Forum:Chat rules/Archive

Forums: Index > Chat discussion > Archive

Archive

Caps

Corrections

Some of these need to be reworded a bit, is it possible to open this page to editing to correct some typos? For example "Please do not use of all-caps." could be something like "Please do not use all-caps" or "Please do not make use of all-caps". Tyc 04:42, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

All-caps isn't correct to begin with. Better just say "Avoid sentences or phrases that would contain only capital letters". -- Denmax (talk|contributions|sandbox) 04:46, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Use of all-caps

In the chatroom, there has been a sentence here or there that is completely in capital letters. Right now the rule for all-caps are, 'Please do not use of all-caps'. Now obviously this isn't gramatically correct, but what it means is, no caps. Period. This rule is broken all the time by many different people, including other mods. Some get a warning and some are ignored. I think we should re-word this rule and make it specific in what kinds of all-caps sentences it does not permit. Maybe it should go something like, 'Please do not make excessive, hurtful or angry use of all-capital sentences.' If you don't take my word that the rule is very loosely enforced, I do have some images of this happening. If you really need to see them, please ask me to show them. Thank you in advance for responding. PunchinPaul 02:24, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Report mods who use all-caps and they will be removed of mod rights. –Throwawaytv 19:02, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Caps rule

This is enforced far too strictly, one line of caps shouldn't be enough to warrant a warning as it seems to be now. Several lines of ALL CAPS can come under spam and therefore a warning/ban can be issued.      19:36, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

• When it is grammatically correct to do so. Such as for abbreviations or proper names(UNIX, TCP/IP, etc).
• If it is being used to emphasize one or two important words in a sentence.

EquZephyr 00:01, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

This is sort of my take on it. One word in caps, followed by either an apology or a gentle warning and an apology I do fine with. More than one word in caps receives a firmer warning, and it goes up from there. --Kinrah 20:27, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

One or two words in all caps doesn't deserve a warning unless someone has a habit of doing it on a very regular basis for no good reason. That said, ultimately, when it comes down to it, there are really only two cases where all caps should be used:

1. When it is grammatically correct to do so. Such as for abbreviations or proper names(UNIX, TCP/IP, etc).
2. If it is being used to emphasize one or two important words in a sentence.

EquZephyr 00:01, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Anger and upsetness

"If saying or doing something will make others upset or angry, then it's best that you avoid such behavior. This includes stating personal affiliations and beliefs. When requested to drop the subject, drop the subject."

I feel this is a bit too vaguely worded and prone to abuse. While we should avoid making others angry, sometimes if people are irritable they can get angry about anything. If both parties get angry it doesn't become obvious who is the cause of the problem.

To summarize a recent event: I proposed an idea about making a page about instances where the mane 6 (wielders of the Elements of Harmony) have hypocritically acted contrary to the element they represent. In response I was told that my ideas are not needed on this wiki.

This is where interpretation becomes key. Am I at fault for proposing an idea about a new page that upsets someone? Or is someone at fault for demeaning my ideas and calling me unnecessary?

This obviously has little to do with a personal affiliation or a personal belief. The most personal I could think is my opinion that there is subjectivity to concepts like 'need' and 'necessity'.

I think when rules are vague like this, it requires too much interpretation (and gives too much freedom) to moderators to abuse that power. This relates to the following section. +y@talk 07:09, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

Were you banned? No? Then are you complaining about a theoretical situation?

Please use the forum for wiki discussion. The chatroom is for socializing. Whoever spoke to you in the chatroom was out of line for not telling you this.

And finally, bans aren't mandatory. You don't have to ban anyone. Why are you looking for someone to ban? Was the discussion getting out of hand? Or are you just theoretically saying you or someone else should have been banned? –Throwawaytv 13:49, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

Discretion and unbanning procedure

"Bans are at the full discretion of the chat moderators."

I don't like this at all. 'Partial discretion' I would understand, since people must interpret rules and how they apply to situations... but 'full'? That makes it sound like they can do whatever they like without accountability. Is that the case?

This ties into another problem: how to appeal bans:

"Please contact the mod who banned you on their talk page and request to be unbanned."

I agree that this should always be the first step in any ban appeal. Users should always attempt to clarify what the problem is and clarify the reason for the ban with the banner (or ask for a reason if it was unspecified).

But shouldn't there be an additional step listed? If a chat moderator is being abusive (or a chatter thinks so) I think there should be additional steps a user can make if a moderator is not co-operative, refuses to explain, or doesn't phrase their ban within context of the rules where it seems justified.

I think there should be another step up in authority to take in those instances. For example, perhaps a SysOp or a Bureaucrat (or a council of them) could be designated as "chad mod co-ordinator" and take on the responsibility about hearing appeals or complaints regarding CM behaviours. +y@talk 07:09, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "partial discretion", "full" is used for emphasis. Either something is at your discretion or not.

