Icon nowrite
This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Chat Rules Review

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. I had hoped to wait until Crazy Sam's confirmation was closed before posting this, but another event I think has made one of these issues (the last) in need of discussion urgently. Agent c (talk) 12:52, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

But before we begin, lets review the chat rules:

Grounds for blockingEdit

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 ReviewEdit

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

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. (nb - Rule 7 was in this section, but has now been spun out.)

Rule 1Edit

Dose just play nice cover this one ?

Seriously I think it is clear to most Racism, Sexism, Ageism and honest slurs against an others religion, political view, fashion sense or choice in video games when spoken with honest hatred or other wise undefined ill intent, then they are all wrong.

  • The question is: What should be actionable ?

I think, intent, exact context should be taken into account.

TOSH.O, the Chappelle show, the Daily show & all the Comedy Central roasts are irreverent and beyond disrespectful when taken out of context. Yet they intend no harm and so they are considered by many, many of the folks from all ages, races, sexes and social code to be uplifting fun.

My point is : All rule interpretation should be considered with an honest eye toward intent and exact context before jumping to any conclusions.

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 02:51, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

any communication has two critical and inseparable Parts; how the message is sent, and how the message is recieved. When a message is "sent" as a joke and "recieved" as something else, then the "sender" is obliged to stop as soon as informed of this (and a warning may be appropriate), if after this they do not then it is most certainly actionable, joke or not. Certain behaviours, like using certain sensitive words in the wrong way (or in some cases at all) are always actionable. Agent c (talk) 08:40, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

That all sound extra specific. Yet as we speaking in general, I will continue to say, " Free speech is always more liberal than literal. Any given statement can be taken out of context and even then the intent might still be taken to harsh.

  • Perspective is word best examined here.

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 14:54, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

When offence is clear and preset as intent, then you have a violation. Free speech is still free speech. User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 15:09, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

Which is more or less what I was saying. However when you continue to exercise free speech in a way that upsets another, even after you are told that it does, then we have a problem. Agent c (talk) 15:15, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
Free speech has its limitations, especially on this site. Assuming good faith applies in all areas and is only negated when there is clear evidence suggesting the contrary. --Skire (talk) 15:21, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

We are not speaking of any individual or supposed offence. Agent C made it clear that "That is not allowed".

  • I am speaking of general rules and how the literal, dogmatic rule of one can be overblown.
  • Dictators dictate members discuss and folks with a sense of humor let stuff go. I have a a sense of humor. I hope you do to.

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 15:34, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry pain, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Agent c (talk) 16:28, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

You said this is not the place to discuss individual cases. So I have been speaking of generalities.

I was here before there was a "Chat option" I do miss it now that it is gone but I don't hold a grudge for my block.

What is there not to understand ?

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 16:47, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well, these statements for starters: "I am speaking of general rules and how the literal, dogmatic rule of one can be overblown" - Which rule and in what situation "Dictators dictate members discuss and folks with a sense of humor let stuff go. I have a a sense of humor. I hope you do to." - what does this mean. The only person I see talking about a specific case in this dialogue is yourself referring to your own ban, everything else has been in generalities. Agent c (talk) 17:01, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

Rule 3 - Profanity and languageEdit

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)
Profanity and "adult content" is surely of no concern here, we are, or should be, mature enough to handle a few stray foul words and lewd conversations. Profanity is part of everyday life, a means of expression, to outright ban the use would be to section off a great way to sum up our feelings. Furthermore, issues would arise when certain words may be seen as "profanity" but are simply not as such, example of this would be "Bastard Sword" a medieval weapon which does contain profanity, this causes no end of disputes as to whether or not it is still deemed as acceptable or not.
To help sum up my feelings on the ridiculous notion of swearing as "uncouth", here is the ever wonderful Stephen Fry on the subject:
Neko-signature Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 13:10, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

This requires no change. People may and will take offence to certain things said, but that will never change with any tightening-up of the rules. Profanity in itself is not malignant as long as it is not directed to another user. --Skire (talk) 17:46, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Why stop swearing??? It's the Fallout Wiki All fallout games have swearing in them. I think we are old enough not to cry about something calling a name.Topple101 (talk) 21:27, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

And here you go vitiating this discussion by misleadingly stating "I think we are old enough not to cry about something calling a name." This has nothing to do with that. Curses (profanity) directed at others is considered an offence and will be dealt with accordingly, as are insults (i.e. malignant "name-calling"). What this is discussing is the usage of profanity when it is not directed towards another user in ill-will. --Skire (talk) 21:41, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
by name I meant **** smeller or **** Face not fatty.Topple101 (talk) 21:59, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
This wiki is based around an M-rated game with profane language, violence, and sexual references. If we can't handle someone saying the word "fuck", then we shouldn't even be here. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 22:59, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

