Having 2 channels, the vote

[NickD]

Honestly, you're all like my 4 year old nephew. Runs around misbehaving and then throws a tantrum when his toys get taken away from him as punishment.

[JaydeMoon]

The majority of the community, and not Hialmar or the Moderators, made the decision to have #alfa chat moderated, as opposed to having a new PG-13 chat channel created.

No they decided they wanted only one channel.

Some did, Vendrin. Many more decided they wanted #alfa moderated.

And where was that? All we were asked to vote on was whether we wanted 2 channels.

Really?

Man you just pick and choose the data and proof that helps your weak arguements and conveniently ignore the rest?

In this thread alone I count FOUR individuals explicitly asking to moderate the chat we have.

Then, early on in the thread,

Just to clarify, as well as i understand, moderating WILL happen. The discussion is merely in regards to whether a 'second' chat room be created, leaving #alfa chat room pretty much as is.

So, if you vote no, you're saying you want the #alfa chatroom to be moderated, with no other chatroom created.

42 people voted no.

Seems to me like almost 42 of the 73 people who voted (that's 58%, aka a majority) want moderation in the existing channel.

Maybe not a majority of the WHOLE community as I hope we have more than 73 members... but a majority of those that cared enough to say what they wanted.

[Stormseeker]

I voted no for a second chat room and have already spoken up for moderation in the existing one. Not that i could care about chat itself but did not want to have a "dirty alfa" and a "clean alfa".

[Swift]

Seems to me like almost 42 of the 73 people who voted (that's 58%, aka a majority) want moderation in the existing channel.

The vote was merely about whether to have a second channel. There was absolutely nothing in the poll that suggests that should it fail we would resort to moderation. It was about a second chat room only. I know there are a good few who voted no to the idea but are also against moderation, so ill take your statement above with a grain of salt.

As for what whitey said, thats just his opinion as far as i am concerned. He is neither the Infra Admin, Lead Admin or Leader moderator, therefore i do not weight heavily that particular comment.

[White Warlock]

As for what whitey said, thats just his opinion as far as i am concerned. He is neither the Infra Admin, Lead Admin or Leader moderator, therefore i do not weight heavily that particular comment.

Hi Swift, how you doing?

For a moment there i was inclined to explain to you the position i hold in Hialmar's team, the discussions and actions that transpired prior to Hialmar's poll, and various other issues... but frankly, i don't think it matters. I'm actually a little disappointed you continue to argue this stance, considering what has thusfar been presented.

A poll already occurred regarding moderation of the chat room (here), and the majority indicated they wished for chat moderation, therefore any argument presented now, regarding moderation, is moot. Hialmar, as infra admin, does not need permission to reinstate chat moderation policies. Yet, if he did, he already has it.

Continuing, were you to consider Hialmar's recent 24hr ban on one person in chat, and his statement in his announcement (here), you could have come to a reasonable enough conclusion, on your own, that Hialmar was reinstating chat moderation policies.

Even if this poll indicated only creating another chat room, one that is moderated, a presentation of such indicates a want for a moderated chat room. To vote no indicates you do not want this moderated second chat room, so where do you think they will pose a 'moderated' chat room, when there is but one chat room to choose from?

Then, even after i presented clarity on the intent of this poll, nobody requested clarification, nor did anyone 'refute' what I stated.

Last, there's also Hialmar's additional post on the first page, which states:

*nods to what GF said*

If this doesn't pass and we can't moderate the #alfa channel:
1- the webchat link will be removed;
2- #alfa will no longer be considered a part of ALFA (as long as I am the Infra Admin) and I don't want to hear anything about it.

[idoru]

Everyone knows I like rules, but the ALFA chat is one place that I think could do very well without too many of them. It works something like this:

ALFA in-game is a place where people invest heavily. If people can cheat or bend the rules, other people may lose characters they've spent months or even years building, DMs may see their carefully constructed plots ruined. Similar consequences follow if Admin give out faulty or heavy-handed judgments. Because of this heavy investment, you need very specific rules to ensure that cheaters are punished while the innocent are not, and all this without disrupting the game too much for everyone else.

Chat is a silly place, where no one invests anything but time. To get kicked out for 24 hours is little more than a slap on the wrist. I'm quite happy with moderators handing this out whenever someone is acting up, no questions asked. Looking at the list of currently active moderators, there is no one on that list that I don't have complete confidence in. If a moderator does abuse his/her power, I'm sure admin will listen to complaints. But I don't think you'll see any moderators getting fired over a single mistake, and I don't think a single 24 hour ban justifies a huge, AR-style investigation into who said what to whom. If a moderator shows a pattern of behavior where he/she is too lax or too heavy-handed, I'm sure admin will kick said person out fairly quickly.