If a chat mod is being abusive they will be stripped of mod rights, same as admins or bureaucrats. The idea that we need a power structure is ridiculous and is exactly the sort of thing that leads to petty politics, abuse, and harassment.

Unspecified bans may be lifted, it's right there on the page with the rest of the chat rules. –Throwawaytv 13:44, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

Caps rule

Oh god, me putting this up? We've all seen it coming though. We have people who like to spam caps- and I don't mean do it once or twice a day to prove a point, I mean that every time they talk (or at least every other sentence) is in ALL caps. Now, I don't know if this bothers the rest of you, but it certainly bothers me. I wanted opinions on perhaps setting a more percise limit on how much they can be used before they're abused? Not a vote here, rather a throw your opinion down and let's talk about this, because I've noticed over the last few weeks it keeps getting worse and worse.

Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 01:00, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Strong support I hate CAPS LOCK. The Americanized Brony01:01, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

That's not really a reason more than it is a personal gripe. Is there any other reason you think caps lock should be disallowed, or is it just a matter of disliking it?      08:00, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Right now it's just a matter of disliking it. Caps lock becomes annoying after a while. The Americanized Brony13:57, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral I do admit, Caps can be a bit spam like but I have to go neutral. I use caps a lot, mostly for comedic purposes ( I try not to spam) but well I am going to go neutral for now since I'm a cap user Professor Pickles (평화) --"War has changed." 06:56, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Could've sworn this was already in the rules. Definitely put a limit on it. I think with the chat guidelines we prefer to make it mostly up to moderator discretion/agreement, so we just need to add caps to the list of stuff that shouldn't be done excessively. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 07:02, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

I swore it was too, but seemingly it's not here any more, which is odd Chat_rules#Policies      07:59, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we just make an all-encompassing spam rule so moderators don't have to explain the difference between what's excessive and not excessive...  Food Foodbandlt  10:41, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose We have already toned down on the amount of caps usage in the chat in the past, I think it's fine as it is currently. -- Ozuzanna (Talk) 14:37, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Weak oppose - in my opinion, chat is fine with the current amount of caps I see. Caps are sometimes needed to express excitement, anger or even to use onomatopoeias. However, I understand the point that sometimes, excessive caps can be annoying to the users of chat. So, the amount needs to be watched, but certainly not discouraged all together. Cpt R Dashful

Oppose Per Oz and Dashful.  http://i.imgur.com/qJENjks.gifﾚ∆ㄅhttp://i.imgur.com/rtVOpOl.png 22:45, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Comment Even if the current level is fine, it needs to be in the rules so that when someone uses an excessive amount, which is disruptive to the chat, they can be warned/punished accordingly. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 01:21, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Could it somewhat be covered under the existing spam rule?      08:25, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

We actually have no spam rule (other than a reason to kick someone).  Food Foodbandlt  10:48, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Then we really need one, if someone floods up the chat then gets banned, they can bring up the point that we have no rule against it, and they would have perfect reason to be unbanned      16:59, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Per Ozuzanna. TheUltimateH4M ^Talk 10:29, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that the rules are a bit wacko. The Americanized Brony16:17, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Well that's awfully specific of you. Mind telling us how they are "wacko" instead of just saying it in an nonconstructive manner, because you just want us to reply to you about it? http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/274/6/d/6d9b956b91e0c92565e2a90a818bee37-d5gij3r.gifAppleJon-Talk 18:46, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

I ment to say that rules that don't exist have been enforced for months. That's a bit strange. The Americanized Brony19:11, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - The consensus here is not conclusive enough to push through with adding an anti-caps rule.      17:05, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Spam rule

Since the caps rule seems to be unbelievably popular above, what does everybody think of a blanket-rule for spam? Something simple along the lines of "Do not spam the chat", for instance.  Food Foodbandlt  03:47, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Strong support since I had no idea there actually wasn't one. http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/274/6/d/6d9b956b91e0c92565e2a90a818bee37-d5gij3r.gifAppleJon-Talk 04:20, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support Sure, spam is bad. The Americanized Brony17:50, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Strong support Yes, spamming is a very bad thing. It floods chat. I can't actually believe that this isn't a rule. It should be there. (っ◕‿◕)っ ♥ ☂ᗩᒪḰ℃◎ᾔ⊥ґї♭ṧ €∂ї☂¢øυᾔт 19:01, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Strong support I don't see why we didn't have this rule before http://i.imgur.com/TF4KO7d.pngAnti Bully Ranger ^Talk? http://i.imgur.com/0rJMjWz.png

