Timeline for Amending the Chatroom guidelines
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 9, 2018 at 7:00 | comment | added | Avyansh Katiyar |
I think the issue here is that, although it is not very clearly stated, these proposed guidelines are being targeted... fairly specifically at something that has been happening recently. The mods can deal with that one person directly, no?
|
|
| Sep 4, 2018 at 9:17 | comment | added | Martin - マーチン Mod | @user1271772 No absolutely not. And it shouldn't, but that's a story I won't go into detail in the comments. I am in the Periodic Table, so that I am pingable for Chemistry.se users, it defeats the purpose to mute that tab. I could ignore that user, sure, but I refuse to use that resort, as I think destructive behaviour should be dealt with head on. The 'donk' noise is a meta-meme, that's why I used it; if you don't like the wording, I could live without it. | |
| Sep 2, 2018 at 10:12 | comment | added | user1271772 | I have the chemistry chat open in one window and the QCSE chat open in another window and I've right-clicked the QCSE chat tab and pressed "mute tab" so I don't get notifications for that room. Wouldn't this suffice for your situation? Anyway I think "In chat, try to ping people only when answering a certain question, replying to a previous point, or directing something specific at someone. Try to use it sparingly and only when necessary." tells people they shouldn't excessively ping users and doesn't need to talk about the "donk" noise which some users might contest. | |
| Sep 2, 2018 at 10:06 | comment | added | Martin - マーチン Mod | About that donk noise; obviously I could change that to whatever, so this serves basically as a metaphor for any notification. I'm often in multiple rooms, most of them more important than or main one, and I'd like to get all the other notifications. There is no way to turn off the bell for a specific room; and I refuse to let a small groups of users dictate which notifications I get and which I don't. Also if someone complains about a specific user, I would have eventually have to deal with that, even if I had ignored that user previously. | |
| Sep 2, 2018 at 10:00 | comment | added | Martin - マーチン Mod | I was younger back then, and I had a lot less experience, also I wasn't a moderator, so there are certainly some shortcomings. These guidelines are a kind of house rules, and they are a lot less strict than in other rooms. They are in a way not necessary at all, especially since we have the new code of conduct, because that basically already determines what a user is not allowed to do. I could have pointed offending users to that (it's a lot less clear), waited to see if anything changes, and issued a suspension. | |
| Sep 2, 2018 at 8:39 | comment | added | user1271772 | i.e. they cannot say "it's your fault for not muting the tab" or "it's your right to ignore the question". The point is that the "donk" noise isn't actually the problem, and my modification removes the part about the "donk" and just explains guidelines for when it's appropriate to ping people (which was actually just words borrowed from Martin himself in his answer to the Meta from 2 years ago!). | |
| Sep 2, 2018 at 8:37 | comment | added | user1271772 | I see. Okay well I think it doesn't help to put in a code of conduct (or whatever it is that Martin gave articles (3) and (4) of.... for the record it is some document that even I didn't know existed) that the "donk" noise is too annoying for some people. I suspect the user you're talking about does not even know about articles (3) and (4) of this policy, and even if they did, they would criticise it by saying that annoyed users should turn off the "donk" noise. My suggestions after the "In summary" part, are to change it to something that's more bulletproof. | |
| Sep 2, 2018 at 8:34 | comment | added | orthocresol Mod | Please don't apologise about it! Yes, you are correct about that. Actually, the user has been spoken to several times, both in a nice manner and in less nice manners, and has also been suspended from chat once (by other moderators) - it doesn't seem to have changed his behaviour much. So, I'm personally not sure what effect this will have in the current case, but I think part of the intention is to have some rules for when this sort of thing happens again (people like these are very rare, but we've had more than one). | |
| Sep 2, 2018 at 8:30 | comment | added | orthocresol Mod | At the end of the day there is some common sense needed when moderating, both on the site, but especially so in chat where there is more "human" interaction between people. I think both you and Martin are right, but it depends on a case by case basis. [addendum: take all this with a pinch of salt, as it's just my opinion.] | |
| Sep 2, 2018 at 8:30 | comment | added | user1271772 | I see. I'm not aware of what's been going on or who this user is, so sorry for my ignorance. However all this is being targeted at one specific user? Is this really the way to handle it? How about sending the user a warning? The CoC even talks about the "warning" stage and then eventually the "banned from network" stage as the most extreme. | |
| Sep 2, 2018 at 8:28 | comment | added | orthocresol Mod | I think the issue here is that, although it is not very clearly stated, these proposed guidelines are being targeted... fairly specifically at something that has been happening recently. If you ignore somebody who is, in good faith, trying to converse with you, then I agree that it is certainly not nice. But on the flip side, if you have a user who is constantly bugging you for homework help - and this has happened, in a rather impolite way which has annoyed people on multiple SE sites - it is also not nice. | |
| Sep 2, 2018 at 1:42 | history | edited | user1271772 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 138 characters in body
|
| Sep 2, 2018 at 1:12 | history | answered | user1271772 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |