Forum:Centralising Discord stuff

From Meta Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Centralising Discord stuff
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 27 March 2020 by IsobelJ.

With Discord related discussions now taking place on meta, I suggest that we move to having one information page hosted in the Meta: namespace on the meta wiki that can be linked on all wikis that use and advertise the Discord. It may be useful to users to include a more detailed section about rules and by hosting one page we can ensure that this information remains consistent. I'd suggest this section be added for rules (which is based off of Rsw:RuneScape:Clan Chat#Rules):

Rules[edit source]

  1. Discussion of activities that break the Rules of RuneScape/Code of Conduct is not permitted.
  2. Relevant wiki policies apply, such as:
    • Meta:UTP (be nice)
    • Meta:TROLL (don't feed the trolls)
    • Meta:GAME (don't play rules against each other to circumvent the spirit of them)
    • Meta:STATUS (your role or wiki status doesn't make your opinions any more or less valid)
    • Meta:UCS (use common sense)
  3. All players who are using the chat are to be treated fairly and equally and are expected to abide by the chat rules, regardless of their role or status on the wiki.
  4. Profanity is allowed in the chat; however, use of derogatory or discriminatory language and use of profanity in personal attacks targeted at other chat users is not acceptable. Additionally, you may be asked to stop if your use of profanity is excessive.
  5. No spamming or advertising.
  6. Players should keep conversations mature and cool-headed. Please be respectful of others when discussing controversial topics such as politics and religion and remember that the chat is made up of people from a range of backgrounds and cultures.
  7. If another user asks you to stop a discussion – e.g., because it is becoming offensive/inflammatory or making them uncomfortable – then please do so. Players may @ admin(s) or contact an admin via DM to ask them to intervene if they are uncomfortable with a discussion that is taking place in the chat.
  8. English is the language spoken by the majority of chat users. If a user asks you to stop conversing in another language because it is limiting other people's ability to join in conversation, please do so.

Dealing with rule breakers[edit source]

  • Users who break clan rules may be given one or more warnings at the discretion of an admin.
  • More serious breaches of the rules or ignoring warnings may result in a user being kicked or banned from the chat.
  • If you believe a user has behaved inappropriately without being punished, contact a clan admin, providing links to or screenshots of incidents if possible.
  • Players who are banned are unable to rejoin the server. See here for a list of players who are currently banned from Discord.
  • If you are currently banned and wish to appeal your ban, please start a discussion on the meta forums.

For the "list of players currently banned from Discord" I suggest that we create a page similar to Rsw:RuneScape:Clan Chat/Blocked names. It may be difficult to document reason/banning admin for all the current historical bans, but we can maintain this going forward for more transparency. IsobelJ (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit source]

Comment - Generally looks ok, but I think it's worth calling out that people don't speak English in the pt-br channels nor should we expect them to convert to English when asked. I'm also a bit confused why someone needs to start a full blown discussion for a ban appeal when we generally leave it for admin discretion unless it was implemented through consensus. Maybe we could just have a centralised ban appeals page instead? cqm talk 08:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Big fan of centralising bans, but how would we decide the severity/lengths of bans. Since Discord bans are permanent, would we set ban lengths rather than always having them permanent? And how would we decide on what those lengths would be? Common sense or a set length depending on the offence? I can't decide whether or not we need a separate discussion thread for each ban because in rare cases, it might be better for there to be full length discussions, but in the majority it'd most likely be unnecessary. Also curious to know people's opinion on whether we need a rule on keeping on-topic since that has become more of an issue in the last few months and to what extent we'd enforce it etc.

As for the language thing, I'm not sure if I'd feel comfortable enforcing that, unless it gets really out of hand. Talk-to Kelsey 04:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why we would need to decide the severity/length of bans, just have them permanent with some guidelines for length/severity on the appeals page (e.g. if you did something REALLY BAD, don't expect your appeal to be successful) STAR the coolest bean (talk 2 me xoxo) 18:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with most of the proposed criteria. I don't, however, agree with the rule regarding English being the allowed language for the Discord as a whole. The only channels I would find it appropriate to have such a rule would be those under the Wiki, Projects, and Bots channels for the Wikis that aren't written in another language. Anything that's community-centered, such as those found under General and Off-Topic, shouldn't be restricted to English-only.

I like the idea of a centralized ban page as well as the need to create a forum post to get a ban removed, similarly to how the RSW handles their clan chat bans. Legaia2Pla[T] 23:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I am against rule 8 as well, per Legaia2Pla. I also don't think ban appeals should require a full forum thread unless there was a respective forum thread for the ban to be instated in the first place, per cqm. チェン (話し合う) 23:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment / Support - Generally looks good, but I agree with other people re. rule 8. I think there should also be some sort of guideline about staying on-topic for the channel/not derailing convo in meta specifically.

I also support Cam's suggestion of having a centralised ban appeals place on meta. Big support for having a place listing all banned people, something I've wanted for a while - and personally, it makes me more hesitant to ban people from our Discord knowing there isn't currently a place like this as it can come across as kinda under-the-table.

I presume the #welcome channel should subsequently be updated to list the rules (rather than linking to a long-ass page of wiki policies which honestly isn't helpful to anyone), and maybe mention something about the ban pages STAR the coolest bean (talk 2 me xoxo) 18:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Closed - I will implement this proposal taking into account the feedback regarding not having a rule about using the English language and the addition of an "on-topic" rule. There will be a ban appeal page for bans made without consensus - only bans made by consensus will require a thread to be removed. IsobelJ (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)