This rule needs to completely deleted. It makes no sense to have a rule like this on a site about a game where it allows sex, gore, violence, drugs, swearing, etc. People who get offended when a person says "sonuvabitch!" not to the user but to a topic, or jokingly state "you lovable bastard" to another, then they do not deserve to be on this wikia, or play the game series, and I myself will direct them to a more suitable wikia that is more user-friendly to them, such as MLP or Victorious. The other bone I got to pick with this rule is the fact it literally clashes with most of the rules we placed. I mean look at the rule for example:

"Extreme use of profanity/cursing or directing it towards another user is not permitted."

right there it clashes with 1, 2, aaaand 10. There's absolutely no point in this rule to exist as it's absorbed into these other rules. A user yelling out "SHITCOCK" or "FUCK FUCKERY" more then 5 times is considered spamming as it is. A user putting 5-10 "fucks" in their one sentence is also might as well considered spamming to the point I would ask: "that's a beautiful word, do not make it the new 'the', mmmkay?" Telling someone to go fuck themselves and their kind? Well buddy, you just broke 1 and 2 combined! Telling a female she's a 'sexy bitch'? Guess you really love being #2 in the spotlight eh? These are just examples of this thing clashing and basically being 1,2, and 10 combined. There is no point whatsoever in this rule. My "2 Cents" on the matter.

P.S.---TLDR; Offended you are? A FUCK I DON'T GIVE--Zerginfestor (talk) 23:11, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Never limit the use of profanity. Simple as, after all - kids under the age of 13 won't be able to use the site because of COPPA. So, we can continue cussing all we want. Applejack"С нами Бог. Remember, no ponies."

I find this the most important part of rule #3 ""Extreme use of profanity/cursing or directing it towards another user is not permitted."

  • The use of profanity in general is not so much the issue as I see it. It is profanity directed at others directly that is the offence that should be enforced.

As I have mentioned else wear, I self impose a vow to redouble my own efforts to avoid using profanity online. I once went a whole year with only the rarest of exceptions when exclamation got the better of me. I do not expect others to take any such vow or make any promise. I simply state this as a token of my support for rule #3 as it pertains to aiming profanity at others. Such actions only serve to bait heightened disagreements and ill will.

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 00:36, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of bad language myself, but I ain't fond of having mods playing momma and passing curse jars either. Folks who play Fallout and hang on the chat are big enough to deal with a few four-letter words, and if they ain't then I reckon they shouldn't be there in the first place. CharlesLeCheck Icon check 15:23, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is the most important step to make the chat a friendlier and safer place. There is no need to use bad language and it only offends people and make them feel bad. There is nothing you can say using bad words that you can't with nice words. Sexual and innapropriate language has to be prohibted at all costs from the chat and the wiki. There is no need to offend other people and it shouldn't be allowed and tolerated. Corniolio (talk) 03:32, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

If someone can't tolerate M rated laguage coming on a wiki based around M rated games, then perhaps they should find somewhere more acclimated for them. UserGreatMaraMessage 03:40, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Rule 6 - TrollingEdit

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 receiving 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)
My view is that whatever happens outside the wiki is none of our concern. However, if planing or inciting of unbecoming activities against other places happens here, we have a duty stop it. Punishment for doing this should be the same as for any other ordinary violation of rules. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 13:06, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Agent c on this one. If we are under the impression users are instigating a raid or troll attempt on this wiki, on another wiki, or site, then it should be on our best interest to stop them immediately. Kicking those who initially started it should set an example for anyone else wishing to follow suit. Neko-signature Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 13:10, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Limmie 100%. --Skire (talk) 18:36, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

The term Trolling needs definition as a whole. but as the topic so far seems focused on groups here is my take on Trolling groups.

  • If a group conspires i.e. goes out of their way and plots to disrupt and or harass another then that is a act by definition, "malice of forethought". One person can conspire to do wrong but a "conspiracy" requires 3 or more. Any coordinated effort to act in a hostile manor is worse the "subjective" term trolling as it requires conscious effort with an obvious intent.

