Forum:Chat Policy?

Forums: Index > Site discussions > Closed site discussions > Chat Policy?

Result: The issue has been resolved.

I have been discussing an issue with two of my fellow users (who wish to remain anonymous). We have discovered that we have an issue with the Chat Policy. No, it's not an issue with the actual policy, but instead, an issue with what an admin has been telling us is the policy. An admin, Bullet Fracisco , has been telling Chat Moderators what the chat policy is, but after reviewing the current policy, we're not too sure which one is real. We're not sure if Kyle is going with the policy, or is going against it. This forum is about finding out which one is the legitimate policy, and which one we should follow. When the users and I were discussing it, we discovered some things that Bullet has told us that is not listed in the policy. These are what we came together to discover: Bullet told us one time that we can say the word (pardon my use of foul language) ass if it were not directed towards anyone. Then one time he told us that, once a user who does not have the required edits to be on the chat has been warned, we kick them if they had enough time to read the warning but don't leave. Then he also told us that it's against the rules to use caps often, but in the rules, it says to use caps persistently. And along with that, Bullet says we can't use all caps in one message. And another thing that's not listed in the policy is using emotes that were banned in the past. The chat had troll emotes that were deleted for the use of trolling. Originally, there was a decision. If someone knew about the banned emotes and not to use them, but used them, they got kicked. But if someone didn't know about the rule, they got a warning. Bullet told us that to kick people even if they didn't know about the rule. And above all, Bullet also told us that, as long as it follows, or falls along the lines of a certain rule in the policy, we can make up any rule. This is what the two users and I have discovered. All of these either go against or are not even in the chat policy. But since we have been following the orders of an admin and enforcing them, we believe that we may have possibly made a problem with the chat community, making them follow rules we don't even know are rules. This is why we decided to make this. We want to know which one is correct: The chat policy, or Bullet? We don't know if Bullet is going against the chat policy or is actually correct, so that's why we need help, to decide which policy is the one we need to follow. And the two users and I also talked about some extra things. They relate to the chat policy, and we wish to mention them. One extra thing is the rule about saying what you're linking on the chat before you link it. We don't know why this is a rule. There's already a rule saying that, if we post a link, it can't have swearing or inappropriate. If that's the case, what we'd be linking has to be user-friendly, and having to say a warning about what it is will be unnecessary. We decided to request removing that rule. The last extra thing is the how we deal with underedit users that come onto the chat. For those who don't know, underedit users are users who have less than 100 edits and 50 mainspace edits that come onto the chat, and are not allowed to be there. There has never been a real, confirmed way to deal with the underedit users. This has made the way to deal with them become changed in many ways, and according to one of our anonymous users, Bullet's the one who keeps changing it. We decided that we should have a real, official way to deal with the underedit users, and here is where we can decide. This is all we had to say on the Chat Policy issue, and we want to know what our fellow users on the SNN has to say about what we have to say. This is just a way to clear things up, and make the community aware that we may be making mistakes. - - MetalMickey272 User:SplashTheHedgehog/Talkbubble The chat policy was the result of the community's consensus regarding the implementation of a more orderly and safer way of overseeing the chat's activities and keeping everyone in line, so to speak. Anything not on the policy shouldn't be followed because it was not approved by the community as a whole, but rather by one individual. Where is the consensus in that? There is none, so you won't get in trouble for not following custom made rules that did not have the community's approval to begin with (this is what I am understanding from what you have provided in this forum). As for the linking issue, I'm going to post word-for-word what the policy states for the convenience of those who are not aware of it. "Please do not use the chat to advertise. If you want to share links with the community on chat, give a description about what you are linking to." This is pretty much saying if you're going to post a link in the chat, tell everyone what its source is about, why you're linking it, that sort of thing. We don't want someone obtaining viruses from suspicious sites, and we definitely don't want anyone to view anything of mature content if they do not have a desire to do so. Also, be truthful. Don't say this link is a video about a boy and his dog, but instead actually send a link of some gruesome image (just a random example). That is why this rule is being enforced. From the looks of it, advertisement was an issue relating to links too. However, I understand your case. I also believe this rule should be lifted but only on the following conditions (which will not go into effect without a community consensus): Everyone who uses the chat feature is a trusted member of this community, otherwise they wouldn't