Forum:Chat rules review recommendations / vote

This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Chat rules review recommendations / vote

Hi folks,

On the back of the chat rule review I'm pleased to offer the following series of votes.  

Now these propositions are drawn from your comments and suggestions - despite some fears to the contrary this process was all about listening to you and what you want.  I don't personally agree with every proposition, so don't be surprised if I vote no on one or two of these.  The propositions either come from the opinions on the forum or a compromise position designed to appeal to a majority where things aren't so clear cut.

With the exception of one, it's a straight up and down vote on each.  I'm only proposing votes where we're changing a rule, or proposing to ban something.  

As we seemed in agreement that wiki profiling isn't on, as we go more or less by a "things that arent banned are permitted" and being a member of another wiki isn't banned... There seem to be no reason to make a rule to not ban something that already isn't banned.

Although as always all reg users are welcome to vote, I would like to request those who don't frequent chat (or not often) or whom are permanantley restricted from this feature not to vote, so those who are most affected by any changes do not have their voices crowded out.

I'll include a skeleton argument for yes and no to any change, feel free to add to those.  These will again be based on the forum and may not reflect my views.

Poll header

Poll finished on 11:13 pm September 19, 2012 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Rules 1 2 4 5 8 and 10

No proposed changes

Rule 3

Proposal: that the current profanity rules should be tightened to exclude all profanity

Why Yes

• Some users may feel ill at ease with the level of profanity

Why no

• users feel less inhibited with low restrictions
• Fallout is a mature game that deals with mature subjects, and as such it's natural a fallout wiki would match that style
• even when "nice words" are used, we know what you're thinking.

no (leave as is)

• There should be some polite limits. The limit might still be in question but the fact that there could be slurs is self evident. Many curse words are more offensive to some folks. Gay is not a curse word but Faggot is, black is OK but Nigger is offensive. I could go on but the point is clear. There should be limits.. Cussing in general might be OK but racial slurs and or direct attacks are offensive. I can not vote in favor of unlimited cursing Damn it!

SaintPain→ Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 19:14, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

•  Agent C
• I'm not here to babysit people who can't handle a few curses here and there. ^{Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate} 23:26, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
• As stated, Fallout is a mature game with violence, sexual references and STRONG LANGUAGE. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 23:32, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
• --Skire (talk) 23:41, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Topple101 (talk) 03:03, September 12, 2012 (UTC )
• Kingclyde (talk) 07:39, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
• Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 09:15, September 12, 2012 (UTC
• --^Talk 22:08, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
•  The Gunny  
• RamboRob196 (talk) 20:10, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
• The community at the level of a majority here would probably feel unable to express themselves appropriately with the censoring of a mature level of profanity. The no-directing part holds true and I feel can be easily assessed by those present in chat. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:02, September 16, 2012 (UTC)
• This is a website with mature content and underlinings. If users would like to be profane so long as to not insult other users, that is perfectly alright.-- 21:31, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

Rule 6

Proposal: that The rule be amended to include "making arrangements to troll or otherwise disrupt another chat room or service  is not permitted in our chatroom.  This does not prevent you from joining another chatroom, linking another chatroom or encouraging others to visit if the topic of conversation is likely to be of interest."

Why Yes

• Sadly our wiki is thought of by some wikis as being a place where troll runs have been arranged in the past. This has made it harder for others to visit those sites.
• we don't put up with it here, or want it to happen here.  We therefore should not encourage it elsewhere.
• Because conspiring against other sights is an act of malice with fore thought. It requires intent to inspire harm and encourage others to booth engage and or retaliate.

Why no

• What is done off site, even if arranged here, is none of our concern

Yes (Ban arranging to disrupt or troll wikis elsewhere)

• SaintPain→ Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 11:32, September 16, 2012 (UTC)
• Agent C
• I thought we already didn't allow that. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 23:32, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Kingclyde (talk) 07:40, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
• Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 09:15, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
• Wildwes7g7 (talk) 20:18, September 12, 2012 (UTC) but at the same time the wording of the rule is weird, doesn't it contradict itself?
• Conspiring to cause problems by malice of for thought should never be allowed here or at other sites. Members should always be encouraged to try to have fun without intentionally antagonistic behavior no matter what there position is. SaintPain→ Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 21:47, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
• People have been warned for it before, so considering we've always done this, it might as be made official. --^Talk 22:08, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
•  The Gunny  
• While actions on other wikis and their chats should not ever receive consequence here, plotting any malice against another chat/wiki within our chat is unacceptable. --Skire (talk) 20:11, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
• Agreeing with the above, it is the proper thing to do and it should be recognized and posted as an official part of the rule to prevent someone using the lack of it being stated in the favor of their committed unscrupulous actions. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:31, September 16, 2012 (UTC)
• As far as I'm concerned, that behavior is inappropriate and makes us as a whole look bad.-- 21:33, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

Rule 7

Proposal: That rule 7 be kept, but reworded such that it has the same effect but is reworded

The current policy is as follows: * Being a dick. As a guideline, don't go out of your way to irritate others. (And especially do not try to test the admin's and/or chat moderator's patience and/or limits.) Vicious abuse is grounds for sanctions.