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 01:59, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Rule 7 - Don't be a dickEdit

Perhaps being a dick can be rephrased. I know that it's a legitimate term, but when you warn a user to not be a dick, they often become even more agitated. Even worse when you ban a user and tell them it was because they were a dick. I think people will be less volatile should we call it something like "Don't be offensive" or "Be respectful". Otherwise the rule itself is fine, if not open to interpretation. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 04:15, August 29, 2012 (UTC) I think my point was missed. Rule 7 states Don't be a dick in accordance to the general rule of... well, not being a dick. Yet frankly common users unfamiliar with chat rules are often a bit agitated when they're asked not to be a dick, which often either leads to a situation where they think they're being insulted when it's just an attempt at enforcing rules or the user in question claiming that the "mean ol' admins" are allowed to call them names etc. I thought in order to combat this, the rule could be rephrased... y'know, something that wouldn't set an already annoyed user off when they're asked to abide Rule 7. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 11:45, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just a more general "Be Nice"? Agent c (talk) 12:09, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. "Don't be a dick" and "Be nice" are not synonymous - one can be neither of them. Many times I am not "nice" nor am I "being a dick". It does not matter if they are agitated by having to follow our rules or be warned of them. It is a valid term and has seen inveterate usage on many sites. "You are being a dick" is different than "You are a dick", as the latter is an insult and the first one is not. The rule is fine as it is right now. --Skire (talk) 17:48, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

how about A simple few words, Don't be rude? (Wildwes7g7 (talk) 20:43, August 29, 2012 (UTC))

I'm fully aware that the rule works and the wording makes sense, that's not what I'm arguing. But there have been situations that have arisen when a user is asked not to be a dick, and unfamiliar with chat rules they take offence by this. Something like "Be respectful of other members in chat" is a bit less volatile, so if someone is being a nuisance, you can ask them to show respect rather than call them a dick, the latter of which is more likely to escalate the situation. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 06:06, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

Ignorance of the rules is no excuse; if someone wished to debate that they felt a ban for being a dick is obscene and insulting, then they have admitted to not reading the rules to why it is called "being a dick". The rule is fine as is, changing it to something more "polite" for the sake of profanity, which as I've stated before is lunacy, reduces the meaning. "Don't be a dick", it's simple and most should be able to understand it without us over-exemplifying the rule. Neko-signature Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 13:43, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
Neko summed it up very well. Just because the rule itself is "Don't be a dick" does not mean one must admonish someone by saying "Don't be a dick". There are many "less-volatile" alternatives to warning someone about the "Don't be a dick" rule. Perhaps I could take offence in someone telling me to "not be rude" (unlikely), but it will be just as well. We cannot modify our rules just so certain users will not take offence to being warned of them. --Skire (talk) 14:24, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
Last time I brought up the "ignorance of rules does not excuse" argument I was told it was incompatible with "Assume Good Faith". What changed since then? VictorFaceMonitor Might I Say You're Looking Fit As a Fiddle! 04:27, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

You guys are ridiculously wrong, rules are to be respectful, they're not supposed to make someone feel small for breaking A little rule, when you are arrested for disorderly conduct, you are arrested for disorderly conduct, not for the crap statement above which basically is the same thing, maybe people would feel A little more motivated to quit breaking the rule if they're handled neutrally-at the least! (Wildwes7g7 (talk) 00:37, August 31, 2012 (UTC))

This makes little to no sense. People can choose what "makes them feel small", and that is a variety of things that we cannot ever control. Rules are rules and they are to be followed. The current phrasing of the rule is short and simple, and a good representation of what is expected, along with a full (and rather well-written) essay, which also serves as the rule's namesake. And the last bit is quite ridiculous: if they are not "motivated" enough to stop their transgressions of the rules, then they will be banned. It's plain and simple. --Skire (talk) 00:47, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
There's another aspect to the "Don't be a dick" rule, and that is that it could easily be used as an excuse to personal attacks using just that word: dick. If someone - well versed with the rules, at least - were to insult another using the exact term "dick" then it could easily be excused by the offender stating that they were simply reprimanding the victim about not being the aforementioned phallic organ. Now, most of the time this can be an easily discarded as a weak explanation, but nevertheless it makes the process of taking action against a user harder and longer, maybe even requiring chatlogs and the like. This, as well as the aforementioned reason of Yessie, I feel are good reasons to change the name. If anything, it'd make our life easier if we didn't have to deal with newcomers who get all pissy every 45 seconds; weak an argument as that is. Hugs MadeMan2 "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
Again, from wikipedia: "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is generally a dick-move — especially if true". So the situation you described shouldn't be an issue at all, since reprimanding somebody that way is by definition a violation of the very rule, and therefore not a valid defense. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 16:57, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:
Being a dick isn't equivalent to being uncivil or impolite (though incivility and rudeness often accompany dickery). One may be perfectly civil and follow every rule of etiquette and still be a dick. Standard dick-moves, for example, include such things as willfully (but politely) drawing attention to genuine (but inconsequential) errors in spelling or grammar of an interlocutor's comments, disregarding the Chomskian distinction between language competence and language performance. So the use of a vulgar term here to convey the concept is intentional, and distinguishes this principle from issues of politeness and other protocols of interaction.

