SmashWiki talk:IRC/Archive 1

I'd like to propose amending this to make it so that behavior on the SmashWiki IRC counts as SmashWiki behavior; i.e., PAs and other ban-worthy behavior there affect a user's status on the wiki itself. Miles (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering that it's called the SMASH WIKI IRC, I figured it was obvious that it was related to smash wiki. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet people can pretty much say whatever they want there and then use the argument that it's "off-site" and as such has no impact on their status on-wiki. Miles (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I support this idea mainly because users use IRC to avoid SmashWiki policy. Y462 (T • C • E ) 23:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I was going to organise the page a bit to include stuff like the Freenode Gateway (which is better than the Wikia one) and a short list of channels aside from #wikia-smashbros that SmashWiki users might find useful, but I'm also considering making it more serious so it's more like other SmashWiki pages (for example, at the moment it has far too many exclamation marks for my liking). Anyone have any strong objections to me making it more serious? PenguinofDeath 15:49, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind. It's actually too lighthearted, I think, but you may also want to put methods of joining the channel on the page other than the Freenode Gateway. The "IRC client" link goes to Wikipedia, which is not necessarily helpful since it's giving a "Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients"..... RAN1domchupunch!!! 18:32, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and serious'd it up. Hopefully I didn't take out anything actually important. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 15:51, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

The hey's goin' on?

"Notice -- Server is currently split, channel modes are limited"
"Due to a network split, you can not obtain channel operator status in a new channel at this time"
"The nickname "NickServ" does not exist."
Someone in IRC land caused a fail. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 20:35, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

That's just cos Freenode is currently experiencing a "net split", which is where one of their servers crashes and anyone currently attached to the network through that server gets disconnected, and no one who uses that server to connect can do so. Just try again in a few minutes - they tend not to last very long. PenguinofDeath 20:51, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't work?

I don't have an IRC client so I tried using the Wikia Gateway. But when I logged in, it says: "An error occurred. Communication socket already exists." What do I do?! movie138music - ^{( talk )} 15:36, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

What operating system/browser are you using? I don't really know anything about that error, but maybe this kind of info can help. Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy 15:41, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

If Wikia Gateway Doesn't Work

Try This. Be sure to put #wikia-smashbros for channels. If that doesn't work, I can't help you. DP99 (CTE) 15:46, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

update with new IRC

plocks Miles (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Dun. Toomai Glittershine 17:20, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

I can't connect! My browser just says "Firefox doesn't know how to open this address, because the protocol (irc) isn't associated with any program". Mr. Anon (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Try here. Put #sw for the channel. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 21:57, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

This really needs to stop

OK, at this point I am fed up. I am tired of Doc and ZS always getting into flame wars with PH and Megatron. There needs to be a further enforcement of civility from now on. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

Me? That was some time ago. I'm not fed up with PH (though i am for what he did to Doc). Everytime PH is insulting me, i just say "lol", because i know he is trolling. And i dont get into flame wars with Mega (never had IIRC). Zeldasmash (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

Certain users just need to stop trolling and others need to stop feeding the trolls. DoctorPain99 11:03, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

Sorry about that Zeldasmash. I'm not always on there, so that was my mistake. You're fine. Mr. Anon (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

Why...

...am I banned from #sw?--PSIWolf 06:56, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Er...

Am I banned forever? No, I am not impatient (I can always go to #dk), just asking.--PSIWolf13:30, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

No, I'll never hand out a permaban for a first time offense for a normally good faith user. Omega Tyrant 14:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

Anon's ruleset proposal

Bump. I am changing this to an official proposal. Should IRC Guidlines be changed to official rules? After a discussion here, I discovered that the current regulations are technically guidelines and therefore not strict rules. Mr. Anon (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

Problem, what are in the guidelines are written to be guidelines, and not written in ways to be rules. Example, how could "Many users idle on the IRC - that is, while they are connected, they aren't actively paying attention. Do not expect an immediate reply to a query." be a rule? You will need a proposal of actual rules instead of just changing the guidelines we have now to rules. Omega Tyrant 13:12, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

Good point, but things like that only need to be slightly changed. Here is what an actual ruleset would resemble (note that this is more of a sketch then a final rulesheet).