Why yes

• its not a particularly professional way of communicating a rule
• it may be seen as an insult (calling the person a dick, rather than a description of behaviour)

Why no

• rule is relatively clear in its meaning
• shock value of wording has an effect

Suggestions

• Be Nice
• Don't be overly antagonistic
• Dont be a Jerk

In this vote please also indicate your suggested wording (you may any or all of use the Suggestions and/or create your own)

Yes (change, include suggested wording in your vote)

PLEASE ENSURE YOU INCLUDE YOUR FAVOURED REWORDING (you can include multiple wordings) IN YOUR VOTE

• Calling someone a dick is being a dick, the way I see it. Its not that hard to just change one word, is it? 04:56, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

• Just as Yes-Man said. Nobody likes be'n called a DICK... It is offensive. The rule as stated implies any who disagree with any mod ect. must be a DICK. Rules should serve the community as a whole and help Avoid conflict, never exasperate the issue.
• Keep the spirit of the rule "BUT PLEASE" reword it. The Best suggestion I have heard others that relate intent " Do not be intentionally antagonistic "

• No one could ever claim in truth to be FAIR & or Prudent as they in the same breath call another a DICK just for having another view point.

Be right & just. Honor the spirit of the rule but change it's name.

• Don't be overly antagonistic ~ That works for me BD

SaintPain→ Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 21:54, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

• isn't it A bit immature to insult someone as you are disciplining them for this very thing? maybe Be Nice would work Wildwes7g7 (talk) 20:22, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

• I recognize the logic behind how the rule is explained in the linked wikipedia page but I also recognize that others might not recognize that in a state of lapsed judgement after being called out on being a jerk/dick/nuisance and go further on to defend him/her self venomously. I recognize the intent of Ignorantia juris non excusat as being in place to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation. Also, as per the fifth amendment to the US Constitution and Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the accused are protected from being forced to incriminate themselves AND from any incriminating evidence given by them in a testimony (except in the case of perjury) respectively. Therefore, I strongly feel that any users who become more of a dick after calling him/her a dick should not be used against him/her after-the-fact. If not a re-wording to Assume tactfulness eliminates any negative connotations from the current wording that would cause such incidents as described above from occurring, disallowing any fundamental attribution errors. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:53, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

No (leave as is)

• This rule is short, sweet, and to the point. There is nothing wrong with it. If someone thinks we are insulting them, then that is their decision, not ours. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 23:32, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
• There is no real justification for rewording this or making any changes. The "Don't be a dick" is linked to a Wikipedia essay which provides great coverage on the topic. This rule has also been in place for a long time and is a good summation of many different elements. There is no single synonym that communicates the same meaning to the same extent as the current "Don't be a dick". If people are offended by this, I couldn't care less. They could choose to be offended by many things, but a rule is a rule. I will not deteriorate the quality of this rule for that purpose whatsoever. --Skire (talk) 00:37, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
• What sig said.Kingclyde (talk) 07:42, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
• Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 09:15, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
• Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
• The wording has never been an issue before, I don't see why it is an issue now.--^Talk 22:08, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
• As long as the instructions on the Wikipedia page are followed, I'm fine with it as is.  The Gunny  

Rule 9

Rule 9 is controversial, but remains an important tool when contraversy threatens to overwhelm chat (and perhaps cause drama).

The current policy is as follows: * Discussing real-world politics and/or religion without unanimous consent. If someone doesn't want to talk about them, drop the subject.

I propose the rule be replaced with the following:

Discussion of real world issues and events is generally permitted; however before raising any of these points or joining a discussion on these you should remember that your fellow chatters may hold strong views in these areas. Where a particular subject appears to be causing distress, offense, or is otherwise disrupting the ability for others to enjoy chat a moderator at their discretion direct that a conversation be closed, or moved into private chat.  This may be done either by request to a mod, or by the mod's own initiative where those factors are present.

