank. And yes I much prefer that suggestion instead. Star ^Talk 22:35, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

Why are you opposed to giving corporeal rank rather than sergeant? IsobelJ 09:49, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

RSW already makes little use of all the ranks available (mainly we have what, recruits/corps/captains/admins), and I see no reason to minimise that further. If it did go ahead there would still be RfR people with the rank, and keeping it so ~13 people have the sergeant rank (mainly a trophy rank ((which I also see no problem with)), but people with it have also proven they can be trusted with the ability to kick) affects nobody else (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). Star ^Talk 14:27, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the practice of giving former ET members sergeant rank is something left over from when we used to give out the lieutenant rank. Since we already established that having a rank that was only able to kick guests was unnecessary and closed requests for it, I don’t see that it makes sense to still be giving out a rank that has this ability to former ET members. Changing the rank given to corporeal would make the practice in line with how we currently award ranks in the clan.

While giving the sergeant rank doesn't directly affect other people it certainly seems unfair, given that others might want to have that rank and that there's no other opportunity to obtain it now. It’s also worth noting that there's no other circumstance where we give out "trophy" ranks to people who were formerly doing something in the clan chat or on the wiki.

Perhaps you are right and this is a more general issue with how we are using the sergeant rank. It is a more or less a trophy rank now, but while there's 13 people in the clan who are sergeants, very few of those actually play actively now so it's not a particularly visible issue. It's also the case that the number of people who hold the rank keeps decreasing over time with people holding the rank leaving the game/clan - this would be even more the case if we weren't still giving the rank out to former ET members. IsobelJ 09:11, October 19, 2015 (UTC)

Comments - I'll address two things here:

• Strong oppose to all changes related to clan inactivity (except for the bullet point about the sysop accounts). I believe the inactivity sweep procedures are fine as they are at the moment. We don't need unnecessary bureaucracy here. The process is not supposed to be as formal, and proposed changes will cause trouble.
• Support the rest. These are some good ideas. We really need to make the RS:CC page be informative and look good, so that it can actually help new recruits. 5-x ^Talk 17:35, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the current procedure is fine and I don't see a reason why it should not be made more formal. The changes I have proposed will not make that much difference to the process: in reality all I have suggested that taking people off the list is left to admin+ ranks and that we stop taking people off the list because they have been "seen" in game, in favour of getting some kind of confirmation from them that they want to stay in the clan. How would this cause trouble? IsobelJ 09:24, October 9, 2015 (UTC)

Addition to the proposal - A note about clan ranks: they're long overdue a tidy-up, and this would be a good time to do this. I propose the following minor changes to ranks:

• Stop using General as a legacy rank and move all generals to Lieutenant.
• Make Sergeant unable to kick guests, and promote all current Sergeants to Lieutenant.

What this achieves is: Recruit, Corporal, Sergeant are standard ranks for regular clanmates, then Lieutenant is one step above and identifies trusted users able to kick guests, and the rest remains unchanged. We effectively eliminate one cosmetic-only rank (General) which currently only has one user in it, and we also give greater distinction between new and recognised, active clanmates (three possible ranks instead of two). It seems like a more effective way to utilise ranks. This proposal is intended to serve as an extension to Isobel's idea. 5-x ^Talk 17:35, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose making these changes to rank. I don’t think we need more ranks. It’s enough the "trusted" clan members can get a promotion to corporal rank, which gives them the ability to invite people to the clan. Why should we then have another "regular clanmates" rank at sergeant? What would this rank be received for and what permissions would be associated with it? I don’t think there’s any need to start using lieutenant as a rank that can kick guests - requests for lieutenant have been closed for some time now because the consensus was that the rank was not needed. I think the points that were made there about it not being necessary to have a rank that can only kick guests still stands. IsobelJ 09:24, October 9, 2015 (UTC)

Upon careful consideration, I'm withdrawing this proposal. Perhaps this isn't an optimal time to overhaul ranks after all. I still want to do something about General as a legacy rank, but this can be discussed another time. 5-x ^Talk 10:33, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Add to the rule about flaming that this should not occur regardless of whether the person discussed is present or not in the clan chat.
• Change guidelines about profanity to a formal rule that highlights conditions where using profanity is not acceptable (in personal attacks and use of derogatory/discriminatory language). This is in line with similar rule for the onsite chat.