1. No Personal attacks. It is fine to point out mistakes in other users' conduct, but keep discussion civil. IRC behavior also counts towards wiki records so be warned.
2. No spamming. Spamming clogs up the channel and interupts legitimate discussion.
3. Excessive pinging is prohibited.
4. If a moderator chooses to end a discussion, their decision is final. Any problems with a Moderator's judgement should be discussed with them privately.
5. If multiple users find your behavior irritating - for example, imitating a user - then a moderator has the right to ask you to stop. Ignoring them can lead to future warnings.
6. Mods essentially must follow similar guidelines to SW:ADMIN. In other words, no using moderator powers for personal reasons, no excessive joke kicks/bans, etc. If a user has a concern with a way the moderator is acting, they should bring it up with them in a polite, private manner. If a user has a concern about a rule violation that occured when a mod was not around, they should keep a log of it and report it.

Guidelines

All current guidelines (that have not been turned into rules) still apply here.

Mr. Anon (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

These are all Wiki policies, and SW:IRC says that Wiki policies on IRC apply. Your rules won't change anything as they are adressing the wrong issue. The problem is the lack of enforcment of the rules, not the rules themselves. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 16:02, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

The problem is that the IRC "rules" are actually "guidelines", therefore don't have any actual power. Mr. Anon (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

The sentence you're referring to says "When in doubt, assume SmashWiki policies apply", which basically means if you're not sure of what's allowed, behave as you would on the SmashWiki. It is not saying SmashWiki policies are the "rules" of the IRC. Omega Tyrant 16:56, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

Um, considering this is a policy proposal and thus pretty important, I am bumping this so people can vote. Mr. Anon (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Support. HavocReaper 21:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Support - I do support, as I don't see much harm in a ruleset for the IRC. Blue Ninjakoopa^(Talk) 21:52, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Support well honestly IRC is pretty important to talk to others anyway, and wiki is... responsible i guessLucas-IV- Try to Talk 11:54, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Support Zeldasmash (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Oppose: Simply put, OT's is better. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 12:03, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Support While I like OT's, Anon's is less strict.-Ivy73 15:01, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Please read more carefully, as the opposite is actually true. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 17:56, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Strong Oppose Ruleset is too simplistic, is written in a mediocre manner, leaves out guidelines and moderator rules, leaves out many other needed rules, and assumes IRC to be SmashWiki, which as I pointed out before, is not true. Omega Tyrant 10:04, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

I have decided to drop my current ruleset due to negotiations on IRC with Omega Tyrant. Mr. Anon (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Alternate ruleset proposal

I figured I'll propose a ruleset, as I don't exactly agree with Anon's.

Guidelines

Here are the guidelines on how the chatroom is.

• The tone of the IRC is less formal than SmashWiki itself. Discussion is free to wander to non-Smash Bros. topics, does not adhere to SmashWiki's posting rules, and is the primary place to talk with others about online brawling.
• Many users idle on the IRC - that is, while they are connected, they aren't actively paying attention. Do not expect an immediate reply to a query.
• In the same vein, many users lurk on the IRC - that is, they listen, but don't say anything. There is no requirement to respond to another user, and often a line of "Hello everyone" will be ignored simply because no one feels it is necessary to respond to such a post.

Ruleset

Here are rules that all users on the chatroom must follow.