I think Infra does need to consider making more specific rules for what behaviour is bad enough to get you an infra strike, and how that strike should be given.. But the chat and forums moderation has suffered from the three-strike system, because awarding a strike becomes such a big deal - 1/3 of the way to bansville, lead admin appeals, etc. So people have been getting away with all kinds of minor idiocy because while it's annoying, it's not really bad enough to deserve a strike.

[Hialmar]

The 24 hour ban for bad behavior doesn't come with a strike.

Of course if the bad behavior continues again and again or if this spills on the forum the strike will be there.

As for what is bad behavior: I point everyone to our Code of Conduct:
http://www.alandfaraway.org/docs/General/CodeOfConduct
I did not write this Code Of Conduct, btw.
It has been there for a long while.

I'll quote what is related to chat and forum:

Giving Out Server Password to Non-Members

Posting of Graphic Violence in Forums or Chat

Posting of Pornography in Forums or Chat

Posting of Racism in Forums or Chat

Sexual Harassment

Now what we have added to that and what we will add soon to the above link is: Harassment of moderators.

Isn't that clear enough ?

[yavanion]

I think its great you stand up and try uphold whats been agreed in the past... keep up the good work Hialmar

/Yav

[Burt]

I don't think anyone has gotten away with breaking those rules in chat, nor would any of us 'asshats' (assuming I'm one) suggest they should.

As for adding harassment of moderators so be it. How about we just all put them on ignore? Then there's no danger we'll upset them by responding to anything they say.

So what has all this chat kerfuffle achieved? The same thing all general discussion threads ever achieve. Bugger all.

[indio]

So what has all this chat kerfuffle achieved? The same thing all general discussion threads ever achieve. Bugger all.

Chat in the Red Corner. General Discussion in the Blue Corner.

*Ding Ding*

Who cares.

Remove the webchat link and let n00bs use GD.

A big KO.

[Swift]

A poll already occurred regarding moderation of the chat room (here), and the majority indicated they wished for chat moderation, therefore any argument presented now, regarding moderation, is moot. Hialmar, as infra admin, does not need permission to reinstate chat moderation policies. Yet, if he did, he already has it.

If 2 year old heavily biased polls that paint anything other than moderation in a very bad light is the basis for ALFA policy making today, i question wtf our admin are doing.

First Choice: Completely lift the moderation on language as we are a collection of idiotic drivel who want to keep driving away any decent people that show any indication that they want to play here.

Second Choice: Keep the ban in place with a clear definition of what's acceptable and what is not so that any violators in #alfa (and only that public channel) are immediately banned for 24 hours, with repetitive offenders getting increasingly larger bans, up to and including a permaban from this wonderful community.

I dont think any survey in the world would go ahead describing people who choose a particular choise as idiotic drivelers. I would prefer to have seen a more recent, far less biasedly stated poll, even if it did result in the same outcome. At least that way we would know that nobody was influenced by the absolutely pathetic wording of the options like Bare used.

[Jeppan]

So what has all this chat kerfuffle achieved? The same thing all general discussion threads ever achieve. Bugger all.

Chat in the Red Corner. General Discussion in the Blue Corner.

*Ding Ding*

Who cares.

Remove the webchat link and let n00bs use GD.

A big KO.

I cannot say I really care about wether or not chat is moderated since it is mostly harmless, at least until some zealous mod tries to make a point through banning someone.

But to remove chat altogether seems like such a dim-wit (sorry Damart ) suggestion I don´t even know where to begin. This is the place where the community exists in some part, along with the library and the GD. I think that without a chat ALFA would drop like a stone, cause ALFA is a lot more than just playing the game.

[yavanion]

Swift...

The policy is there, its been voted in, agree to it or change it by vote... But untill it changes, follow it as everyone in alfa has to follow rules in alfa... you aint no exception... dont follow it get ban... simple

[indio]

Jepp, remove the link does not equal removing chat, just for clarification.

[Hialmar]

*nods* indio is right.

What would happen is we would either:
1- remove the webchat ;
2- point the webchat to the admission/help desk channel (#alandfaraway).

In both cases we would also put a sticky or an announce in the Off Topic forum that there is a chat for casual and off-topic discussion called #alfa but that it is not moderated and clearly not PG-13.

This was my goal but people clearly do not like this solution so if the Player Admin staff want to use #alandfaraway as an admission channel I think that we will have 2 webchats pages:
-1 towards the admission/help desk channel (#alandfaraway).
-1 towards the main channel (ie #alfa).

The admission/help desk channel will be managed and moderated by the Player Admin admission staff (exactly in the same way as there are server specific chats).
#alfa will be managed by Infra as it is now.

If #alfa is clearly impossible to moderate, I'll remove the second webchat page and consider #alfa unmoderated.