Both of those must surely fall under UTP or DBAD anyway?

• Remove "quest spoilers" as an example of a topic that people may reasonably ask others to stop discussing. Content of new quests is a legitimate topic that players often want to discuss after an update and this makes preventing players from talking about new quests too difficult to enforce.

Might as well.

• Following Forum:Security of sysop accounts wiki users' administrator or bureaucrat rights may be removed if they have been inactive on the wiki for over a year, with users having the option to reclaim their rights if they become active again in future. Add to the clan rules that users' clan chat ranks should also be removed/reinstated on these occasions.

Oppose. Can't imagine many of the people who still have ranks pose any security risk, which is the reason they lost their wiki rights.

• Similarly, add a rule relating to the ranks of clan members who gained their rank by making a request on wiki: previously ranked clan chat members who have lost their rank due to negative reasons, inactivity or leaving the clan should discuss regaining their previous rank,

If people lose their rank for negative reason, or leaving the clan, they've given up claim to the position they held, and thus should undergo another RFR. They shouldn't just get their rank back. Those who had left due to inactivity should be eligible to get it back.

Clan Page Rewrites: tl;dr Be Bold. Just do it.

• Remove the suggestion that recruits ask clan mates with admin+ rank for a promotion to corporal

Get rid of that rank entirely. It's just pointless. Half the people with it are too lazy to invite anyone to the Clan, which is the whole point of it.

• Change the clan chat rank given to former Events Team members from sergeant to corporeal.

Oppose. Why do former members need any rank at all?

• Remove suggestion “If you see a name here that has logged in recently, please contact a clan admin" and replace with "if you see someone online who has been identified as inactive,

Oppose. Not really a neccesary change, and we arent anywhere near to the player cap.

• The player should have had a wiki account at least 3 months, even if they do not actively use the account.

Why? Seems like a pointless rule change.

• Change "the user must be recognised in the clan chat, and must have been in it consistently for 1-3 months" to "the player must have been a member of RSW for at least 3 months and should be a recognised and active figure in clan chat".

Is it 1 or 3 months? Those are two very different time frames, and their activity level is generally borne out in their RFR anyway.

• Change guidelines to "candidates should be well-known, helpful and trustworthy clan members who have demonstrated that they have the necessary qualities to handle the additional abilities awarded to ranked users".

Then we should probably cull the half of ranks that fail those requirements currently.

Immo Voted Worst Wikian 2013 09:41, October 9, 2015 (UTC)

For removing cc ranks: I think security concerns are still relevant for inactive clan chat ranks - it is possible that someone's RuneScape account may be compromised for example.

For returning ranks: I'd rather leave room to decide if returning ex-ranks should be re-ranked/make another rfr on a case by case basis. I'm guessing that nearly all situations will go as you said (yes for inactive, new rfr for people who quit/lost rank in bad circumstances) but still there might be times when things might be more complicated.

For corporals: I think the rank is useful as its good to have more clan mates available to invite new people into the clan. Without it we'd have only have sergeant/admin+ able to invite people and that might mean there would be times where no one was available to invite players to the clan.

For inactivity: while we aren't near the player cap now, we do still do remove people from the clan chat for inactivity sometimes. I think these changes are necessary because when we are clearing players for inactivity the process of "saving" players from being kicked tends to be biased. I hoped that making it clearer that we are looking to retain players who genuinely want to stay in the clan during these times would make the process fairer.

For RFR requirements: having a 3 month old wiki account is not really a rule change - this is pretty much identical to the current requirement. 1-3 months in cc is the current requirement - I suggested simply making this 3 months for the reasons above (and as you said 1-3 months is quite a range...).

