#AGS IRC - Public Consultation

[Pumaman]

Ok, this thread is mainly for those of you who use the AGS IRC channel.

Lately, #ags has been getting rather frantic with so much being said that the text tends to scroll past faster than you can keep up with it.

The content of the channel in recent months has also degenerated from being mainly friendly discussions and adventure-related chat, to now being mainly talk about nothing and arguments.

Now, there's not neceessarily a problem with talking about nothing - Seinfeld pulled it off for long enough. However, it can tend to overwhelm any serious discussion that tries to get started.

The AGS IRC channel has always been free from any rules, but people have been banned on occasion if they were seen to be causing a nuisance.
However, we feel that the channel has grown large enough to merit a set of formal rules for conduct there. Hopefully, this will calm things down and bring back the ex-regulars who gave up coming in recent weeks.

So, here are the proposed rules. This is a consultation, in so far as we welcome feedback from channel regulars on any adjustments to these rules.  However, this is NOT a debate on whether to have rules or not - the time has come, I'm afraid.

Proposed charter for #ags:

The #ags IRC channel is a chat channel dedicated to the discussion of the Adventure Game Studio application, games made with AGS, and adventure gaming in general.

Technical questions, however, should not be asked here. Any scripting issues that you have are better posted on the forums, where more users have more time to look over your question.

Off-topic conversation on serious topics is welcome too. However, off-topic random rants and pointless rambles should be avoided. Although it can seem that the channel is dead at times, and that a random rant or argument will do no harm, it can prevent a more useful discussion from starting up.

Channel flooding is not permitted. Flooding is defined as sending many messages in a short period of time, with the effect of drowning out what is being said by other people. The exact determination of 'flooding' is at the channel 'op's discretion.

Any breach of the above rules will result in a warning from a channel 'op', and if the warning is not heeded then a ban of approximately one week will be instated. After that time, the user will be permitted to return, but if they breach the rules again, a permanent ban will be instated.

If you receive a ban, but feel it was unjust, take it up privately with the Op who banned you. Do not whine about it on the forums or other IRC channels.
Only the Op who created the ban may remove it. If the Op who banned you has been absent from the channel for a significant time (over 1 week), then you may request that another Op review your case.

CHANNEL OPERATORS: Channel 'ops' are regulars who have been there for a long period of time and are well trusted by others on the channel. Selection of new 'ops' is made by appointment only and no requests for op status will be given.

[Barcik]

Overall, I doubt it would change much, as the informal rules rae much the same.

However, I think that to make all 'nonsense' officially illegal, so to say, is not the best of ideas. Much like a forum, there will always be the more serious discussions and the less serious ones. There should be a general tolerance to not-so-serious talks, as long as they are not taken out of proportions (what is for the op to judge).

Also, a busy conversation is not necesserily the result of nonsense, but can as easily be the result of a serious discussion. The reason  the "text tends to scroll past faster than you can keep up with it" is much more likely caused by mane active (as in not idle) people.

Well, overall, I am for these rules, as they can do no harm.

[Andail]

I haven't been a regular on the #ags for a year or so, so I don't really care anymore.

But perhaps one could also try to decrease all the toying with the bots? It doesn't really contribute to the conversations, more like some really boring way to kill time...

I think the converstions die when too many people just keep posting nonsense, like
"Now I'm eating a sandwich. Soon, I will need to poop. Now I have finished eating my sandwich. Let's poop"
Along with - as I said - just playing with the extra functions, like colours, the

* Andail does that and that

and chatting with the bots...
I'm not proposing a total ban on these things, just reducing them a bit

more serious conversations would do it...it's probably not somebody's fault, it's just a tendency

[BOYD1981]

one problem i can see with the rules is that most of the ops are idle half the time or actually taking part in the nonsense that's being spoken, i think introducing rules may prevent people from speaking or even joining the channel instead of getting people back to it, and you've always got people wanting to talk nonsense and people that walk to talk seriously, i don't see why the serious people should get it their way...
i know lots of people think it's my fault that the channel is the way it is now, and it that's the case i'll just leave rather than changing the way i behave just to please a few people...

[Pumaman]

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, and I'm not saying that all talking should be deadly serious - of course it shouldn't, it's a chat channel.

What we're trying to do here is establish some rules so that rather than have arguments over what is and isn't annoying, we can just say "refer to the rules".

[scotch]

Yeah I'm sorry if you feel it's all aimed at you BOYD, loads of people, including me contribute to the annoyance in #ags.  That channel has many interesting and intelligent people in it, and it used to sound a lot more adult and intelligent than it does now, not that there was no 'nonsense' whatsoever, but it didn't suffocate everything else.
There are too many people there now for everyone to just say whatever they like without thinking and considering if it's actually going to be interesting to anyone.  These rules would certaily help improve things IMO.  There are plenty of spammy general chat rooms everywhere, and #ags was something different.  It's not abosolutely terrible now, but it isn't half as good as it was.  I'm sure if people cut down on some of the general same old talk about essentially nothing it'd increase everyone's enjoyment, including their own, and some of the old regulars might start coming back more often.
I'm in favour of them anyway.