 06:19, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Strong support I can tell you that I have experience in seeing bad behaviour in people. When it comes to spamming, That annoys me a lot. I would love to have a rule saying do not spam in chat mainly because it keeps the bad people away from the good people Leave this to CoolioJulio (talk) 16:08, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Strong support Somehow I didn't know this was a rule yet...  Aerostar http://i.imgur.com/zINUa81.gif

Comment By the way, spamming emotes and random letters floods chat, which causes computers to lag. From my experiences in chat, no one likes lag. So to lower the risk of lag, we should put a rule in saying in basic words, "No spamming in chat," or, in a more complicated way, "Spamming is prohibited in chat at all times." (っ◕‿◕)っ ♥ ☂ᗩᒪḰ℃◎ᾔ⊥ґї♭ṧ €∂ї☂¢øυᾔт 00:07, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that sort of what this is?  Food Foodbandlt  02:32, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot. xD (っ◕‿◕)っ ♥ ☂ᗩᒪḰ℃◎ᾔ⊥ґї♭ṧ €∂ї☂¢øυᾔт 19:50, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Comment Do not flood the chat with emoticons or otherwise. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 02:39, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

A specific rule, yes. The point of this section was to make a more general rule that can be used for all forms of spam, and not just a specific kind.  Food Foodbandlt  02:40, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

Then just reword that rule to fit all accounts of it. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 02:42, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

Hence the discussion.  Food Foodbandlt  02:44, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

... Touche. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 02:45, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - The consensus here is to re-affirm the anti-spam rule. I've re-worded an existing emoticon-specific anti-spam rule to be more general as so, if anyone feels they can improve on that, please do so.      17:05, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Inappropriate Content

The chat rules state not: Post about, link or otherwise share any content (censored or uncensored) in the main chat that is one or more of: Material that contains swearing. Links to videos that contain swearing are permitted but should be accompanied by a notice saying so Sexual, Gore, Otherwise NSFW material. There has been recent confusion, however, about this. An example being the .MOVs being referenced and their referencing causing great discouragement while other references to inappropriate things aren't discouraged. Some are questioning why is so. There are plenty of references to inappropriate things but the main example is video games. M-rated Video games with inappropriate content such as the Cod franchise, the Halo franchise, the Grand Theft Auto franchise, and Team Fortress 2 are constantly referenced to and are sometimes topics of discussion. Even two trusted users (Callofduty4 and TheUltimateH4M) have usernames referring to M-rated video games. We need to clarify once and for all what is appropriate and what is not appropriate for the chat so there is no more confusion. This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 04:50, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

.MOV has never been allowed to be reference here as long as I've been a part of this wiki. I think it has more to do with the fact that is directly pony related, while the other things are more broad. There is more to Halo, cod, and GTA than just bad things that shouldn't be talked about (albeit, sometimes not much more). the .MOVs are directly related to ponies, as are things like the CupCakes and Rainbow Factory Fanfics. Things that are directly pony related are far more damaging than passing mentions of TF2 or Cod, which do cover other things. Besides, we're never going to get a chat where that stuff isn't mentioned- However, grimdark pony related things should stay away. I believe in my opinion that is where the line is. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 05:22, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the .MOVs should never be mentioned on chat. There is, however, too much lenience on M rated video games and R rated movies in general as they have gore, sexual content, and swearing. We should be stricter on the posting of these topics because of the innapropriate content in the games/movies. This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 20:51, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

My belief is, if you aren't describing the innapropriate content in detail, (e.g. talking about a trap from one of the Saw films) there is zero harm in mentioning and speaking about a more mature movie, video game, book, etc. Discussing it in general detail shouldn't be stopped. I mean, should I not be able to talk about a classic novel like The Shining because its violence and frequent strong language? Or possibly a very good song that is heavy on the swearing? http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/274/6/d/6d9b956b91e0c92565e2a90a818bee37-d5gij3r.gifAppleJon-Talk

The rules state to not post about material that contains swearing, gore, or sexual content regardless if it is good or a classic piece of media. This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 23:24, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Those were purely examples. Regardless, there's always been an unwritten amendment to this rule to warn first or keep the amount of inappropriate content in the posted material at a minimum. I refuse to believe we must keep ourselves 100% kid-friendly because of the subject of our wiki. http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/274/6/d/6d9b956b91e0c92565e2a90a818bee37-d5gij3r.gifAppleJon-Talk

Strong oppose Limiting discussion is never a good idea. Just because the topic during a conversation might be a mature game like BioShock or a film like A Clockwork Orange doesn't mean we should not be allowed to talk about it just because they happen to have mature content in them. There have been no problems talking about mature topics and we don't need to make it a problem. I completely agree with Jon here, I think this is ridiculous, no user should have to be warned just because they talked about GTA. --ﾚ∆ㄅ 22:16, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

