Chat rule clarifications?

[Piroska]

Ah hah! My apologies then. Somehow the discussion switched over to the use of General and then being asked to step out of there. I thought that we were continuing in that vein. Silly me!

Regarding Chat, the wiki article outlines the definition fairly well.

A: In the context of chat, spam (or the act of spamming) is placing a large amount of text in the chat window in a short time, filling up the chat window and making it move quickly, making it difficult for others to keep up and generally annoying people.

There are a few things that are considered spam:

• Replying to yourself. Try to keep your statements to one post. If you have a too much text to fit in one post, continue it in one more post and then give other people a chance to respond.
  
• Chattering. Take a look at who's talking, versus who is online. If it's only you and your friend (or two) going back and forth in chat, and there's other people on, there's a good chance you are annoying them. Take your conversation to party chat or whispers.
  
• Narrating. Pay attention to what you're posting about. No one in general chat is interested in how many reborn shards you have, that you only need three more gnoll spleens, or whatever. If no one responds to your posts (or you begin responding to yourself, as mentioned above), re-read your statement and ask yourself if it's something that really needs a response other than "Yup, that's nice."

To fall back on your earlier question regarding talking to a friend, the second bulleted point appears to cover that.


Edit: Regarding the feelings of "this is not how it has always been!" expressed earlier in this thread, that definition has been up since the article's creation 15 July 2008.


Edit in response to your edit: Dude, for all I know, I was the one that totally misread the topic of conversation and blathered the whole time about something entirely different. I think that we'll just blame Kretol because he's a wonderful scapegoat.

[Harmonic]

And I agree with all of it. What I have a hard time with is -players- being able to say "Guys barrens", and the thing states "You should move to barrens, however you have the option to report the person."

Edit: It comes off as counter productive. It feels like it gives anyone control to move the chat unless you want to get in trouble. While they are technically not supposed to tell you to move, the chances are you'll be the one to get in trouble for spamming, or what's percieved as spamming.

It's frustrating when you've got a conversation going on with about four people to be asked to move, when you really, really want to say no because you're enjoying the levity of a bit of talk. Not to mention, taking it to barrens, or to private, or wherever invites some other things when I just want to have a conversation.

I guess I'll fall back to the forums, but, I don't like to make a topic for every little thing, especially considering topics are more long term than a bit of instant chat. It's the difference between writing a letter and a phone call, to me.

Edit: I don't wanna blame Kretol, he starts to call me names like "Noob!" And "Rensinub!".

He made me cry once. No really!

[Piroska]

I may be misreading the article entirely (and, at this point, it would probably be par for the course!), but I think that the statement is in regards to people attempting to police a channel when they lack the ability to do so. Reporting would most likely be a valid option if someone orders/demands/forces/whatever the move on you rather than requesting. However, wording it as a request would not only more accurately portray the lack of power of the player to enforce that but also be more polite.

It's backlash from one of the more recent problems that the server had when people attempted to enforce channel rules. It got so prolific and, as I recall, was occasionally incorrectly applied, that the staff made the collective decision that rules should be enforced by the staff and only by members of the staff.

Sure, if you do not meet any of the bulleted definitions of spam, you could choose to remain in the channel and continue your discussion. I have the feel, however, that it might make you a bit of a dick then. I know that I'd probably feel compelled to leave!

Also, Krerol is a mean, mean man. I blame him for the prolific use of the word "noob" on this server since he seems to attach it to everyone's name. Sure, we may be ground-grubbing peons in his eyes, but we're real, man! We're human!


Edit: If there are a number of people engaged in the discussion (more than two or three), my gut feeling is that it doesn't meet the rules of spam. As long as it is a discussion and doesn't delve into the realm of Barrens. That said, I would advise not doing anything silly like shouting "YOU DON'T HAVE POWER OVER ME!" or "I AM NOT SPAMMING, SO DEAL!" into the channel. In fact, any public response to the request would potentially cause further conflict. It might be best to whisper the person, explain that the rules state that you're not spamming, and then move on your merry way.

Chat is an optional channel. You join because you want to talk with other members. Just because an individual may not like the current topic at hand doesn't make spam and worthy of Barrens.

Again, my interpretation!

[Harmonic]

Sure, if you do not meet any of the bulleted definitions of spam, you could choose to remain in the channel and continue your discussion. I have the feel, however, that it might make you a bit of a dick then. I know that I'd probably feel compelled to leave!

Bingo.

You got it.

More often than not I stay in the channel, unless I know -for sure- I'm in the wrong, then I move it along. The problem is, and the one I have the hardest time with due to my paranoia, what happens if a GM disagrees? The problem is, the lack of definition (Because even those guidelines still allow for people to interpret some of the allowable things as bad) allows for this possibility.

To me, the guideline/rule says "Here's what you can do. By the way, if someone tells you to move it move it", which comes off as saying even if you are in the right or using the chat correctly you still have to move or face consequences.


Which again is why I think chat is frequently -dead-. No-one wants to talk in it because they will get in trouble for "spam", because no-one here is sure what the other will say is spam.

[Piroska]

What's the worse that can happen? A staff members steps in, informs you that your discussion is disruptive, and you move on. Even with tyrants like Krilari on the staff, it's exceedingly unlikely that any individual is going to be given repercussions or out-right banned for being wrong about the definition of spam. The only way you'd get into trouble in that situation is if you were rude in response or if you chose to be ridiculously persistent in arguing your viewpoint, to the point where you begin annoying the hell out of the Game Master.

The staff generally tends to be fairly level-headed in how they handle things. Nor are they ban-happy. Clarifying for you that you're spamming isn't a bad thing at all. It's just a thing. You comply, you shrug it off, and you go along your merry way.


Edit: I hope that I don't seem argumentative in having this discussion, Rensin! I'm really enjoying it. Feel free to tell me to shut my gob if it sounds like I'm being persistent or tedious.

[Harmonic]

*Snicker* Okaaay, I see your point. I am being silly about stuff, and let it get the best of me. I'll just go with the flow as always.

[Cressy]

Honestly, I made separate window for all the ooc chat channels. It really helps keep distractions away from me when I am doing.

[Grakor456]

I may be misreading the article entirely (and, at this point, it would probably be par for the course!), but I think that the statement is in regards to people attempting to police a channel when they lack the ability to do so.

Once upon a time, we had players taking Chat VERY seriously. Like, folks say hello and not even two lines go by before people start replying with just "Barrens" over and over. It was pretty awful, and why we told players not to police the channels.

[Piken]

I may be misreading the article entirely (and, at this point, it would probably be par for the course!), but I think that the statement is in regards to people attempting to police a channel when they lack the ability to do so.

Once upon a time, we had players taking Chat VERY seriously. Like, folks say hello and not even two lines go by before people start replying with just "Barrens" over and over. It was pretty awful, and why we told players not to police the channels.

That right there is why I feel the way I do about the whole "move to barrens" thing. That's why it's a big thing for me. Maybe I'm living in the past.. We're so old, Rensin! ;-;

[Harmonic]

I may be misreading the article entirely (and, at this point, it would probably be par for the course!), but I think that the statement is in regards to people attempting to police a channel when they lack the ability to do so.

Once upon a time, we had players taking Chat VERY seriously. Like, folks say hello and not even two lines go by before people start replying with just "Barrens" over and over. It was pretty awful, and why we told players not to police the channels.

That right there is why I feel the way I do about the whole "move to barrens" thing. That's why it's a big thing for me. Maybe I'm living in the past.. We're so old, Rensin! ;-;

Yeah, all in all I think it could be worse. Like is used to be, in Grak's example.