The highlighted parts I believe speak for themselves as to where my position in this issue stands. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 16:19, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

  • Perhaps..Quote : Perhaps being a dick can be rephrased. I know that it's a legitimate term, but when you warn a user to not be a dick, they often become even more agitated. Even worse when you ban a user and tell them it was because they were a dick. I think people will be less volatile should we call it something like "Don't be offensive" or "Be respectful". Otherwise the rule itself is fine, if not open to interpretation. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 04:15, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

So folks don't like be'n called a dick. Yes Man sees that.

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 05:53, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Making a rule that by virtue of it's wording assumes any who disagree must be a Dick is be'n a Dick.

  • Lead by example & reword it so you don't look like a Dick for make'n a rule that says ONLY YOU CAN CALL FOLKS A DICK.

How clear is that? You don't want to be called a Dick don't assume to call folks a Dick. That is fair.

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 09:44, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Again. Fair is fair and just disagreeing is not disrespect. I trust you will do the right thing once you look at it form a members perspective. Respect.

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 09:52, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

I think pain you don't understand the rule. It is not a rule to say only mods can call people a dick. It is a prohibition on acting like a dick. Tbh given the perm chatban you were issued on your 5th ban, I'm not sure why you're participating in this discussion as any changes won't affect you. Agent c (talk) 10:08, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

  • Don't be intentionally antagonistic that is to the point and far less offensive. It relates a sense of responsibility for all concerned.

The point of these rules is to avoid conflict.. That is all. It is not about me. It is about all members. Not about me.

Just consider the rule name change for the good of others..

  • Don't be intentionally antagonistic

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 12:38, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Rule 9 - Unanimous consent to Real World DiscussionEdit

Rule 9 can be controversial. On one hand we're having to censor real world political discussions against the will of the 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)
Keep rule 9, yes, though I'd prefer to see it used less and less. This should be more for the wider audience to disagree with, if only one person disagrees with the conversation then it should not be enforced so quickly, a consensus must be agreed upon that the conversation should be dropped and not on the whim of a single user. Neko-signature Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 13:10, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
I think rule 9 needs to be changed. The conversation shouldn't have to end just because one person doesn't like it. It should be a majority of chat wanting to shut it down, not just one user. Perhaps at least half of the active chatting users must agree to stop the debate. VictorFaceMonitor Victor the Insane Cowboy Robot 16:27, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. The point of rule 9 is to generate a comfortable atmosphere for everyone, regardless of their background or views. Keep in mind that there is are Private Messages and even large-group messages that are available with some modifications. But otherwise, I think the judgement of present mods/admins is sufficient to see Rule 9 not be misused and abused. --Skire (talk) 18:32, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
I have to say that rule 9 should be here. It's a great rule with many benefits. We have no idea how the subject might make others feel. I personally hate talking about these kinds of stuff in chat. Sig also brings a point. It must not be misused, as it can easily be.--Fo2 NCR Flag A Safe People is a Strong People! 18:43, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
I think the rule would be better off saying something along the lines of "no user who wishes to be part of a real-world politics/religion discussion shall be forced to participate in said discussion should they wish not to." This way, the user who feels that the topic is in any way inappropriate for them will not be a part of the conversation, and the rest of the chat is not interrupted. That's just the way I look at it. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 22:59, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand, how is anyone supposed to force someone to participate in a discussion? --Skire (talk) 23:20, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
Lol. I'm not entirely sure. I'm just brainstorming here, but it was something like not talking directly to someone about a subject they don't wish to talk about. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 23:57, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with how the rules are now. We need almost nothing added or taken away in my opinion. The rule nine troll shield I agree needs to go. I am in favor of toci's change, Pigeon Approved "THE WABBAJACK!" 23:12, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

For me it's the same case as the potty mouth rule, folks who hang around a chat for a mature game should be mature enough to deal with topics like religion and politics, and if they ain't then they shouldn't be around in the first place. If a fella gets too worked worked up on it then give him the boot for a couple of mins to cool down, but don't sound too proper to put a gag on the fellas who want to talk about it and can deal with it like civilized folks. Strike this rule down and let abuses be handled with by the mods through the other rules. CharlesLeCheck Icon check 15:29, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. People may take offence especially to sensitive things such as religion and/or politics. This is irrelevant to maturity. And being too emotionally involved in a discussion is not bad faith, so suggesting that he should be "give[n] the boot" is absurd at best. And I already mentioned above that with a few modifications, group conversations can be arranged so they can continue a desired topic of conversation away from the main chat. This rule is perfectly fine as it is right now. --Skire (talk) 15:53, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I think rule 9 is pointless. If a person persists, it can be written off as spam or trolling; similarly, if a person does not want to discuss something he's welcome to start a new topic. Then, again, given that the debate/topic starts to irritate someone, you could refer to rule 7, being a dick (given that it's left behind), or rule 1 and 2, insulting and harassment. --Wasson...Kuasson! (talk) 12:25, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Rule 9 has a slightly different purpose, though; it's to ensure that the entirety of chat isn't discussing something that makes any single person feel exposed, unwelcome or uncomfortable. Jovially discussing cancer whilst having a cancer survivor or sufferer in chat at the time would be one such example, where the "victim" in this case would invoke rule 9 to ensure that chat switches to a new, less disconcerting, topic. Hugs MadeMan2 "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

I'd like to propose the following rewrite that adds a little flexibility, whilst retains the usefulness of the rule.

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.

I think it strikes about the right balance... Agent c (talk) 12:48, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

I think that trying to silence people from speaking cause you don't like what they are saying is more dickish than anything they could possibly say. CrazyFerret

"Wiki Profiling"Edit

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, an administrative member of the other wiki stating their intention to turn away members of this wiki who were not previously active 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)
This is unacceptable. People should be accountable to their own actions only. If they personally haven't done anything improper, no sanction should befall on them, end of story. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 13:09, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
I don't care if the President of fucking Wikia suggested this, it is utterly ridiculous and not even worthy of consideration. Not only does it directly contradict the fundamental rule of "assuming good faith", it essentially advocates discrimination and restricts full access to those who have interests in both Halo and Fallout or their respective chats. --Skire (talk) 18:09, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I, myself, sent out an ultimatum to everyone who read that post and to everyone who visits our chat regularly. Said ultimatum stated that if I see anyone committing an act that has to do with Sannse's comment of asking people to leave based on background that I would come down on them full force, be that person a Bureaucrat, Admin, Mod, Chat mod, or plain user. I won't tolerate this at all. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 22:59, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: So, as I surf throughout the page and see the "joining of other chatrooms". And...joining other chats don't immediately start a wiki war. Me and some user go to a chat where we have fun with other people, not to come to other chats like people who look like we want to make trouble upon entering. So does this develop a concept where no one from outside enters, and no one from inside leaves, similarly to Vault 101's policies? Applejack
This proposition is so completely and fundamentally absurd that, if it is enforced, I - and hopefully many others - will leave. It's idiotic at best and, as Sigma says, shouldn't even be considered. Hugs MadeMan2 "Say 'ello to my little friend!"


(please post rules specific comments in their section. Comments may be moved to relevant sections to aid in following the discussion. Any more general information, or new rule suggestions can be included here.


Looking at the list I have been accused of many but I will try to re visit them in detail, now that others have opened the topic of course.

  1. I doubt with some confidence I ever used raciest or sexist slurs. Gay is OK as is Black, white um..? Is Pony a bad word. I honestly thought Ponies like be'n called pony. If I am wrong I will offer a lengthy formal apology to the whole Pony community.
  • I went a year here with a self imposed Zero use of profanity. After that I tossed a few "F" bombs but never at any individual. I honestly never curssed any one or group here unless Obama is a member and in that case he should except it as part of his job ( Americans hate our leaders. They ask for it ~;P )Damn I just broke rule #9 provoked! I am sorry I will discuss this with my therapist but honestly I meant no harm to any here. DAMN I just confessed off topic again. ( It is a sickness that harms me more than you But it can be funny .

In Honor of the Myth that the world will end Dec 22 2012 I renew my vows " I shall make all reasonable effort to not swear or use dirty words again until the end of humanity's days on line. ( Please do remind me if I ever slip.)

  • Never once really made a difference as to anyone at this sites sex, real or imaged. This is a forum that lends it's self to role play and I don't trust cyber sexing so as far as I care you are fine to be what ever sex and or species you choose. I don't judge such things. It is OK to be Gay. Gay is not a bad word and I do not care where you live.
  • I rarely use none English words here ( No matter what you think of my English use :p ) I have at least only used them rarely as a reference and never enough to be banned for that "offence".
  • I have been guilty of joining conversations on slow nights relating to politics. I don't recall ever starting the discussion but it always led to more happy chat. We were just killing time until some thing more fun came along.
  • Going over the list I am innocent of ,all above, less the non issue confessions to the best of my perspective.
  • General irritation or disruption of other users ~ That is subjective. We all want to have fun on this site. Most of all on chat. " A long day at school or work should melt away in mirth & tom foolery "

If a member dose not like another member that is their perspective, they should never be given the power to just say " Stop or I'll tell on you for irritating me. That takes away the others rights to have fun.

  • Say what you will there have been so many nights where I sat with few around to keep chat alive. Yes it can get a wee bit out of absolute control but that is what made chat fun. A taste of chaos that lightens the heart and caused no one any real harm. it was all just fun.
  • Bottom line : All these rules should not divide a site, just nudge it in the right direction.

To the best of my hearts truest knowledge, I never meant any here harm. Being a free will is not defiance. It's just asking for equal rights and the benefit of a doubt.

  • What are your thoughts ?

Final edit tonight ~ There are far to may typos for me to fix this late.

  • If you disagree with the underlying miss spelled point, I can't change your mind with this ramble. I'm just to tired.
  • Sleep well & have a better tomorrow.

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 07:54, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss any one users ban. This is a place to discuss the rules of chat in general. Please direct any queries regarding a single persons ban to an admin. Agent c (talk) 08:41, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


Once again Yes Man you're pretty much on the money, here's the thing, these rules are pretty good rules, so my question is Why don't we just enforce them?The problem doesn't lie with the rules it lies with admin who post nude pictures of women, or just overwhelmingly gross or vulgar comments, someone needs to enforce THESE rules, not make up new ones, so I guess I would like to add A rule, Rule 11: A bureaucrat or some admin who has some sense has the authority to enforce these rules on other admins by way of A ban or other such punishment. In regards to profanity, I've seen it get out of control, but yes why would someone be in chat or play the game(or be on nukipedia) if they couldn't handle cursing, but at the same time it doesn't need to ever get to A point of no control on what you're saying at someone or something. Rule 9 is A somewhat ill-advised rule; as long as the persons involved don't get to A point of bullying the minority position! These are pretty much my thoughts, at some point the admins themselves need some policing! :) (Wildwes7g7 (talk) 05:47, August 29, 2012 (UTC))

Let me get something straight here: Our Administrators have never posted nudity in either our chat feature, nor our main article space. If they have, then please provide me with names and logs, and I will help take care of it. As for cursing, we do not need political correctness here. Political correctness is for people who can't handle the world around them, and I will never advocate it here. The truth of the matter is, using expletives is not a bad thing. Especially so on a mature wiki such as this one. Even using a generous amount of expletives is not a bad thing. The only time it is a bad thing, is if someone spams expletives, or uses them in a way to personally insult people. And we already do punish people who do this. I just wanted to get that straight here. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 07:35, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • A bureaucrat or some admin who has some sense has the authority to enforce these rules on other admins by way of A ban or other such punishment.
This already exists. The rules of chat apply to mods and admins just as much as they do anyone else. If you have a complaint about the behaviour of an admin, please address it to another admin, bureaucrat or moderator. Additionally the community can call for a reconfirmation request if unsatisfied with the response.
Additionally, I must echo Leon's point on Porn. The one time I've been aware of an image that might be termed "soft core" porn being linked, it was by a regular user who received am immediate ban. Agent c (talk) 08:15, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
If you have actual proof of instances you are describing above then please post them as they will be dealt with separately and according to existing policy. As far as I see it, our current chat mods are doing a good job in enforcing to rules so I'm afraid I can't quite see where you're coming from. --Skire (talk) 13:55, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

A question to the starter of this discussion: It seems like Rule 7 and Rule 9 have received the most controversy. Would there be a vote soon? If so, I would suggest we do not use the typical yes-no vote but rather the multiple selections option so that more than two possible amendments/modifications to a specific rule may be presented. --Skire (talk) 16:28, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Enforcement should always be taken with a gain of salt & some basic good humor. Look at chat now.. It's a grave yard. 3 members on line maybe 2 away leaving dead space.

  • Chat was originally added to this wiki so folks could have a place to act a fool & share fun. To many rules killed it.