Like Jon stated, games like GTA contain mature material but are not entirely centered on inappropriate content. TheUltimateH4M ^Talk 23:17, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

What are you voting on lol? I was fairly sure this was just discussion to find out where we stand. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 20:30, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Las was just showing general opposition to putting extra restrictions on. Technically Support and Oppose are not voting methods in the real world, but here they are. http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/274/6/d/6d9b956b91e0c92565e2a90a818bee37-d5gij3r.gifAppleJon-Talk 20:39, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

There is clear opposition for restricting the mentioning of mature content on the chat even though the rules technically state that this is not allowed. I suggest we change the rules in order to clarify our policies once and for all. We need to decide what content is allowed, how much in depth into the content is permitted, how much blood are we going to allow, and what our policy concerning swearing in songs should be. If there is anything else that needs to be adressed now is the time to do so. This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 03:33, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

"Do not link or reference content (such as videos, pictures, etc.) that it excessively violent, high in sexual content, or anything that may offend users. Give a "heads-up" as may needed for the following transmissions of media: songs with swearing, or any other content that some may want to not view, even if it complies with the rules."

It's quite lengthy but it is the rule we follow and enforce this very day. http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/274/6/d/6d9b956b91e0c92565e2a90a818bee37-d5gij3r.gifAppleJon-Talk

Time to put my statement in this since Ugly and I began this discussion. Stuff say like Cupcakes or the MOV series shouldn't be mention since they go over the top and combining MLP and something not safe for work although I love the .MOV series will unplease others. However, say talking about a book, video game, or movie should be fine as long as someone dosen't go into major details. For example, I think that talking about say a game like Grand Theft Auto should be fine as long as you don't go into major details. Saying something simple like the game is fun is alright. Besides, nobody dosen't have an issue when I mention such video games. Team fortress 2? No problem. Halo? No Problem. Carl on Duty? No Problem. The same can be said to movies. So to summarize everything I said. I say it's fine to mention such things as long as you don't go into major details such as describe what happens in a cutscene or link something that people will not find enjoyable. Professor Pickles (평화) --"War has changed." 08:38, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Closed The discussions seems to have gone in the direction of not restricting what people can talk about to absolutely kid-safe topics, and I have modified one of the chat rules in such a way to reflect the discussion here. Still this is an area where common sense really should prevail to stop people going overboard.      23:24, August 27, 2013 (UTC)

Advertising

I noticed there's nothing stated in the rules about advertising (petitions, websites, over-advertisment of blogs, other wikis, etc). It would only seem logical to have this on there. Thoughts? TheUltimateH4M ^Talk 23:18, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support Advertising can get annoying, I think we should have a rule against it. http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/037/7/c/pinkie_pie_battle_sprite_1_by_saikar-d4ox6qn.gifAutumoasis ^talk  23:56, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't mind the linking of blogs and petitions as long as they aren't being over-advertised. --ﾚ∆ㄅ 23:57, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

I actually thought it WAS a rule, yeah, we should instate this. Be more lenient on blogs and ON-WIKI petitions like las suggests, but for issues not pertaining to this chat and wiki we need to eliminate and prevent. http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/274/6/d/6d9b956b91e0c92565e2a90a818bee37-d5gij3r.gifAppleJon-Talk 02:57, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

Support I completely support. Advertising is quite common, and can be irritating at times, as Autumoasis said. OddThomasguy _Talkhttp://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/301/5/d/rarity___glamorous_and_beautiful_by_mysteriouskaos-d5j0wml.png 05:25, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

Support I have been bothered by many people who advertised, along with other people in chat, so I support this.  http://i.imgur.com/1tsWYY6.png Filly Please  21:02, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Per Filly, also does this rule also extend to advertising in private messages? Because I'm bothered with it a whole lot. CelestiaOfEquestria 21:26, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if someone is advertising via PM they can be reported to a mod/admin and be warned/punished accordingly. TheUltimateH4M ^Talk 22:07, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Chat is a place to talk and discuss, not promote whatever you want and bug people about it. http://i.imgur.com/MYvPRBp.gif Meet Your Overlord ^{Discuss Read Admire}http://i.imgur.com/noSKLSS.gif22:03, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

Strong support - Yes, definitely. User:ShadowLurker343/Sig 22:56, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

Support I do admit, advertising something that people find no interest in does get a bit bothering. With the fact that someone keeps telling me to support energy hogs, I think I gotta support. Professor Pickles (평화) --"War has changed." 08:30, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Closed clear unanimous support, a rule against advertising has been added.      23:27, August 27, 2013 (UTC)

Clop Fanfics and Images (on main chat)

Title says it all, mostly. I've seen the "no clop stuff" rule being used (once on chat and people complaining about Zeiluse in the past) without it even existing so I think it should be written down. The Americanized Brony17:59, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Anything related to that is actually a violation of Wikia's ToU (I've asked in the past pertaining to something else), which is already written.  Food Foodbandlt  18:36, March 15, 2013 (UTC

I forgot to say "talking about them" as well. The Americanized Brony20:54, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

"Post or transmit any content that is obscene, pornographic, abusive, offensive, profane, or otherwise violates any law or right of any third party, or content that contains homophobia, ethnic slurs, religious intolerance, or encourages criminal conduct;"

Covered by the ToU, which is already stated on Chat rules.  Food Foodbandlt  21:48, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The ToU only covers posting and transmitting such content. That is why you guys have the rule Do not talk about creepypastas or gorefics in order to furthur compensate. However, if I went into chat and said "I like Banned From Equestria (Daily), my favorite part was the Rainbow Dash scene! I found the difficulty to unlock it to be a nice spin on things." would you guys send me a warning when there is no rule to specifically say I can't talk about porn? -- Abcron (talk) 03:42, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Talking about it in the chat is very effectively transmitting a message through one of the services Wikia offers. Also, welcome from the FL Wiki!  Food Foodbandlt  03:55, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thanks for the warm welcome Food!

The wikia terms of use, which don't allow users to "Post or transmit any content that is obscene, pornographic, abusive, offensive, profane, [...]", can be interpreted very restrictively, or they can be interpreted very permissively. As such, it is the responsibility of this wiki to better clearly define it for the users who come here. Not to mention that you can still talk about porn without naming anything specifically. Such as when one person says "I (read a fanfic/saw an image/watched a video) about Rainbow Dash, Twilight Sparkle, and a human having sex..." prompting others to mention and discuss more porn in a similar fashion. When the chat rules were made, someone must have decided that the rule Do not talk about creepypastas or gorefics would be a valid addition that would better help define what is and what is not allowed, and I beleive that following the same logic, a rule for discussing porn (transmission or no transmission) should be made as well. -- Abcron (talk) 09:59, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Actually I was the one that got that rule through not too long ago. The Americanized Brony17:32, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

I just don't feel that it's enough of a problem to need to explicitly state that they're not allowed. On a side note, I'm starting to feel like we need a page of general rules and a page of ways to interpret the general rules for the moderators or something. The rules are made general and open to interpretation for a reason, which is to allow moderators more freedom when moderating the chat with what is and isn't allowed. As long as all moderators have the same (or a similar) understanding of the general rules, then I suppose we'll be golden.

I still feel that both of these rules still fall under ToU, which I notice Bobogoobo has also pointed out on the forum Juan linked, but if you feel that they will benefit the chat in some way, why not?  Food Foodbandlt  12:33, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

My interpretation was that making reference to that type of material falls under transmitting inappropriate content, but I can see how that could be argued against. We do also say that sexual content is prohibited right in the first section of our guidelines, and that extends to chat. I suppose it can't hurt to be a little more explicit in what is not allowed, but it's not necessary if it's already covered under something else. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 17:58, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

We should still add it as people are more likely to read the chat rules than to read the ToU. The Americanized Brony04:04, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Non-existing chat rules

Induced depressive chat atmosphere

Lately there has been a lot of chat depression and uncomforting atmosphere induction by certain individuals. People have been complaining and noticing this, and it seems that a lot of people are against such dark and dull atmosphere enveloping the chat. So I thought it would be a good idea to propose this rule so we do not have to deal with such behavior again, as it would be against the chat rules.

I have something along the long the lines of this so far:

"Do not say things which are likely to give the chat a dull and uncomforting atmosphere. If you're going to say something which might do such details, then please keep it to yourself. No one wants to be put down or made depressive as a result of induced depression or sadness. This mainly includes self demeaning. The chat is not a therapy for such things, it's easy for things like that to become mutual and begin repelling people away."

Of course it's only really a problem if it happens at least once every day or a few times in a day. If it's just a one-off, then it should be dismissed. If it's a current global sensation all over the media, then that should be dismissed too.

Thoughts? http://i.imgur.com/B0lGGoQ.gifOz   22:33, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

It has my support as long as there is some kind of way to distinguish what is to be considered foul as all of us are individuals. This would of course be solved by speaking of such things in pm. So things that are sad are no longer allowed to be stated out loud in the main chat?

SamuliS (talk) 22:35, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Strong support It is kind of annoying to see the chat continually used as a venting source. This rule would definitely have a positive effect on chat. http://i.imgur.com/gsLKOdC.png MLPhttp://i.imgur.com/1w0MRE0.png  ITBhttp://i.imgur.com/K1gQ7PD.png ImTheBrony (talk) 22:37, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Support Seeings as the minor faults are getting polished I support this new rule suggestion.