• Do not use the SmashWiki's IRC channel to personal attack or harass another user. Remember however, being called out for less than stellar behavior (such as someone calling your behavior idiotic after displaying behavior deserving of such), or being argued with for an argument you're a clear part of, do not constitute as being personally attacked or harassed. For what constitutes as a personal attack, read this.
  • Likewise to the above, do not provoke or "bait" another user to PA, harass, or troll you.
• While imitating other users can be allowed, you are expected to drop an imitation act if told to by a moderator, and continuing imitating a user in the chatroom after they asked you to stop will be considered harassment.
• Do not spam the channel.
• Do not excessively ping other users. If someone asks you not to ping them, and their IRC username has a clear shorthand name you can use to get their attention without pinging, you are expected to respect their wishes.
• If you have a problem with a specific user, and if what they did is not enough to warrant a ban from the channel, you are expected to use the ignore command on them (or if you lack the ignore command with the client you use, you are expected to manually ignore the user). Failure to do so, while continuing making a complaint about the user and/or causing/provoking problems with them, can result in disciplinary action being done to you. "I want to see if they're saying anything about me!" is not a valid excuse to not ignore them.
• Do not be disruptive to the channel. Being disruptive is defined here as behaving in a way that prevents conversation on the channel from happening. Two users arguing logically isn't considered disruptive, but a user insistently arguing an argument they lost in a non logical manner against the other users on the channel can be considered disruptive.
• If you try to bring up a topic to talk about, and other users show no interest in talking about it or even tell you that they're not interested, you are expected to drop it. If you keep bringing the topic back up, especially to other users who came on after the initial turn down of the topic, you will be kicked from the channel, with continued insistence being met with further punishment.
  • The above also applies to issues on Wiki. If other users wish to keep something on Wiki, you are expected to respect their wishes.
• There is no limit on what topics can be allowed. However, a moderator may at any time end a discussion if it gets out of hand, or ban a topic from future discussion if it is heavily prone to causing disruptive and non productive arguments.
• While you may use the channel to ask an admin to use their tools to help with something on the Wiki, do not bug them over issues that are not urgent. Such as, if a redirect has to be deleted so a page title can be moved to a lowercase title, do not expect immediate help. Likewise, if an admin does not help right away with something that is not urgent, do not say something derogatory about it.
  • Also per the above, when asking an admin to do something, be polite about it, and do not demand it.
• If brawling someone 1 on 1, keep discussion about the brawls in private chat. Talking about the brawls after they're finished with other users in the chatroom can be acceptable, but never use the chatroom to trash talk, brag, etc.
• While you may discuss a ban or other action of an admin with them on the IRC, you must be civil and rational about it. Harassing and/or insistently arguing non logically with them about it will be met with disciplinary action.
• If a user clearly violates any of the above, and a moderator is not on at the time or is afk, you must save a log of the incident to present when reporting. Otherwise, a moderator cannot take any action based on word of mouth alone.

Additional notes

Here are some addition notes regarding the rules.

• The SmashWiki IRC channel, while an extension of Smashwiki, is not considered to be SmashWiki itself. Misbehavior on the IRC channel will not be held against you on SmashWiki, and vice versa, as long as the incident surrounding the misbehavior does not spill over to the other or are not connected. As such, being banned from the IRC channel will not necessarily get you banned from the SmashWiki, and vice versa. However, getting banned from the IRC channel, then bringing up what got you banned for on the SmashWiki, will result in a ban from the latter as well.
• Being emotionally troubled or irritated is not a valid excuse to break any of the rules above.
• All action and enforcement done is at moderator's discretion.

Moderator ruleset

Here are additional rules moderators must follow.

• While the chatroom topic can be something nonsensical and unrelated to SmashWiki or Smash Bros., do not use the topic to advertise/promote something of yours or a friend's that is unrelated to SmashWiki.
  • Also do not use the topic to insult, poke fun at, or highlight a blunder from another user on the Wiki, regardless of if they frequent the chatroom or not.
• While joke kicks are acceptable if not excessive, do not joke ban users. This prevents users from being able to enter the chatroom despite lack of wrong doing, regardless of how minimal it is.
• When you ban a user, post their name on the banned user list on the IRC page, as well as the ban reason, and intended length.
• When doing any moderating action, or lack of, make use of your best judgment, and use powers responsibly.

