Having 2 channels, the vote

[Rotku]

You know, if it weren't for the vote up the top, I would think this entire debate here was just a big joke.

To me, it just comes down to this. Just because you can be offensive doesn't mean you should. If you're too immature to control yourselves, rules are needed, just like in a school yard. Prove that you deserve to have these rights, and you'll get them. Remember, all rights come with equal responsibilties - nothing is given for free.

[indio]

Hialmer, don't form two channels, but do remove the link. This will force n00bs to use the forum and there's always someone around to answer questions. Problem solved.

[peterdin]

Indio, I like your suggestion.

I'm not in favour of a moderated channel so I also voted no.

Let me ask a question:
if #alfa is populated by alphans and there is a certain behaviour observed, which we do not like but we tolerate it.
What does that say about people tolerating this?
We always have a change to take somebody aside and express our concerns.

[Cynon]

I said no because primarily i'm the sort of person who will jump to help someone if i can. I was always the kid who wanted to show the new kid around on their first day at school etc. But there is no way that i'll consistently be bothered to log onto both channels. If someone wants to find me i'd be in the main, original alfa chatroom, where I can cuss and perve.

[White Warlock]

. And what I find more offensive is you couldn't come up with a more reasonable example than that, seriously, what kind of stupid argument is that? You're better than this. :p

Actually, i thought it effectively illustrated the point.

I have never encountered a situation where someone did not knock it off if asked politely to do so. I've only had to ignore people because I generally hated them, not because they persisted in doing whatever.

I've encountered, on many an occasion, people saying, "no" to my requests to stop. I've witnessed, countless times, someone saying, "stop" and people going on until that person logs off. Regardless, what you described is moderating, with or without the authority. And while you may be inclined to say something, a 'new member' or 'visitor' likely will not be. Again, creating an environment not hostile or offensive to visitors and new members is the goal here.

Yet, if you actually believe this approach is the solution, i'm sure i can start up a grassroots effort in the chat room for people to ask others to not be offensive. After all, i've been approached by 'many' members already regarding the chat room. Assuming you're correct, we'll end up with a moderated chat room, sans moderators.

'Ignore' is dependent upon the IRC software u are using. Trillian, for example, doesn't have an ignore feature, nor do a few others i tried. And, newcomers won't know how to do this. Last, they can change their nick and bypass your ignore, so it's pretty friggin' useless.

A) Use a decent program. B) We can't build everything around the lowest common denominator. C) Changing nicks does not bypass an ignore unless you're using some hilariously crappy program that ignores based on the nick and not the identifying info you get from a /whois. I am unaware of any such program, but I guess they'd exist.

A) The Default program used by new members or visitors is the java prog on the website.
B) I have no friggin idea what that meant, not sure you do either.
C) The Java program on the website is most commonly used by new members and visitors, and provides this 'bypassable' ignore. It also is not alone in this, as i mentioned previously.

Hostile environment is even more subjective than being offensive. But generally yes, that would be the fundamental principle of free speech. Speech that is totally unoffensive doesn't need to be protected, it won't be attacked.

Ah, thank you.

Free speech is restricted at work. It is restricted at school, in church, at a library, in a restaurant, at the airport, in a bar, at home, and even at the dinner table. It is restricted by self-restraint, which occurs because of the 'potential for consequence.' Free speech without consequence is where problems occur, and presently we have no consequence to the things printed and posted in chat.

Through moderation, we impose the 'potential for consequence.' I.e., we create a 'normal' social atmosphere.

[Swift]

Alright, let me post pictures of me having sex with your mom. Not offensive enough? How about your dad? Your poodle?

At what point do we state something is 'too' offensive? Because, the line must be drawn somewhere and there exists, at this time, a line. At present, the line is too lenient. The goal here is to move the line to a point where the chat room is not offensive to newcomers.

Porn, Racism and direct personal attacks already get you kicked and banned from chat. Or did you not know that?

So how about if i come into chat and offend you, repeatedly? In fact, how about if i offend you every time you step into the chat room? Is that okay?

Sure. If you really bug me I'll ask you to knock it off,

Well, of course, you're a moderator right now. As a moderator, your request has a degree of authority.

Give me a break. /ignore is not restricted just to channel OPs. If anybody in the channel asks you to stop something and you don't it is at their disposal. That was just petty.

if you persist I'll use that handy "ignore" button.

'Ignore' is dependent upon the IRC software u are using. Trillian, for example, doesn't have an ignore feature, nor do a few others i tried. And, newcomers won't know how to do this. Last, they can change their nick and bypass your ignore, so it's pretty friggin' useless.

