Forum:Chatroom rules

Basically, Pikipedia and Pikmin Fanon share the IRC channel, and they've set up some rules over there, but it obviously doesn't make sense for the two wikis to have different rules for the channel.

So, first, should we have written rules? Everything until now regarding behaviour on the wiki has just been along the lines of, admins see people doing stuff that's obviously wrong and stop them, with no need for rules. The only thing I can find is a mention of topicality at Pikipedia:Talk page policy...

And, if so, what should they be? Pikmin Fanon's are here and here.  G P  17:32, 15 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I think the most basic rules suffice. In fact, one rule is enough to work on almost everything in the world: "use your common sense". But alas, nobody knows how to do that, so we have to be more specific. Stuff like "respect the other users", "don't be obnoxious", "have a good time", etc. should be enough. {EspyoT} 18:45, 15 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Check here for the mirror forum post.

Edit: apparently the privacy policy wasn't meant to apply.  G P  14:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Okay, so I just discovered Help:Chat - it's just something Prez put together when we first created the chatroom, and wasn't decided on by others. So, going by the consensus here and over at Fanon, I think the best option from here is to vote on each rule we might add individually. I've summarised the rules in our/Fanon's lists; feel free to add more.

Note that you're voting for whether you think the rule should be written down, and if you vote against a rule, you're not necessarily saying you think it should be broken. Or something. Comments help...

Just add a bullet point under each one starting with FOR, AGAINST or MEH (oh yes), then your signature, then a comment if you want. Reply to comments and put all other further discussion at the bottom.

Edit: oh, um, I should probably have this on Fanon as well or something. I guess I'll wait for someone from Fanon to get in the chatroom and talk to them about it... I've set the same thing up at Fanon (page linked earlier by Peanut), and I'll copy over new rules people add either way; you might also want to read the comments people make there.  G P  14:36, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

Votes
Be respectful (no discrimination/hate).
 * FOR  G P 
 * FOR It's never fun to be harassed because you have X criteria.
 * FOR {EspyoT} Kinda obvious, really...
 * FOR
 * FOR

Keep confidential stuff you learn to yourself.
 * AGAINST  G P  - if someone's in a position where they can learn such stuff about the wiki, different rules apply anyway; otherwise, we can't really mandate that people don't spread things others are silly enough to say about themselves - everything we can say falls under being respectful.
 * AGAINST Per Greenpickle's reasons.
 * MEH {EspyoT} People can share intimate details about themselves. Nobody cares. But they can't go around sharing intimate details about others.
 * AGAINST This isn't 4chan. Even if something slips, which won't happen here, really, it might be embarrassing, but that's it. No reason to bother with this.
 * AGAINST Per above reasoning.

Look after the wikis (don't incite vandalism, don't spread lies harmful to their reputation).
 * FOR  G P 
 * FOR If we spread and encouraged vandalism, what wiki would we be like? A bad one, that's for sure.
 * FOR {EspyoT} The chatroom does belong to the wiki. Even if it didn't, wikis aren't meant to be vandalized.
 * FOR
 * FOR No brainer

No flaming (insults).
 * FOR  G P 
 * FOR This can turn into bullying — not a thing I'd like to see.
 * FOR {EspyoT}
 * FOR
 * FOR

No swearing.
 * MEH  G P  - I'm not keen on a blanket ban, but given the intended audience of the wiki's subject matter, anything frequent or unnecessary should be against the rules.
 * AGAINST I'm not keen on censorshipping anything - we live in a world where you can say anything: keep it that way.
 * MEH {EspyoT} Simple. People who overuse it get punished. People who just casually spout swears are fine. They're just words.
 * AGAINST If it becomes excessive and is directed at someone, it's flaming. A one-time insult should be bearable by everyone.
 * MEH It really depends on the situation, honestly.

No spam.
 * FOR  G P  - in excess.  See my comment below.
 * FOR Getting the same thing over and over again isn't the peak of day.
 * FOR {EspyoT} Unless the user is just goofing around and spamming something for the lulz. But even still, he better stop soon, or else.
 * FOR One-time jokes in certain situations and the like obviously don't count because they aren't spam in the true sense.
 * FOR Per above.

Comments
I do think we should have something making it clear we're not super strict - I don't want to disallow well-meant poking fun at people who can take it, or non-excessive swearing if the situation necessitates, or one-time spam if it's funny or something... I'm sure you get what I'm getting at. Thoughts?  G P  10:10, 5 November 2011 (EDT)


 * I think that it makes sense - If people are civil, they will understand this: it is a part of every-day talking anyway... 10:27, 5 November 2011 (EDT)


 * Just your average rules. They don't need to be complex. So long as people don't behave like morons, they're accepted. {EspyoT} 09:39, 6 November 2011 (EST)


 * So I noticed we agree to set up the rules I already set up long ago. In fancy. HUEHUE. --


 * ...Not at all. You had no swearing and didn't have looking after the wikis or being respectful (unless you think it comes under acting inappropriately).  (Yes, it was indeed necessary to take away what little happiness you might have gained from that thought.)  G  P  15:07, 6 November 2011 (EST)

Decision
It seems everyone is pretty much in agreement, here and at fanon, so I'll put these in place.  G P  07:27, 27 November 2011 (EST)

Impersonation
Thought that this was common sense, but apparently not, as a user recently impersonated Prezintenden on the chatroom, and didn't realize it at the moment. I'd like to point out that this is a server rule as well, so perhaps something regarding impersonation should be added.


 * The user was me, and it was in response to a jest from PikFan kicking me from the Chat in response to me faking being extremely miserable and weepy over his brief departure. I impersonated Prezintenden and told him in an official manner that what he did was "an abuse of his Op status". I would've refrained from this had this been a server rule, and apparently it is, though I am not sure where I would find rules specific to a server. The official page for GENERAL chat states that a joke is considered spam or flaming if a user refuses to stop when clearly asked. PikFan didn't even ask before I admitted and left my temporary nickname, so what are the boundaries between a joke and something that warrants a ban, or warning? -


 * My apologies. I was rather tired at the moment, and so did not think clearly. However, impersonation is still against the server rules, regardless of your motive. I didn't ask because I thought it actually was Prezintenden, but I suppose not. I had even forgotten to ask him to stop, because I was caught up in what was going on. So I apologize for my odd actions last night.


 * The problem arises when darkmyst staff find out you're impersonating another user. If they were to find out you were impersonating someone else, you could be permanently banned not only from the pikipedia chatroom, but from the entire darkmyst server. It's happened before. --


 * I see Gamefreak's point, but I believe the main point was defining the point between a joke and spam, or flaming.
 * However, I would also like to point out to PikFan that the exact same thing could be said of his numerous kicks of me from the server for very minor things that would actually be considered abuse of power had he meant them. I hope that he would be willing to accept that he has done the same kind of thing numerous times before (especially since this is my first time doing anything of the sort). I would think that the only reason he has not been banned is because he is an op, and therefore trusted by the staff enough so that they do not look into his actual reasoning for my large number if kicks, or they are not being particularly attentive.