So then, tell me your support, opposes, and any other comment below. Omega Tyrant 10:06, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Support

1. Support, these rules seem lenient enough.--Shaun's Wiji Dodo talk 10:11, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
2. Yup. Support.--PSIWolf (T • C • E) 10:14, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
3. Seems fine to me. No more spamming the channel though for the fun of it... :P ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 10:27, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
4. Support... i guess... but like forbid-7, i'm fine with it. don't ask why i support both Lucas-IV- Try to Talk 11:54, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
5. Support DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 12:03, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
6. Support Same as Lucas-IV Unknown the Hedgehog 14:44, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
7. Sorry Anon, OT is winning me over with his incomparable debate skills.-Ivy73 18:38, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
8. Support - it's logical in an unorthodox way, which is always a good way for a ruleset to be. --Pιʀaτзнυητзʀ (Talk•Contribs) 18:51, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
9. Big support, and when I mean big, I mean HUGE! His lecture interests me, even though it's long. I must say those are interesting changes. Per everyone above me, especially Omega Tyrant, who made this idea. --107.5.57.137 18:30, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
10. Support Good policy. Mr. Anon (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
11. Support The same as Anon. It's a good policy. Zeldasmash (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Comments

Also as another note, not all clients have an ignore option, so I don't think it's a good idea to force users to do something that they cannot. Mr. Anon (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Explain Anon how my ruleset "doesn't fix any of the problems" despite it covering every rule you brought up plus more. If my ruleset "doesn't fix any of the problems", then your ruleset does not as well. Also, complication is not a bad thing, I would argue that your ruleset is far too simple. As for not all clients have ignore, please provide proof of that, and in the case there is a client that lacks it, the user should get a new client if the situation where the ignore rule applies (which I think you should reread). Omega Tyrant 22:32, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

I can't use ignore on Wiinet IRC, which I use more than chatzilla, and don't think can be changed. Forbidden7 22:47, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Many in-browser clients also do not support ignore. Some users, (me, Forbidden7, and The Exterminator to name a few) simply can't be on a computer all the time, and it is impossible to "get a new client if the situation where the ignore rule applies." You shouldn't rely on users to be able to do that. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 22:50, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

If that's the case, should the situation in the rule rise up, either start using the other clients more (or come on less when you can't use those clients), suck it up and be civil with the user you're having problems with, or just manually ignore them (yes, you can ignore users you have problems with while being able to see what they say). Your client not supporting ignore will not be an excuse for excessive complaining about a user who isn't being problematic to the channel and therefore not ban worthy. Omega Tyrant 22:59, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Then change the policy proposal's references to "the ignore command" to "ignore the user". That way, those who can't/don't feel like using the ignore command have a clear, defined sense of what they are expected to do. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 23:04, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

I'll do that. Omega Tyrant 23:10, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

"covering every rule you brought up plus more." except it doesnt. SW:NPA in your ruleset has been reduced to a rule with exceptions based on subjective conditions. Far more emphasis is placed on users who "don't deal with insults well" than attackers themselves. The reason I put up my ruleset in the first place is to bring an end to the flame wars between certain users on this wiki (they have ended for now, but I wanted to prevent any future flame wars from happening). Your ruleset is no different from your current kicking/banning policy, which has not stopped the "wars" at all. I'm don't think this was your intention, but it seemed like you were more lenient on some users than others, which would only cause the users who felt unfairly treated take matters into their own hands even more.

The crux of this matter lies in how your ruleset deals with Personal Attacks. Personal attacks do not belong in any conversation, and whether someone "deserved" it or not is subjective, and should not be up to a single person to decide. It is one thing to point out a behavioral flaw, but that is different from a true personal attack. Saying "you're being an idiot" or "don't be stupid" is a comment on the post, not the user. It implies that the user is normally not an "idiot", but only would appear to be just judging by the post in question. However, calling someone a "fucking moron" is quite different, as it is a direct insult on the person, and users profanity specifically designed to anger the user. This type of comment has been condoned on IRC for far too long, and frankly, your ruleset doesn't do anything about it.