IsobelJ 15:32, October 9, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I've never been a fan of the passphrase. If a potential clanmate says that he or she has read the rules I'll take him at his word. I personally never ask for the passphrase when someone asks for the invite because it feels weird to welcome someone into the clan with a test. --Liquid^Talk 04:59, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what Liquid said - I feel like asking for a passphrase implies that we don't trust new people. Giving someone clear instructions on where to find the rules, e.g. please read the rules, you can find them by searching RS:CC on the wiki, and then asking if they have found and read them is enough in my opinion. When inviting someone the priority should be to do this - at the moment it feels like people are sometimes too focused on getting someone to say the passphrase rather than doing this.

Additionally, I don't think it really "proves" that someone has read the rules - if someone really didn't want to bother reading the rest of the page they could easily search it to find the passphrase and give it when asked. If someone chooses not to read the page after being told how to find it then its their own risk of not knowing the rules and getting punished for not abiding by them, However, I would hope that the majority of new members joining the clan would want to read the clan information/rules if we help them find where that information is. IsobelJ 08:08, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

Comment Just throwing in here that I have no issue with the changes proposed. Jaspotn (talk) 10:23, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Support - All of the changes look good, except;

Strong Oppose - 'Removing Quest Spoliers as an example of a topic that people may reasonably ask others to stop discussing.' While I can understand that if I quest has been out for a period of time (I would say 1 day is sufficient), it's more than reasonable to expect cc users to not discuss quest spoilers on the day of release. This has been consistently happening. Many people are unable to complete a quest as soon as it is released, myself included, and such people shouldn't have to temporarily leave the channel to avoid people discussing spoilers in new quests. It's entirely possible to discuss a new quest without spoiling it for those who are still trying to finish it.

Wingcap

13:49, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

I actually think people who don’t want to see spoilers leaving the clan chat until they have completed the quest is the best solution here. As far as I can see, "quest spoilers" can be taken to mean just about anything, right up to trying to prevent all discussion related to a new quest. Stopping these discussions just isn't reasonable or practical and I that think this is why this suggestion goes unheeded at the moment. I know a couple of people in the clan really enjoy exploring a new quest without any information from others, but the majority of clan members seem to like, or at least have no problem with, conversation about quests on their release. As an admin there’s no way I'd feel comfortable trying to enforce stopping these kind of conversations, let alone kicking someone who revealed a "spoiler" about a quest. Even if we were trying to stop these discussions, I doubt it would realistically prevent you from seeing spoilers. We can’t pre-emptively stop people from revealing a spoiler from the quest - we’d only be able to take action after that happening and so you would already have seen spoilers by that time. If you really don't want to see spoilers, the best thing would be for you to turn clan chat off until you were ready to discuss the quest. IsobelJ 08:48, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

That's what I do.  @Gaz#7521 09:42, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

When you say "Stopping these discussions just isn't reasonable or practical", what are you basing that off of? If I or anyone else asks for spoilers not to be discussed in the clan chat, people generally have no problem acquiescing. It's good manners. People usually don't start off with phrases like "Sliske kills Guthix in the new quest, discuss", they are perfectly able to discuss a quest without ruining it for others. Aside from that, what if someone doesn't have the requirements for a quest? You can't expect them to leave the cc until they fulfil them for fear of being spoiled. All I ask is that we acknowledge, or rather continue to acknowledge, that if anyone asks anyone else not to discuss spoilers, they leave the topic or avoid them while discussing it. I'm confident that's something no-one has a problem doing out of courtesy anyway.

Wingcap

20:04, October 20, 2015 (UTC)

OK - I generally have no problem with all listed changes.  @Gaz#7521 09:42, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

Support Everything except: Oppose Removing CC ranks from those who have lost rank on the wiki. That just doesn't make sense to me, especially if you're giving them the option to request it back. Just leave it alone. Also: Oppose changing inactivity guidelines. I don't see anything wrong with allowing clanmates to point out to an admin that so-and-so has been seen in game. As far as I'm concerned, the guidelines on this subject are fine as they are. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 18:21, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose the last point. Why do we need an exact waiting period? What should it be? 1 month? 2 months? e months? π months? What is too short? What is too long? How do we set the right time? More importantly, why do we need to do this? Why can't we just invoke the policy we already have for this?  Bluefire2 (Talk | Edit me) Oil4 I made this 09:01, October 22, 2015 (UTC)