[Evil]

Let me bring up a point. A lot of people where there durring the several hour "Monster Mash" chant. Though most of us where anoyed, I bet most of us think about that and laugh. I know I do. And thats what's great about IRC. Its a place to be silly and such. I think thats the entire point of IRC, isn't it. Most of the adventure chat is by 2 to 4 people, not everyone. I enjoy most of the off-site links, such as Happy Tree Friends ( ). I just dont think that rules will help much and make/keep it fun. I agree with flooding and Techy questions (Though they should be able to be asked for help and then continue chat in a PM), but this serious topics thing is just silly...

[Las Naranjas]

by serious topics they mean topics.

Since increasingly there isn't anything under tide of smilies, capitals and exceptionally crude innuendo.

[TerranRich]

I agree with BOYD in that most of the ops in #ags do jack shit. I say most, not all. We need ops that frequent the room often, and don't idle all the time. I see many people (not going to name names) as ops who idle 24/7.

And what do you mean, CJ, by "Selection of new 'ops' is made by appointment only and no requests for op status will be given."? How can it be by appt. if no requests are accepted? I'll PM you regarding this.

[Meowster]

Just wondering, what's wrong with smileys?

Also, the bot is ridiculous, entire portions of chat are dedicated to that thing. An entire flow of conversation could be devoted to making him say something vaguely amusing for the 100th. Get Dr Sbaitso, people, he's an even bigger smart ass AND he has a voice.

[Robert Eric]

If I find you a suitable op, I will make you one.  Don't ask me, for I will never make you one.

[scotch]

Roger is very useful :| perhaps he just needs to ignore a few people..
(and I personally find the ops very good.. just because they aren't speaking or banning doesn't mean they all aren't online ._. PM is much more interesting than #ags these days..)

I wouldn't really trust many more people to be ops anyway

[m0ds]

CAN I HAV OPS PLS!!!!!1

[scotch]

No! You ban remover you

[Meowster]

I used various methods of blackmail and anyway, that's all forgotten.  :'(

( )

Roger IS useful, but not when he's being made perform strip teases in the chat

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

Roger stays. The problem is not the bot, the problem is the people abusing the bot. Bot abuse will be part of flooding so that will be taken care of anyway.

I agree with BOYD in that most of the ops in #ags do jack shit. I say most, not all. We need ops that frequent the room often, and don't idle all the time. I see many people (not going to name names) as ops who idle 24/7.

We are there, just because we don't talk doesn't mean we aren't. Its just really hard to get a word in edgewise amongst the reams of endless random talk, so most of us just stop talking in the room.

[gonzalezj]

What about a #AGS-Help channel?

In this channel a person could type in a '!' command and a bot would respond asking the problem. The person could type in the problem and then submit it to the bot. Then people would be helped in the order they were recieved by "certified" (lol) AGS scripting/art/etc. techs.

Just an idea.

Cheers,
gonzalezj

[MillsJROSS]

gonzalazj - we already have a help file and I don't see how that's too much different than the tech forum. Anyone who wanted to help people will look at those forums when ever they get the chance. When people go on to IRC they go to relax and hang out with their buddies, not necessarily to answer questions. I would deem it uneeded(sp?).

I see nothing wrong with the rules. For the most part we, the ops, won't ban you unless (before a warning) you don't listen to us when you're breaking the rules to an annoying point. And as Annie (One_Thinking_Gal) said just because we don't say anything doesn't mean we aren't there reading what's written. I go back and forth through IRC, so sometime I don't pay attention to the conversation. Our lives aren't dedicated to make sure everyone follows the rules. However, this is something you can do. I usually am on the computer if I'm using IRC, so just PM me, and the noise should make me see what's happening. I can't speak for all ops, though, so perhaps we should make a rule that if your an op and you are away from the system, then change your nick to nameaway. So that people know who to PM.

-MillsJROSS

[Trapezoid]

We are there, just because we don't talk doesn't mean we aren't. Its just really hard to get a word in edgewise amongst the reams of endless random talk, so most of us just stop talking in the room.

I haven't been in #ags in a few weeks, but often times about 90% of the people in the room rarely spoke, even when the conversation was slow.

[scotch]

You're only ever there when everyone is asleep ._. and I want to be..
Come in the daytime (for most agsers) and you'll see what it's like.

[Trapezoid]

How about if you're asleep, you turn IRC off? Just a thought.

In any case, my boredom doesn't usually reach "might as well give #ags a visit" level until around midnight, which is 5 in the morn for UKians.