be able to access the chat. Shouldn't we trust you guys enough to know that you won't post links to mature sites? I believe it would be fine to post links without needing to describe it first so long as everyone is familiar with the site's domain name (i.e. youtube, deviantart, etc.). If someone is not familiar with a site's domain name (maybe a government website as an example), kindly explain to them what the link is about. Assure that there is nothing harmful or wrong with the site. If they are still reluctant to visit the site, then it would be wise to not try to convince them any further. Finally, as a chat mod, you are more than welcome to warn or punish any user that posts an inappropriate link or breaks any other of the chat rules (of course, if it's a first time felony, it would be best to provide a warning first, then ban if it gets out of hand). The duration of that punishment is up to you and any other chat mod involved. As for the underedit user problem, this pretty much goes back to the basics before we had the underedit chat program. If an underedit user comes on the chat, politely explain to them why they have to leave and provide a link to the chat policy in your response for additional information. If the underedit user hasn't responded or acknowledged that they have received your message, simply be patient. After a few minutes, give them a kick, but don't ban them unless they are verbally insulting other users and/or causing havoc. But even then, a warning would still be the first thing that you should do. I would clear up more of what you've pointed out Metal, but it's all very jumbled and making my head ache just looking at it. Apologies, but I hope my response is sufficient enough to clear up any confusion you and others may be experiencing. All in all, just stick to what the chat policy says and you will be fine. Anything not on that page does not have to be followed and should not be followed without gathering a proper consensus from the community beforehand. By 'proper', I mean a forum just like this one must be created for the pending rule(s), not a private discussion on the chat. Not everyone in the community would be aware of a private discussion, and it's unfair to exclude the community as a whole on such a matter. If I've left out something vital that you feel should be addressed, then by all means, let me know, and I will respond as soon as I can if no one else does.   ★EYCEST★R★    ★Contact★ 08:24, January 4, 2013 (UTC) This indeed cleared things up. And apologies for it being jumbled up. I actually did separate it, but it never appeared on the forum when I posted it. FreeSmudger helped me fix it, and I'm assuming to fix it, he had to put it all in one, huge paragraph. I'll try to see if I can fix it now, so it's easier for the community to understand. MetalMickey272 Metal, your points were a little difficult to comprehend. It would have helped to break it down into individual paragraphs. Anyway, once again, I share DarkFuture's sentiments about under-edits, linking to external websites and that anything not on the chat policy should be ignored as it hasn't been decided by a community consensus. There are, however, three things I would like to elaborate on. The first thing is the capital letters rule. While words such as "often" and "persistently" are in actual fact highly subjective - it may not be set in stone how much is too much - using them in all/almost all of your messages is in definite violation of the chat policy. However, I believe that it is fine to use all-caps in only one message, as it is not made clear in the policy if this is disallowed; besides, one message is far from "persistent". The second thing is the use of foul language. So did Bullet say that "a--" was acceptable if it was not directed at anyone with the intention of offending? Using that logic, any expletive in existence can be used on the chat with these criteria. The policy states "no swearing or vulgarity", but does not add "unless you are not directing it at someone." Therefore, profane words such as "a--" should not be used at all under any circumstances. The third thing, and my biggest issue, is "first-time kicking", which is the kicking of users from the chat without verbally warning them and explaining their wrongdoing beforehand. This has been practised on users who are unaware of prohibitions that are not written down, even if they only break a rule once and are acting in good faith. One example of these unwritten prohibitions is the use of triggers for "trollish" emotes that were removed. There is an obvious problem here, as it is essentially impossible for a user to know about said triggers, and that is why I find it unacceptable for kicking to be regarded as the first warning, even if it isn't a very severe punishment. A blog post written by a member of staff at Community Central states "Try not to kick without explanation or warning unless there are extreme circumstances"[1], meaning that it is a Wikia belief that first-time kicking is disregarded if the user's behaviour is not highly consequential. It even states in our own policy: "Users who break the rules will be warned in the first instance, and may be 'kicked' if they continue to break the rules after warnings." Therefore, this is what should be followed; nothing else. At the end of the day, you shouldn't follow just one user (in this case, Bullet Francisco); you should follow the chat policy, as that is the opinion of the entire community as a whole; that's what's written down. The policy should be changed only if we gain an SNN community-wide consensus on what should be changed. As a final point, I believe Bullet Francisco should become involved