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 20:06, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

New rulesEdit

Given the general nature of this forum this may not be a pressing issue, but can we PLEEEAASSE add a rule about kicking complete and utter idiots. if I have to sit through one more person spouting BS about how Planking is the greatest extreme sport to ever grace this planet, to the point where my brain hurts from all the stupid, I am going to blow a gasket. The lone wanderer's bad-ass grandma (talk) 11:38, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't legislate against stupidity itself, just the actions that follow. If its disrupting chat, I guess Planking could be define as an annoying meme, and thus a contravention of rule 10. Agent c (talk) 12:38, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

Anti Bullying codeEdit

There should be an anti bullying code in chat to prevent bullying of the other users, specially when it's from admins and mods. The rule against insults is not enough because sometimes bullying happens subtly and then it's even more damagin and traumatizing because the victim is labeled as paranoid and too sensitive. Mocking people in particular should never be allowed at any circumstance. Corniolio (talk) 03:39, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Most of the rules for the chat already address this. Moot statement. UserGreatMaraMessage 03:43, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
You have already started a forum up about this, and it was greatly rejected. So instead of letting you hijack this forum, I am now shutting down this thread. I am going to ask for no one to respond to this. If anyone would really like to talk about this subject, please leave your thoughts on the proper forum page.

Actually this is one of the issues I had in mind when creating this thread. I believe the rules against harrasment already cover this issue. Agent c (talk) 10:00, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

As Mara stated, "Don't be a dick" pretty much sums this up. There shouldn't be a harrasment rule since it's basically implied in other rules.--Fo2 NCR Flag A Safe People is a Strong People! 15:06, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you mean "There shouldn't be a [separate] anti-bullying code" because there is a harassment rule already -.- --Skire (talk) 15:09, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction but my opinion is otherwise stated correctly. We aren't known for being the friendliest community, but who cares? It's not like we down-grade our chatters or disrespect them in any case.--Fo2 NCR Flag A Safe People is a Strong People! 16:34, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
  • Just saying "Quote" Moot statement Is not a discussion. Corniolio (talk made a point from his or her perspective. It is valid as any made here.

Chat Rules Review.

"QUOTE" There should be an anti bullying code in chat to prevent bullying of the other users, specially when it's from admins and mods. The rule against insults is not enough because sometimes bullying happens subtly and then it's even more damagin and traumatizing because the victim is labeled as paranoid and too sensitive. Mocking people in particular should never be allowed at any circumstance. Corniolio (talk) 03:39, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Just disagreeing is not defiance. Not being happy is never a crime.

According to who ever this Corniolio is.. He & or she and I am sure some others like maybe Yes Man, the "conciseness" is far from clear.

Again. please be sure to take all in context? This is not defiance. Just discussion in accordance with the topic of this page and the wiki rules.

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 09:23, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Moving towards consensusEdit

Judged on the comments thus far, the consensus position seems to be as follows:

  1. For the most part, we're satisfied with the rules as they stand.
  2. There is some debate on the position of Profanity as to whether the rules should be tightened ore removed. I believe the current middle position acts as a useful compromise position.
  3. Arranging a "troll" raid or similar off site is not acceptable in our chatroom, and action should follow any attempts to arrange this in line with normal enforcement.
  4. Rule 7, although there's some debate over the exact phrasing, the intent of the rule has firm support.
  5. Rule 9, I think there needs to be more discussion on this as there isn't much of a consensus or middle position
  6. Wiki profiling is not acceptable, and no user is to be kicked or banned for the actions of another (except in the case where we are sure a sockpuppet is being used) or on the basis of what wikis they visit.
  7. As per existing guidelines, admins and mods are subject to the rules. Complaints should be made to another admin/mod/bureaucrat if you feel these have been breached without action.
  8. There is no need for a specific anti-bullying rule as the other rules already combat bullying behavior.