Regarding the users in question, when they were on their flame wars on IRC, one always got kicked/banned while the other one always got free. However, when they decided to bring their flaming to SmashWiki, they were both warned then blocked almost immediately. It is one thing to say that the responder to a troll is as bad as the troll, or even that it is worse than the troll, but to say that it deserves punishment, while trolling does not?

In short, Omega Tyrant, your rules are going to bring no change to what goes on on IRC, other than making the other mods follow your own principles. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Your argument rests on that my rule lets some PAs go by. But it is apparent you did not read it enough.

My rule states Do not use the SmashWiki's IRC channel to personal attack or harass another user. Remember however, being called out for less than stellar behavior (such as someone calling you an idiot after displaying behavior deserving of such), or being argued with for an argument you're a clear part of, do not constitute as being personally attacked or harassed.

In the rule, there are no so called "exceptions". Rather a clarification on what constitutes a PA and what doesn't. Anything that may be deemed an insult or a call out on one's actions is not a personal attack. The rule doesn't "condone" a PA, but rather simply tells you any little thing someone may say that offends you is not a PA. Your rule is flawed, as it basically just says "no PAs", which will allow users to be claimed they were PA'd, in instances they were not.

As for your claim "no different from your current kicking/banning policy", you never listened to what I told you before, did you? And how do you know how exactly I operate for all the past year, when you been on IRC for a couple of months? Simply put, I was extremely lenient before, due to there being no actual ruleset to enforce, and only kicked/banned when I deemed a user highly disruptive to the channel. Of users I banned, only Doc King and PSIWolf came up, when many other users violated what I have in this ruleset. If this was how I kicked and banned users, there would be a hell of a lot more users getting banned (such as for example, you, Mega, and the PH as you feel the need to keep bringing up).

The fact remains, my ruleset covers everything yours does (including the dreaded PAs), and so, so much more. If I were to enforce this ruleset, excessive PAs will be dealt with, and it is fallacious for you to assume that things of the past will render a future ruleset ineffective, when said ruleset was designed to deal with those problems of the past.

As for Doc King and PH drama, another reason why Doc King end up getting the ban when PH didn't? Simply put, PH listened the times when I warned him to stop or kicked him (yes, I have kicked PH before and verbally warned him, despite you guys thinking I did absolutely nothing against him), while Doc King did not. In fact, there was actually only one time Doc King got banned from interaction with PH, and that was when he kept posting at PH when I purged the channel for everyone to drop the discussion that was going on. Anyone, regardless of who it was, that kept posting after the purge would have gotten banned. And before Doc King was banned, he had three warning kicks, as well as me verbally telling him to stop, but Doc King did not listen, continuing to disrupt the channel, and was therefore banned. As such, Doc King was never banned for being "troll bait" as you seem to believe. But you know what? Any action or lack of action by me is completely irrelevant to the ruleset proposal. This ruleset is about how things will be handle in the future, not how things were handled in the past. Omega Tyrant 01:23, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

You are not really including all forms of Personal attacks. You are really redefining the term. A Personal Attack is exactly what it sounds like - an attack on the person itself. As I said, there is a very large difference between "you are acting like an idiot" and "you are an idiot". I do not think you realize that, OT.

As for the Doc/PH argument, you never told me you had warned PH also. From our conversations on IRC, it seemed like you were letting PH go unwarned for his behavior. That said, I appologise, but my oppinion on "person comments" (if that is the term you would prefer), then my point stands. Mr. Anon (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Very well then, I'll revise the PA rule. Omega Tyrant 04:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

However, I will stand by my point that calling someone an "idiot" is not necessarily a personal attack, especially if you read the section linked to in the personal attack rule. Omega Tyrant 05:15, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

It's better, but still not exactly clear. I'm moving my vote to neutral, but I still repeat that there is a difference between saying "You're being an idiot" and "You are an idiot" that I am not sure you understand. I think one should be considered a personal attack while the other is merely a behavioral rule (I believe this has been an unwritten rule on the wiki for quite some time as well) Mr. Anon (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