SamuliS (talk) 22:43, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Overwhelming Support Sounds really good The Americanized Brony22:46, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

I think stating the rule could go a little more overall. In some manner like "Don't discuss things that may make other users feel uneasy, in the main chat."

SamuliS (talk) 22:50, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Slightly reworded and added to it. Of course it doesn't mean it's the final thing yet, just something I came up with fast. http://i.imgur.com/B0lGGoQ.gifOz   22:53, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Look, I know the chat can get a little gloomy when people bring up saddening things happening to them or a friend or in general. We have had some tragic things happen around the world during this year, like the Colorado Theater shooting, or the Sandy Hook massacre, or even just something that may have personally happened to users. Of course, we should try and steer topics away and change the subject to avoid complete sorrow in the chat, but, that of course doesn't mean heavily reduce all sadness in the chat, no matter what. You can't just have everyone be happy and jolly or else they could get the kick. Sometimes people have really no one else to talk to. I do agree we should stop these sort of things from getting out of hand and affecting mostly everyone in the chat and drags on for days or weeks, that should be taken to PM if they need to vent like that, but it isn't good however to try and eliminate discussion of gloomy topics completley. I would agree with Sam on all of this, if it can be used properly, it could be a good or at least fair rule, and I would stand with Neutral, but due to what I have seen earlier and the handling of that, I have to give an Oppose for now. CelestiaOfEquestria 23:07, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if I said this yet or not said it clearly enough, but the one off or global sensational topic is fine. But it's when it happens every day and/or several times. It's making people not want to be in the chat or leave, I don't think we should let people be repelled away from chat like that. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, some people just don't want to put up with the mutual indulge into sadness or depression anymore. http://i.imgur.com/B0lGGoQ.gifOz   23:24, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Remember not to holify everything so the chat will still have certain degree of freedom of speech. SamuliS (talk) 23:27, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Support - The issue with this is that none of us are professional psychiatrists who are prepared to deal with emotional issues. We can try to help, but if this is done in public it upsets people who don't know how to help. By all means, asking someone to PM about it is perfectly fine and definitely better than keeping it pent up within you. But please don't put the burden on everyone when not everyone feels confident enough that they can help.      23:29, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

I have shown my support to this rule, but as I am rather pessimistic, it crossed my mind that one could go too far with this, but I trust you shall keep it sensible.

Weak oppose That rule is highly unclear, I'd like to see what it will look like when it's put down on paper and how it will be kept track of before I support it. After that I'd be happy to give support for this. it's a great idea, but... I'd just like to see more of the "Fine print" if you will. | Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 01:36, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Support Per above. -- http://i.imgur.com/qJENjks.gifﾚ∆ㄅhttp://i.imgur.com/rtVOpOl.png 11:33, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Strong support We have needed a rule like this for a while, and I have noticed the chat getting rather gloomy at times, and it bothers me a lot. Therefore, I am strong support on this new rule. Business Cathttp://i.imgur.com/uQDdF.png 21:08, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Comment Updated it and made it more clearer. Of course it's still a work in progress... http://i.imgur.com/B0lGGoQ.gifOz   21:11, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

 Support I agree,it can lead to disrupting chat.~Pinkielover123

Strong oppose *sigh* I'm... Can we think for a moment? Chat is for chatting. Not every chat will be perfect, but if someone is causing problems in the chat, and users aren't liking it, then the users contact a mod. The mod deems their behavior as what it is, and if it's wrong, ask them to stop. If they continue, give them a warning. After that, kick or ban them. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 04:38, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this what we always did anyway...? I've always classified this as "talking about topics that may upset others".  Food Foodbandlt  02:26, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

New Rule Idea

Okay, so I'd like to introduce a new rule to this wiki to help out with a lot of the problems we've had in recent times with mods unable to do stuff because trolls aren't necessarily breaking the rules. I actually got this rule from another wiki which has been successful where we haven't.

The chat moderator reserves the right to add temporary rules or take action in a situation not covered by the Chat Policy. When doing so, the action taken must always be explainable, should an administrator investigate the situation.

Flutter ^{The Butter} 01:48, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

SupportPer nomination. Flutter ^{The Butter} 01:48, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - Rules can't cover every possible situation, especially fuzzy ones like passive trolling and whatnot. It can always be reversed or fixed when a mod goes wrong if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or perhaps Aero. (talk • barrel rolls) 02:56, March 10, 2015 (UTC)Aerostar

Comment "Adding temporary rules" sounds iffy to me. As much as possible, I think rules should be clear-cut and set in stone, and you've given no examples of situations where your proposed action might be necessary. Verily, the extent of this new power you are suggesting the mods should have sounds like it could be easily misinterpreted.

On the matter of passive trolling, as both you and Aero seem to have mentioned, our rules say this:

"Trolling - Trolling is deemed the deliberate act to offend or upset users and this comes in all forms. Subtle trolling (making a user feel uncomfortable with actions not covered by any other rules) is also not allowed. It's also requested not to speak about topics that will upset other users or will incite bad responses."

Trolling is trolling, no matter how explicit or passive it is. The mods don't need the right to "add temporary rules". They need to remember that passive trolling is trolling. And if any non-mods are feeling harassed... they need to tell a mod.  ƧIƦ፠የነሄሮⶴፁ K ʟ ₑͤͤPᵀₒ ͦo ^talk http://imgur.com/IIvQPTj.png 04:28, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

If the temporary rules are good enough they should be coded into the ruleset. Therefore making temporary rules not temporary. Therefore making this idea redundant...      05:40, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

I mean the more I think about this the stranger it seems. If a good rule is thought of, why would we want it to be only temporary? Bad rules shouldn't be temporary or permanent. Mods are always permitted and able to stop disruption, the rules list is non exhaustive. Disruption is disallowed in all forms and mods are totally permitted to take action against it. It seems totally unfair to let mods just make rules as they see fit and also, making temporary rules to combat 'trolls' is an awful way of giving them exactly what they want - difficulties for everyone else. I think this is a fundamentally flawed idea... The entire ideal of a temporary rule seems so vague and intangible. Callofduty4 (talk) 18:00, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Cod4 and I've been on other Wiki's where this system takes place. It's known as "authoritative ruling" and the mods quite often come across as unfair and/or unreasonable. This also often sparks arguments between a moderators themselves as they often disagree. Sorry, I cannot support this. 343TheGuiltyProphet - Talk 18:19, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose "Temporary rules"? Trolls tend to be taken care of fine from what I've seen, so I'm not sure what situations you are speaking of with "a lot of the problems we've had in recent times". If anything, moderator discretion can be used than having a concrete ruleset on how to moderate. http://i.imgur.com/B0lGGoQ.gifOz   18:46, March 10, 2015 (UTC) :He is probably refering to me at some stage. There was a time, like four months ago where I didn't feel comfortable banning someone at the time he wanted me to. Instead, I assumed good faith and warned them when needed. Apparently, "every other moderator" said they should have been banned, yet, neither of them banned until he done something else wrong. (If I remember correctly). I've tried explaining that unless I believe I have sufficent proof that someone is deliberately breaking our rules, I won't ban. Weirdly, I often get told I ban too soon. Confirmed not about me. I only assumed due to a recent conversation Flutterbutter and myself had. 343TheGuiltyProphet - Talk 20:16, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

I Oppose this by my reasons above. Unwritten rules that are good enough should be suggested for inclusion in the rulebook. What is written is that trolling in any form is still trolling and punishable, so giving mods the power to "add temporary rules" to combat passive trolls is just redundant.  ƧIƦ፠የነሄሮⶴፁ K ʟ ₑͤͤPᵀₒ ͦo ^talk http://imgur.com/IIvQPTj.png 23:57, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral I am unsure what to think of this. May change opinion as/if this progresses. Also unsure of what a temporary rule would be...(   DCLXVI Rebels of Discord  http://i.imgur.com/y5WKyC3.png ^talk 02:24, March 12, 2015 (UTC))

Existing chat rules

Abbreviated Swearing/Swearing In General

For as long as I can remember, there have been rules enforced against swearing (with the exceptions of "damn", "hell", and sometimes "ass", so long as they are not used to insult users), including abbreviated swears (i.e. wtf) and censoring swears. However, a quick look at the rules will show that the only rule listed related to swearing is "no excessive harsh language". Furthermore, I have seen an abbreviated swear go unnoticed/not cared for many times (I myself am guilty, though not at all recently). So, I believe two things need to be done: #1. List a rule specifying what is and isn't allowed, not just "Excessive harsh language" and #2. Decide whether or not a "No abbreviated swears" rule should be made official, and if so decide what abbreviations (if any) would be excepted from this rule, and then "write it down". http://i.imgur.com/gsLKOdC.png MLPhttp://i.imgur.com/1w0MRE0.png  ITBhttp://i.imgur.com/K1gQ7PD.png 17:23, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Comment Since some mods allow abbreviated words & censoring in chat, I used to oppose that idea however I have mainly stopped warning chatters of that because I do not believe that giving mixed signals from different moderators is fair for chatters. I'd say no to swearing abbreviations because it is still clear and obvious what they are saying, and has the same effect as would saying the whole thing would have, imho. -- Ozuzanna (Talk) 17:28, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we need 100% consistency from the moderators, that was the goal I had in mind when I wrote this. http://i.imgur.com/gsLKOdC.png MLPhttp://i.imgur.com/1w0MRE0.png  ITBhttp://i.imgur.com/K1gQ7PD.png

That will never happen. Mod's discretion exists for a reason. http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/274/6/d/6d9b956b91e0c92565e2a90a818bee37-d5gij3r.gifAppleJon-Talk 21:20, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Either way, chatters getting mixed signals from moderators needs to STOP no matter what the outcome is. -- Ozuzanna (Talk) 21:26, February 7, 2013 (UTC) Withdrawing statement

If you Don't like it, why not make a forum on it? Professor Pickles (평화) "War has changed." 22:02, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

....Isn't that what this place is? xD -- Ozuzanna (Talk) 22:05, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Then go make the idea to end it if you wish. Start voting, or something. I'm just going to leave this to you for now. Professor Pickles (평화)"War has changed." 22:08, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

We were in the process of doing so. -- Ozuzanna (Talk) 22:19, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Support I support in getting rid of users receiving mixed signals from different moderators in chat. It's not fair one mod saying it's allowed and another disagreeing. -- Ozuzanna (Talk) 22:19, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to say I Oppose the idea of allowing users to use abbreviations and censors to swear and such. -- Ozuzanna (Talk) 22:29, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawing statements

Oppose Moderators have their judgement, let them use it. If one moderator says no, the others need to back them up. What we need to see is more teamwork from the mod team, and less regulations on what is/isn't allowed. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 22:23, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

So do you of approve of allowing users to swear with alternative methods such as abbreviations and censors and whatnot? -- Ozuzanna (Talk) 22:27, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I cannot give you an answer to that. This isn't something you can blanket into one issue, it has to be handled case by case. If we could approve/disapprove things like that, the entire mod team would be replaced with bots. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 05:07, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - The reason for the rule's ambiguity is to allow moderators to decide what is and isn't allowed without having a list that limits them. I feel that if moderators compile a list and use it internally, then there isn't a reason for a list on the chat rules page. This still allows for moderator discretion and also allows mods to have a centralized list of what is and isn't allowed. Additions can be made to the list and moderators can have discussions in chat about what should and shouldn't be allowed.  Food Foodbandlt  00:32, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Comment and Strong support Isn't it true that abbreviated swears such as wtf and omfg also known as a way to censor swear words? These abbreviated swears are hiding swear words in them, and I don't like it when people get away with hiding swear words from other people, mods, and admins. (っ◕‿◕)っ ♥ ☂ᗩᒪḰ℃◎ᾔ⊥ґї♭ṧ €∂ї☂¢øυᾔт 15:53, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral I'd support, however we have mod discretion and some mods would say that these abbreviations aren't allowed; I'll just avoid mixed signals and stay neutral. -- Ozuzanna (Talk) 09:50, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Song Lyrics in Chat

Hi all, I was just thinking about this rule, I understand why it's in place. Sometimes, posting song lyrics can be quite irritating. I understand that. But my opinion on the matter is this, I don't personally see anything wrong with quoting lyrics within reason. For example, if I posted in chat "Winter wrap up, winter wrap up, let's finish our holiday cheer". What harm is this doing to anybody? Or, if I wanted to quote a song. For example, "I really like this song, especially the lyrics (3-5 words from the lyrics here). I honestly don't see much harm in this. Of course, if someone is spamming lyrics or over using them, I completely understand. So perhaps what I am proposing is "Song lyrics may be posted in chat, but MUST be kept short, not spammed and must have a purpose".

Support - Per discussion. http://i.imgur.com/k9M6Sap.png ShadowLurker343 (Talk)   15:17, August 27, 2013 (UTC)

Support Yeah, I don't see the harm in it as long as users don't post like half of a song's lyrics in chat. -- http://i.imgur.com/qJENjks.gif ﾚ∆ㄅhttp://i.imgur.com/rtVOpOl.png 21:32, August 27, 2013 (UTC)

Comment I looked at the rule regarding song lyrics, "Please do not: Flood the chat with repetitive posts/ASCII art/song lyrics/nonsense." It looks like it's already covered fairly well, though I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have the "song lyrics" section separate from the rest and expanded on, since song lyrics can have a purpose in chat, while ASCII art, repetitive posts, and nonsense cannot. Craterkid (talk) 23:11, August 27, 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so it does. Just last time I looked at the chat rules, it was completely against the rules. You weren't allowed to post lyrics in any quantity. But maybe song lyrics should have it's own section with more detail. User:ShadowLurker343/Sig 21:37, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

I think this falls under moderator discretion when it comes to "spam". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admiral Nitsua Xepher "Lighting Dust" of Equestria (talk • contribs)