In the event of mods disagreeing to end a discussion, the decision to ends takes presidence unless there are more active mods who disagree with the decision than agree. Moderators should avoid closing discussions outside of a publicly made request when they are involed in the discussion (unless they are the only active mod).

Edit

At Sigma's suggestion the rule needed some clarification on what happens in a dispute. Not sure if this is more a rule, but a practice statement on how to apply the rule, but I'll inform all existing voters about the addition below:

In the event of mods disagreeing to end a discussion, the decision to end takes precedence unless there are more active mods who disagree with the decision than agree. Moderators should avoid closing discussions outside of a publicly made request when they are involed in the discussion (unless they are the only active mod).

Why Yes

• This allows in most cases a loosening of rule 9.  If one person is trying to shut down a debate they are losing, this rule can no longer be used
• however, where offence or distress is present, it clarifies that a mod does not have to wait for someone to withhold consent
• this is now at a moderators discretion, meaning unanimous consent is no longer the standards- if all but one or two want to talk about an issue, it can be permitted

Why no

• You may like the unanimous consent standard
• you may prefer that it's not up to a moderator's call

nb: complete removal isn't on offer in this poll.  Do not vote against change simply because you want the whole rule repealed.

Yes (Accept this rewording)

• Agent C
• ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 23:32, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Kingclyde (talk) 07:45, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
• Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 09:15, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
• Wildwes7g7 (talk) 20:26, September 12, 2012 (UTC) but others also should not be bullied for maybe their own differing views, I feel that should be added
• With the new addition Chad and I discussed, I can now accept this rewording. --Skire (talk) 20:49, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
• --^Talk 22:08, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
• This at least allows the moderators the freedom to moderate.  The Gunny  
• I think it's pretty illogical for anyone to vote no on this rule. With chat and the wiki getting more contributors with each passing day, we must stay respectful to them.-- ^{A Safe People is a Strong People!} 08:57, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
• --The Ever Ruler (talk) 19:56, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

unclear votes

• One voice should never be allowed walk in on a conversation and shut it down because they don't like the fair and even exchange of views. Unanimous consent is ridiculous. This wording assumes one voice should be allowed to dictate any discussion. " Example " 5 members are talking favorably about the Commonwealth, can an NCR supporter tell them all to shut up or be forced to change the topic? Fallout 1 & 2 Vs Fallout 3 yada yada.. It is just rude to assume one should be allowed to dictate what the group discuses.

SaintPain→ Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 19:58, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Pain I've moved this to unclear as it doesn't seem obvious what your vote is. You marked as no, but posted in yes, and your comments seem to be in favour as the changes remove unanimous consent. Also the rule applies to real world politics and religion, not game disputes. Could you please clarify your position Agent c (talk) 20:19, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I would never be in favor of any rule that said one individual could interrupt a peaceful conversation and shut it down just because they personally did not like the topic. If you don't like the topic move on or make a polite injection that might guide them to a new topic "IF THEY CHOOSE to follow it" No one should dictate conversation. So I say again "UNANIMOUS" is 'ridiculous'. No one should have the right to interrupt folks just having fun and say.. I don't like your fun. You must change topic because I don't like yours. The topics should be determined by the majority of folks in the conversation any one is welcome to start a new topic at any time.

You tell me, it that a vote for or against ? I just know 1 guy should deprive 3 others their right to chat just because he dose not like the topic. Requiring a "UNANIMOUS"' consensus is oppressive.

SaintPain→ Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 22:23, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Not up to me to tell you how to vote pain. It's up to you to vote clearly so we can determine what your vote is. If you want to vote in favour use {{yes}} in the yes section. To vote to retain the existing rule, vote {{no}} in the no section. If you vote {{no}} in the yes section, what are we suppsed to count it as? Agent c (talk) 22:32, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

• NEVER EVER NO ~ There are there ways to change a topic. Requiring unanimous consent is pinkish at best.

SaintPain→ Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 22:46, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

pain, you clearly aren't getting this as again you have voted No, in the Yes section, with a comment that indicates you're against the unanimous rule. Let me see if I can simplify this. The rule as it stands right now as I type this is unanimous consent is required. The proposal is to change this away fom unanimous consent. If you like unanimous consent vote no in the no section. If you do not like unanimous consent vote yes in the yes section. If you do not understand the proposal or how to vote then I would suggest you seek clarification on what is proposed and do not vote until you undstand it. Under no circumstances vote yes in the no section, or no in the yes section. Agent c (talk) 22:52, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Hold on a second, when the hell was "unanimous consent" required??? The old rule simply stated that if one user feels uncomfortable by a topic, then the topic will be changed. I hear ideas of consent in unanimity being thrown around and I do not understand where they come from. --Skire (talk) 22:56, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Nevermind, I misread it. I thought unanimous consent was required to stop a topic XD Sorry --Skire (talk) 22:58, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Take my vote or toss it out. My intent is clear. If 3 folks are polity speaking about religion, politics or cooking tips no one should be allowed to shut them down just because he or she dose not like the topic. I don't much care any more if my vote is in the wrong box or what ever. I am just making a case for free speech.