Are there any objections to this conclusion? If not, do we need a vote to clarify the trolling rule and the wiki profiling position in the rules? Agent c (talk) 11:35, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe a vote is required for the trolling or "wiki-profiling", but I do believe one is needed for Rule 9 and the "Don't be a dick" phrasing that some seem to dislike. And perhaps we could have a vote on the profanity rule to set it in stone too. As for Rule 9, I don't personally think yet another separate discussion is necessary and many have presented their views on it already, and if it were up to me I'd bring it to a vote. These are just my thoughts. --Skire (talk) 15:40, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
Problem is I'm not sure what the vote would be there for Rule 9 and the DBAD rule (I guess we could do "Do you support a rephrase of the DBAD rule but keeping the same intent", but then we're stuck with what the rephrase will be). Wiki Profiling we can get away without a vote as there's no rule saying you can be kicked for being a member of another site - anything not verboten being permitted. Trolling I'm still convinced there needs to be one as we're adding "Off site trolling" to the banned list.
The Converastion seems to be quietening down here, if there's no significant changes, I'll open a vote on Saturday, unless there is an objection. Agent c (talk) 12:42, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
That's true, I'm not sure what alternatives people want exactly. Some can be inferred to from the above discussions, but like I said it should be a multi vote (instead of yesno) so users can add (with restrictions) their alternative and others may select the one they prefer. Do you think this will work? --Skire (talk) 14:28, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
I think we have to be careful to make sure this doesn't end up like the name change issue. I'll give some alternatives a thought and see what I can come up with. Agent c (talk) 14:36, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Rephrasing rule #7 is completely and absolutely a bad idea. First, being a dick covers a multitude of behaviors besides merely being rude, such as being obnoxious, passive-aggressive, condescending, patronizing, deliberately irritating, etc. It just can't be properly summed up with another single word, and listing every specific meaning would lessen the effect the rules has. Second, even if there where a proper non-vulgar synonym, it would still damage the effect of the wording of the rule. The use of the vulgar word was entirely deliberate, it IS meant to shock people, to make them pause and re-read it, to make them think the rule over and to burn into their brains just what the rule is saying. Using an euphemism here would completely negate this effect.

Finally, there is just no justification for removing it. The only arguments against it I saw were that people get offended when you tell them not to be a dick, and that someone can get away with insulting somebody else by calling them dicks, and then claim they were referring to the rules. Both are moot because you're not supposed to warn somebody not to be a dick that way, since "telling someone "Don't be a dick" is generally a dick-move — especially if true". Therefore, such warnings, legitimate or otherwise, are both themselves violations of that rule. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 08:21, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

If the need does arise by vote for a replacement word at the least would 'antagonistic' work or not work in some respects? UserGreatMaraMessage 09:41, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

*Don't be intentionally antagonistic that is to the point and far less offensive. It relates a sense of responsibility for all concerned. I like it.

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 11:43, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SaintPain and Mara. Antagonistic covers the issue without being overly brash about it. I love the Rule 7 itself, and yes ignorance to the rules is not an excuse - but it doesn't mean people actually read them. This is just a simple way of avoiding conflict in the future. Saint brought up a good point to me earlier; its not so much that offending users shouldn't be called out on their actions, but it makes the job easier for Moderators if the term is less likely to cause agitation to an already rowdy user.
I personally am less likely to get annoyed if I'm asked by an authority figure, on this Wiki or in real life, to "not be intentionally antagonistic" rather than being bluntly told "don't be a dick". Just my two cents on the matter, I'm not overly fussed one way or the other. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 13:22, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

I've covered this already no? You're not supposed to be told "don't be a dick" already, so this point is moot. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 14:59, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Lims, I find your argument a bit contradictory. I agree with the shock value bit, but if calling someone a dick is a dickish move, then the only way to enforce the rule as it stands is to break it when we do...Surely an argument for rewording. Agent c (talk) 16:27, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

When somebody is violating rule #7, they are usually acting only one or two aspects of being a dick, and those can be directly called out without outright saying "you're being a dick": say eg "your behaviour is being unwarrantably aggressive/rude/obnoxious/etc, and it's a violation of the rule #7". They will them read rule #7 by themselves and (hopefully) realize how their behaviour is qualifies as being dickish, without being directly accused and called 'a dick'. We should focus on the behaviour, not on labeling the individual in question as a dick, and on explaining to them why their behaviour is counter-productive.
The actual issue here is how people are handling others being dicks, not the wording of the rule itself. If we euphemize the rule and do nothing to change how tactfully mods deal with others, regardless of the other party being a dick or not, the real underlying issue will still remain, as strong as ever. If we do manage to solve the actual issue OTOH, the wording of the rule #7 will remain a non-issue.
There is an issue with how rules (not just #7) are enforced and how warnings are worded. But the wording of the rule itself is not the issue. We should not take the wording of the rule, which is fine, as a scapegoat instead focusing on addressing the real issue. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 18:38, September 7, 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree. Rewording is completely unnecessary as the rule has its meaning and extensive definition easily available for users to look up, which has been accepted for a long time. Also, it provides a good summation of the expected behaviour in that respect. --Skire (talk) 19:47, September 7, 2012 (UTC)


This discussion is closed and it has been determined to vote on rewording of chat rules be voted on. Please refer to that vote here. --Kingclyde (talk) 08:50, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+