If someone went to enough trouble to find out who has ignored them and change their nicks to continue pestering those people, that would be considered griefing, and you already get punished for that as it it is already covered in the ALFA rules.

Through moderation, we impose the 'potential for consequence.' I.e., we create a 'normal' social atmosphere.

Free speech is restricted at work. It is restricted at school, in church, at a library, in a restaurant, at the airport, in a bar, at home, and even at the dinner table.

Oh please. The level of restriction in Public depends entirely on where in public you happen to be, and the restriction in your own home is entirely up to the people who own the house, and therefore has no weight in this particular argument.

Ontop of that, if it was restricted at school, children wouldn't come home from eager to show off the new curse words they learnt

[Marklos]

I say remove the javachat link. If people want to post porn/swear and act immaturely, let them, but don't subject new members to that perception of how it is in-game. Or at least, post a warning before clicking on java chat that "While there is help to be found in the chat channel, enter at your own risk, as members will not be moderated."

I'm suprised at you Swift. We've always agreed on most things. We disagree here. but that's fine.

[White Warlock]

*smirks at Swift's post*

Somebody let me know if a post warrants a response.

[Swift]

I'm suprised at you Swift. We've always agreed on most things. We disagree here. but that's fine.

I am vehemently against forced moderation of any kind on the internet. There are occasions where i accept it (eg developer chats where you need to keep things manageable) but on the whole, self moderation is where it is at, and if that fails, just about every chat client on the planet has ways of turning off users you may find offensive.

I prefer to be able to relax when i chat, and not constantly be worried that some mod whose let power go to their head is going to come down on me like a ton of bricks if i step outside what they deem is acceptable.

[Marklos]

Now while that's all well and good, this issue really isn't about any one person. It's about ALFA collective's perceived atmosphere. It's not about any one ALFa member. It's not about any one new person who wanders through the door. It's not about any one game magazine writer. It's about it all put together, how does chat represent us as a community.

Truthfully, it's not like it would be taking away any right to be offensive in personal messages. Just use some self-control and care about ALFA's appearance to the community, to attract and keep new players, attract the attention of professional writers and really show how we are in game. A truly awesome community.

Using the free speech argument really doesn't make sense, since WW pointed it out, you self-moderate all the time, but some people don't have that kind of restraint and hurt's ALFA's image in the process.

Ok, off t work. Later.

[Rotku]

Alright, let me post pictures of me having sex with your mom. Not offensive enough? How about your dad? Your poodle?

At what point do we state something is 'too' offensive? Because, the line must be drawn somewhere and there exists, at this time, a line. At present, the line is too lenient. The goal here is to move the line to a point where the chat room is not offensive to newcomers.

Porn, Racism and direct personal attacks already get you kicked and banned from chat. Or did you not know that?

Swift, I think you just helped prove WW's point, unless I've totally missed it. You have shown us where the current line IS drawn - where free speech is restricted. What he was saying is that this current line is set too low.

[MorbidKate]

Now while that's all well and good, this issue really isn't about any one person. It's about ALFA collective's perceived atmosphere. It's not about any one ALFa member. It's not about any one new person who wanders through the door. It's not about any one game magazine writer. It's about it all put together, how does chat represent us as a community.

Truthfully, it's not like it would be taking away any right to be offensive in personal messages. Just use some self-control and care about ALFA's appearance to the community, to attract and keep new players, attract the attention of professional writers and really show how we are in game. A truly awesome community.

Using the free speech argument really doesn't make sense, since WW pointed it out, you self-moderate all the time, but some people don't have that kind of restraint and hurt's ALFA's image in the process.

Nicely said. +1

Kate

[JaydeMoon]

And another 1

[Swift]

Swift, I think you just helped prove WW's point, unless I've totally missed it. You have shown us where the current line IS drawn - where free speech is restricted. What he was saying is that this current line is set too low.

The current line is perfectly fine.

When it was announced that the Off Topic forum was going to be completely unmoderated, you had some people (some of those that currently argue for harder chat moderation) claiming that the forum would become, in essence, a cesspool full off immaturity. Maybe what i deem immature is a touch lower than others, but i do not see those dire predictions as having come to pass. I would go so far as to say Off Topic has actually improved a touch since moderators left it alone.

I see no reason why the line for chat should be drawn any higher than it already is.

[Rotku]

Well, the forum can be kept an eye on 24/7 for any abuse or anything like that. It's a lot easier than scrolling through 24 hours of chat log.