No one should exclude a single member because they have an alternative view.. Gay is excepted, black, white, yellow and all shades of red and brown to include the many many theodolites that come with their varied upbringings but on the other hand, no one should have the right to dictate what others can speak about just because they disagree.

I disagree with all manor of things I've seen in my life but I respect and even celebrate the fact other folks have a different opinion.

The way your question is worded.. Yeah it leaves me confused.

If I understood the question I would vote that just because some random person dose not like the topic at hand should never mean the rest must just shut up, close the topic or what ever just to please one malcontent of intentionally antagonistic individual. The majority should determine the topic. Yet they are to consider them selves fair and just that same majority should strive to include all individuals and at lest consider new topics if offered.

The real question is "Can you legislate humanity" ? Dose your humanity weigh equal with your desire to control?

If you still don't understand what I'm saying consider my vote on this question 3rd party & drive on.

Unless prompted to I will say no more on this topic. SaintPain→ Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 23:30, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Any general comments can go below.  Agent C

For rewordings, it will be appropriate to show the current wording of the policy, and then the proposed change. Could you add that in for me, as the creator of this vote? Also, a lot of the "Why yes" and "Why no" arguments seem very unbalanced. I believe it is best to either create an unbiased voting environment by not including any of those points, or by amending them so they are equal. --Skire (talk) 23:29, September 11, 2012 (UTC) The level of persuasiveness is a personal thing, but I encourage people to add to the Skeleton arguments of somethings been missed. Good point on the current rule version being included. I'm a bit restricted when it comes to that ATM, could I trouble someone to add those. Agent c (talk) 23:36, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I got it. --Skire (talk) 23:41, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

I've made my reasons for votes pretty clear in the prior forum, so I'll just them as simple votes. Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 09:15, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Question about the Rule 9 change: Say there's a religious topic being discussed, and a user contacts a moderator for it to be stopped. That moderator whom was contacted agrees and notifies the rest of chat that the topic should be changed because a user has invoked Rule 9. But at the same time, another moderator disagrees. How would this situation play out from then in accordance to the proposed rule change? And more importantly, how will the proposed rule change resolve a very possible problem like this? --Skire (talk) 18:53, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Good question. If a mod is using it to "win" an argument then that mod is wrong. Failing that i would go with a majority mod call if multiple mods are active; in case of a deadlock in the short term I would say the "most restrictive" interpretation is that which is played by at least in he short term. If the mod who thinks the conversation should online believes so strongly enough the can discuss it with the other mods in PM and try and on nice hem. Agent c (talk) 19:00, September 12, 2012 (UTC) Resolved by updated wording. Agent c (talk) 20:28, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

What would occur in the event where there were no active mods in chat with this re-worded rule in place? Is it something where logs can be gathered and the situation dealt with after-the-fact by mods or is it something that can be dealt with by the participants in chat who are more savvy about the rules than others?

As it stands, I completely favor this new rule re-wording, I just want to know what to do in the event that there isn't a mod present. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 19:55, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

For enforcement after the fact, it would fall to the other rules... DBAD in the first instance (Continuing to discuss something that you know upsets someone is clearly Dickish), and if it gets personal then the current rules against insults/harrasment. Agent c (talk) 20:12, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

Result

Just waiting for a B/c to drop in to action, but it looks like tightening the profanity rules fails unsupported; arranging to off site troll being bannable passes unopposed, Rule 7 remains controversial but is supported more than not, and the changes to rule 9 pass unopposed.... Agent c (talk) 00:56, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

---

The chat rules review has gone past by me for the most part, but looks like a clear result. We will make it as follows:

• Rule 3: leave as is
• Rule 6: new chat rule passes
• Rule 7: leave as is
• Rule 9: rewording passes

As a personal remark I'd like to see some less profanity in chat, but it seems I'm greatly outnumbered. If you ask me you can have fun in chat without using the word 'f*' or similar in my opinion, but guess that's just me then. Jspoel 22:59, September 21, 2012 (UTC)