in this discussion seeing as he appears to be the primary subject. THE REFLEX dancing on the valentine 11:11, January 4, 2013 (UTC) Per Le Solace,Rules are Rules and they shouldn't be broken because there's a thick line between right and wrong LuffyNaruto The Greatest Ninja Pirate Ever 11:38, January 4, 2013 (UTC) Per what le said. If you know what the policy is, follow it. If an admin tells you to follow a rule that is not apart of the policy, don't follow it. I also think we need to make an official under-edit warring message. Nothing to complex, just simple and to the point so the under-edit user understands why he/she is not allowed on the chat. I also agree with taking down the link rule. SilverPlays97 (Wall) (Contributions) 12:38, January 4, 2013 (UTC) If I understand correctly, the point that's being attended to regards Bullet's unofficial, personal changes towards chat rules and etiquette. Now, with the listed opinionated changes above, I have the notion that Bullet should promote these rules in front of the whole community to clear things up. If we as a community are going to make official changes to the chat policy, then I propose a new site discussion to be created upon this one's closing. If his policies have become this big an issue, then it had better be cleared out as soon as possible. I have a problem with hearing about this "first-time-kicking" routine. In all my instances on the chat, I have never seen a moderator or administrator automatically kick an underedit user without warning. I don't mean to point fingers at whoever's been doing so, but I must concur with Solace, that a user who acts in good faith must not be kicked, unless he/she becomes persistent with leaving and joining the chat, especially after the proper rules of being a member have been clearly established. Serious Sam Heavy 15:47, January 4, 2013 (UTC) Ohmygod123 – Dax the Hedgehog: "You need to learn to smile more." TALK – (Ohmygod123 (talk) 16:23, January 4, 2013 (UTC)) The word "a**" should not be said on chat, whether it's being directed to someone, or not. Also, there's really no necessity to say what you're linking, before you post it. Because all users who go on chat regularly, should know by now, not post anything inappropriate. EDIT: Using Kyle's logic, it makes it okay for people to use any vulgar word on chat, as long as it's not being directed towards someone. I don't see how this would follow anything on the chat policy. I'm still quite confused about this. I read everything and still, I'm not getting anything out of this forum. BlueSpeeder (talk)- 10:33PM-1/4/13 Shadowunleashed13 – "Unleash the ultimate power!" TALK – 16:44, January 4, 2013 (UTC) Per most everyone here, especially DF and Sacor. If Bullet is telling you all these rules, why hasn't he actually tried to make them official? These sound like they're just his personal opinions; they're not chat policy. I agree with DarkFuture about the underedit thing; you handled underedits fine last time I was present, Metal. And @Blue, this forum concerns the vague chat policy and Bullet Francisco's ideas of how it should be. User:SplashTheHedgehog/Talkbubble2 First of all, MetalShadow272, do not twist my words around. When I told people how I did things, people complained and said that is not how they did it or how they were told to moderate the chat. When I moderate the chat, I interpret the rules and enforce them the way I see them, not how you, or anyone else sees them. I want to clear that up before I go on. To start off: The word "ass" can or cannot be interpreted as foul language. In today's society, the word "ass" follows in the category PG13, under any circumstance. However, on this wiki, it is not to be used as an insult, toward anyone or anything. I said it was okay for use if it was not used for any personal attacks and/or inappropriate usage. One example of a fair way to use the word is if someone said "I do not want to seem like an ass". This is not insulting anyone, and if one is offended by the language, then they could kindly ask the user to not use the type of language. The word "damn" and "hell" can also be seen in this light, but again, it is up to personal interpretation as to whether or not you find these words offensive. Words that are entirely foul, which I will not say, are not allowed, as a wide audience of people find them offensive and insulting. In modern society, "ass", "damn", and "hell" do not fall in that category. The word "crap" which you, MetalShadow272, use often, could also be seen as offensive, but should be allowed as long as it is not insulting or inappropriate. This is from my general knowledge, correct me if I am wrong. Moving onto your next accusation of myself. I did say kicking someone after warning them is acceptable. The usage of "kicking" in of itself is a warning. Kicking is not a punishment, and it does not even reflect on a user's record. Kicking, like it suggests, just boots a user from the chat feature. They can easily reaccess it if they choose to. Most users warn a user three times before they kick them, some, like myself, do not. There is not a standard of practice when it comes to kicking users from the chat room. One does not need to follow a certain set of guidelines every time they are about to kick someone. It'd be like telling me I had to warn a user an exact amount of times before I ban them. It does not work that way. Rather, it is up to the moderator or administrator's personal opinion as to whether or not one should be kicked. If they feel as if they should be kicked, then they can kick them. This is why we are chosen as moderators or administrators in the first place: so we can use the tools to handle such situations based on our interpretation of the rules. If everyone had the same interpretation of the rules, this wiki would not thrive, as there would be no difference of opinion and it would lead to holes in our ruleset. Thankfully some users interpret the rules differently. Am I saying it is okay to completely twist or bend around the rules based on how you like? No. If you want to wait to kick someone, you can. I do not sometimes (based on the situation). Is this to say that the way I do things or the way you do things is wrong? Not at all. Both of these fall within what we can do, and if you choose to moderate in the fashion you do; I respect that. If I at any time seemed to force my opinion on you and make you moderate in a certain fashion - then I apologize, as that was not the intention. Now, when it comes to capitalizing letters, I point you into the direction that I outlined when it came to kicking other users: This is up to personal interpretation. If you let a certain amount of capital letters slide by, that is your opinion, however I moderate the chat in which I interpret the rule. Again, is this to saying that either method of moderating is bad? No. If, however, I tell a user to stop using capital letters so often, and you disagree, you should not argue and say that it is okay. This is the way I moderate things, and if I handle the situation in the manner that I do, you should not go and change it unless it goes directly against the policy. If you tell someone to calm down with the capital letters, I will leave the situation alone. I will not further escalate it as you already handled the situation, and I expect the same of you. When it came to the emotes, at any point in time, I did not tell you to kick users unaware of the rule. I know this for a fact. I said to warn them. Often times, I warn and kick depending on the severity of the rule-breaking in question. Sometimes I do not. Again, this comes back to how you interpret the rules. I never said you can make up any rule. Your final line does however illustrate exactly what I have been explaining all along: the way someone interprets a rule. If you choose to interpret a rule one way, I am not one to object to that. I know, I force my opinion on others a bit too much at times, which may have misled you into this direction. This is a flaw I have, and a flaw I need to work on. No moderator, including you, is perfect, and neither am I. I have a tendency to seem to make my statements gold, by which, I mean that the tone I give off is "you must do things the way I like them or else". I know I give off this tone, and it is also something I need to work on. I apologize if I have acted in such a manner in the past, as I know I have. I do not appreciate, however, the manner in which you posted this forum thread. You seem to be accusing me without anything to back yourself up, which goes against our personal attack rule in a way. You also never took the time to approach me yourself, and instead decided to disrupt the entire community by posting a forum thread about it. This is both rude and an unnecessary step. If you have a problem with the way I run things, then take it up with me, not the community. Again, I apologize for forcing my opinions too much, which may have also led you to post this thread. I still do not appreciate the fact that you did not approach me before making this thread. I hope I outlined things well enough here. I at no time meant to bend or change the rules. If you feel what am I doing is against the rules, or how I interpret the rules is against the rules, then take it up with me, and I will try and see what I did wrong. If, however, I interpret a rule falls within the policy, then there should be no issue, as there is none with all of your points as illustrated here. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 18:55, January 5, 2013 (UTC) In Metal Shadow's defence, someone may have told him this was the best way to resolve this matter of confusion, as he said, he had discussed this issue with some other, anonymous users. I personally think this was done in order to try and iron out any confusion in regards to chat policy and perhaps a forum as opposed to talking to you directly was the best way to do that, or at least in the opinion of that who suggested a forum. Myself 123 19:40, January 5, 2013 (UTC) Alright, I suppose now that things have been cleared up by Francisco, this topic shall be a candidate for closure shortly. Serious Sam Heavy 19:29, January 5, 2013 (UTC) I agree, but I think we should wait a bit longer to make sure there is no longer any tension or concerns on the matter. I'm fine with having this forum closed by the 8th if there is nothing more that needs to be addressed regarding this by then (or if others feel it should be closed now, then I say go for it).   ★EYCEST★R★    ★Contact★ 19:36, January 5, 2013 (UTC) It goes without saying that Metal should preferably not have endeavored to initiate this discussion, as he had bestowed upon me the erroneous impression about what Bullet was doing with the chat policy, but I don't blame him. My thanks go to Mr. Francisco himself for tying up loose ends in all this; I do not agree with absolutely everything he has brought up (for example, that kicking is not a punishment), but I respect his opinions. From this point, I have no more to say, and would not object to this forum's cessation. THE REFLEX dancing on the valentine 20:28, January 5, 2013 (UTC) Just want to say thank you to everyone here for the frank and civil discussion. This was exactly the right way to query a concern over the rules. I hope the queries have now been resolved. -- Supermorff (talk) 20:35, January 5, 2013 (UTC)