User:Agent c/sandboxchat

Hi folks,

In response to a few recent events, I'd like to discuss the chat rules... Yes I know, another forum to change things. Hopefully this will be a bit different as for the most part I think I'm proposing changing nothing, but allowing those who feel that there is need for change to come out and let us know. Agent c (talk) 21:17, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

But before we begin, lets review the chat rules:

Grounds for blocking

Users who are clearly disruptive to the chat or who fail to behave appropriately towards other contributors may be blocked. The possible reasons for blocking include (but are not limited to):

1. Personal attacks, bigotry and/or racist or sexist name calling.
2. Harassment and/or sexual harassment.
3. Extreme use of profanity/cursing or directing it towards another user is not permitted.
4. Violation of personal privacy. This includes revealing personal information about users (e.g. real name, location, age, gender, etc) and violating confidentiality on particular issues (such as issues asked to be kept confidential by other users or administrators).
5. Linking to external sources, such as websites, which violate the aforementioned rules. Notably, publicly linking to websites such as Facebook or MySpace that violate personal privacy, is not permitted without prior consent from the user whose privacy might be violated.
6. Trolling or general irritation or disruption of other users. This often includes, but is not limited to; excessive usage of capital letters, punctuation marks, deliberate distortions of the English language (such as "133t" or "Dolan" speak), and excessive usage of non-English languages.
7. 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.
8. Whining. Users who ask for something from another chat user and are refused it should not stoop to complaining. It is acceptable to be persistent, but in a mature manner.
9. Discussing real-world politics and/or religion without unanimous consent. If someone doesn't want to talk about them, drop the subject.
10. Spamming. The meaning should be obvious. Don't say the same thing six times because no one is responding to you. Don't keep yammering on about a subject nobody cares about. Meaningless and/or random posts can also be considered spam, alongside disruptive internet memes.

The Review

Rules 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10

Basically I think we're all right here and these rules have absolutely no controversy about them. This section on the off chance someone feels the need to discuss them in detail or suggest a change.

Rule 3 - Profanity and language

There has been a suggestion that we need to tighten up the langauge rules, and make profanity and "adult content" against the rules. The suggestion has been that this may make our chatroom more welcoming to newcomers. Others feel the opposite, that the current regeme allows them to feel relaxed as they talk the same way as they do in their everyday lives. How do you all feel about the current rules, are they too tight, too loose, or just right?

Personally I think they're fine the way they are. I've tried to represent all of the major points of view here, but I am definately in the limited policing of this allows people to feel relaxed and natural. Fallout is an adult orientated series, and this wiki is Nukapedia: The Fallout wiki; it isn't the My Little Pony wiki where kids and those unable to deal with such language and concepts are more likely to visit (that is of course not to say that (older) MLP fans aren't welcome here). Agent c (talk)

Rule 6 - Trolling

Trolling is bad, however there is a suggestion that this rule needs some clarification. We all know how annoying it is when chat is "raided" by a group of trolls from another wiki, however it seems that some wikis feel that this has been on occasion arranged from here. The question is what should a moderator/admin/etc do if they are aware of an attempt to mass troll another wiki.

There seem to be two schools of thought - We are only concerned with what happens here and that as long as the trolling does not occur in "Nukapedia space" it is none of our affair, the other school being that when this happens from our chatroom it negatively effects the wiki as a whole, and the "conspiracy" if you like to troll does indeed happen in our space - giving our mod an obligation to act: to kick/ban in line with the normal guidelines here and/or alert the ongoing wiki to the upcoming problem.

So, do you feel there is an obligation for chat moderators (etc) to act if/when they become aware of that are designed to disrupt other wikis, and if so what do you feel the result this action should be.

I believe that if a conspiracy to troll occurs here, this is within our remit, and that at least a tip to the recieving wiki is warranted. I think we should be at least kicking to prevent this being discussed here. You don't want people to troll our chatroom, don't use ours to support trolling methods. Fair and simple. Agent c (talk)

Rule 9

Rule 9 can be controversial. On one hand we're having to censor real world political discussions against the will of hte majority in chat; on the other hand these debates can get emotionally charged and having rule 9 to stop these discussions before disruption occurs or tempers flare.

However, sometimes Rule 9 can be used as a troll shield - a debate is stirred up by a user, who after "poking the bear" runs to rule 9 to shut down the conversation - every now and then if you dont realise what you've gotten into is fine, but continued use of the rule in this way is kind dickish, isn't it?

So, how do you feel about rule 9, too harsh? Not harsh enough? Do protections need to be in place to squish the use of rule 9 as a troll shield?

I think my views in this, although I've tried to be fair and balanced are clear. Keep rule 9, but prevent persistent misuse of it. Agent c (talk)

"Wiki Profiling"

Recently it was suggested to this and another wiki (by a member of staff) that the members of each wiki do not visit each others chatrooms, with an administrative member of the other wiki stating their intention to turn away members of this wiki who were not previously members. Whilst this would seemingly prevent a wiki war and worsening relations, it can be seen as being contradiction to one of the cardinal rule of wikis - that good faith should be assumed. Do you think this policy by the other wiki should be returned?

No. I am reminded of the Magna Carta. "No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right". No Chatter will be banned, or removed of their ability to join chat, or any other part of the wiki- but for judgement as per the rules and policies of this wiki, and when this occurs there is an unambigious ability to question, clarify and even appeal this ban. Other members of a wiki are not responsible or accountable for the actions of other members of the wikis they choose to visit. Agent c (talk)