List one user who has been recently warned or blocked for calling a user and idiot or something of the like. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 18:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

What's not clear about it? It says do not use IRC to personal attack or harass, provides a small example of something that is not a personal attack or harassment, and provides a link to what can be considered personal attacks. Yours on the other hand, just says no personal attacks and fallaciously threatens that IRC behavior will be held against you on Wiki. Quite honestly, my NPA rule is clearer than yours. Omega Tyrant 09:17, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Omega Tyrant, you wanted a suggestion for a rule change, here is one. Can you please at least read my suggestion? Mr. Anon (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

I already told you I do not see the problem with the NPA rule how it is currently written. Omega Tyrant 11:38, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

You didn't address my point though. I said that there was a clear difference between saying "you are an idiot" and "you are being an idiot" that I do not think you understand. Mr. Anon (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Your point is irrelevant, as I changed the wording you initially had such a large problem with (the rule references your behavior being called idiotic, not you being called an idiot), which you apparently did not read when I made the revision earlier. Omega Tyrant 13:07, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Ah, my mistake. I appologize. Mr. Anon (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Since this policy has almost unanimous support, I move for this to be passed. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 13:51, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

I'll give it til the end of the day, in case anyone has a serious opposition. Omega Tyrant 14:29, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Operating system question.

Mac OS X cannot find IRC URL right. ..... PSI within 12:27, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

It's a problem with your browser, not your OS. Try a different browser or try Special:WebChat. Toomai Glittershine The Riotous 12:28, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Ruleset

I would argue that the IRC needs no ruleset except for the following:

The SmashWiki IRC channel is an extension of SmashWiki itself, and therefore all of the site's rules apply.

Is this somehow insufficient? Miles (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

I don't believe that it is insufficient. The problem honestly does not lie in the policy, but the ops themselves. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 18:20, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Support, though things like excessive spamming/pinging should also be covered. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Strong oppose IRC is a different entity from the SmashWiki, and therefore rules that work on one will not necessarily transfer well to the other. Omega Tyrant 22:25, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Explain. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

SW:NOT has no place being a rule on IRC, and just how is SW:SIGN going to be enforced? Omega Tyrant 10:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

He likely just meant rules which apply to IRC, like SW:NPA. Oh...well then he needs to change "all" to "those that apply to the IRC", and list the rules that apply. Forbidden7 10:30, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

And the IRC need more rules than a vague "No personal attacks" rule. Omega Tyrant 10:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Is there a problem you see with SW:NPA? Mr. Anon (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

SW:NPA is written for a Wiki, not for a chatroom. Omega Tyrant 05:18, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

If I may take a moment and just say

a) You guys take this too seriously seeing as there's less than fifteen people that have used this thing more than once, and only about ten different people voted. As opposed to the browser poll got like >50 votes. :O.
c) The two rulesets are too similar except to the point where Tyrant gave more rules out of other, less minor concerns. So are more rules > less rules?
∆) OT, with your ruleset, the topics wouldn't be fun anymore O_O.
Note: knowing myself this whole response can be completely off/I'm missing something, kindly point it out if I am. HavocReaper 16:46, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

I agree....mostly. Forbidden7 PK AWESOME! 16:48, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

A) People complain about lack of ruleset, and I do not agree with Anon's ruleset, so I created my own. I believe mine is superior enough to where I will argue as needed. A ruleset is also something to not be taken lightly.

B) My ruleset forbids specific actions, where Anon's just throws on a lazy blanket rule that can punish innocent users while letting guilty users go away innocent, as well as having arbitrary means of enforcement.

C) Topic rule only bans moderators from using the topic to advertise/promote something of theirs or a friend's. Topics can still be senseless crap they usually are. Omega Tyrant 17:13, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

After all this is done...

...archiving will be neccesary. Forbidden7 PK AWESOME! 19:39, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

Per. --107.5.57.137 21:03, 20 July 2011 (EDT)