[scotch]

That's right.. I don't really like people leaving it on.. spose it's just convenient for some people..

Glad you find the room as boring as I do..

[|Alky|]

Whatever.
But I'm currently being persecuted in the channel topic, which I think is unfair, and unprofessional on the part of the ops... '_'

[Adamski]

I really do think it's sad that it's come to this. Not that I disagree with the rules... perhaps i'll start visiting #ags again if this helps to cut down on the utter dirge that's in there... but it shouldn't be necessary. Neither should having the gen-gen patrolled by moderators be necessary. But what once was a little haven in the surrounding awfulness of the internet is slowly sinking like the titanic. 'Tis a sad story.

[Pumaman]

Heh, discussing IRC is always like opening a rather large can of worms...

And what do you mean, CJ, by "Selection of new 'ops' is made by appointment only and no requests for op status will be given."? How can it be by appt. if no requests are accepted? I'll PM you regarding this

It means that if a new op is needed, we will look at who has been regularly on the channel and behaving responsibly, and ask them if they want to become an op.
This rule is just designed to stop the people who come onto the channel and PM someone 10 minutes later saying "Can I be an op".

I haven't been in #ags in a few weeks, but often times about 90% of the people in the room rarely spoke, even when the conversation was slow.

Heh, as scotch says, it varies dramatically depending on the time of day. As you can see from the graph at the top of the stats page, 19:00 - 23:00 UK time is the busiest period when it can sometimes be very difficult to get a word in edgeways.
However yes, if you come along at the quiet times it can indeed be practically silent.

Anyway, the crux of this thread is, do any of you have any particular objections to the proposed rules?

I really do think it's sad that it's come to this

I think it was Mills that put this best a while back - the larger a community gets, the less of a community it becomes. Sad, but it's a reality of life  ._.

[Jimi]

I have no objections. I think they will help cut down the total crap on there. Which is partly me.  

[m0ds]

Then again, if you find it hard to join in - why bother going on IRC? ^_^

m0ds

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

Then again, if you find it hard to join in - why bother going on IRC? ^_^

m0ds

So basically if you can't keep up with the endless, extremely fast(and extremely random sometimes) flow of talk, just stay out?

[rodekill]

I propose #AGSParty, where a flagrant disregard for others is encouraged, and coloured text is mandatory! Whoohee!

[n3tgraph]

Bah, if these rules were there I think I wouldn't come again so often anymore.... I don't have so much technical questions

I like it the way it is now

[Esseb]

The rules state that techie questions aren't allowed n3t .

[n3tgraph]

damn.....

oh well, I just like to talk nonsense in there from time to time

as long as non-synth discussion is not a rule I think I could live with rules and probably be banned within 2 days :S

[Robert Eric]

Yeah, #ags is for silliness, but not stupidity.

[Nacho]

Meesage ackowleadge! No more stupidity in #Ags.

* Farlander thumbs up

[TerranRich]

Might I suggest a way of quieting down an insanely-scrolling room: Set the room's mode to +m where only ops can speak for a minute or so,  depending on how crazy it was. This shouldl be used only when craziness erupts, such as (1) excess actions, (2) bot abuse, (3) smilies and spelling corrections abound.

One of the many "crowd control" methods the IRC gestapo can use

[n3tgraph]

well yeah, but when that is used too much.... A lot of nice-to-talk-tos will disappear

I think

But heck you could try it

[magintz]

:O ... no more talking about boobies :'(

Oh wel, they seem fair and I agree, it foes get out of hand sometimes, but if people want to go off on random talk about any old nusence, whether it be to argue or anyhting use another channel #meatball is one I started up which has a bot called bob-bot on sometimes.

[Pumaman]

Alright, we'll give it a go. So, let's say that from midnight tonight the new rules will take effect, and let's see how it goes.

[remixor]

I haven't been on #ags for about a month since my computer is really crapped up at the moment (I'm on a family member's machine right now) but it sounds like it's gotten a lot crazier since then.  By the time my hard drive gave out I was hardly ever speaking though, since I never knew what the hell was going on.  I think instituting a basic rule set is a pretty good idea.  I'm not sure how enforcable it will be in the long run, but it's definitely worth a shot and I think the proposed rules are sound.

[Femme Stab Mode >:D]

I have an objection!  
I am tired of Roger calling me sir. That pisses me off majorly.eg.
<femme>roger don't call me sir
<roger>femme:yes,sir?
o_O

[Pumaman]

"Sir" is gender-neutral, women in the army get called Sir too

[Femme Stab Mode >:D]

No it's not. Women in the Army are called ma'am and I hate roger calling me sir!!!

[Shattered Sponge]

Female superior officers in Star Trek are addressed as 'sir'.  Thus, the argument is won.

[Robert Eric]

This isn't Star Trek.

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

Its just a word, and an inoffensive one at that. Get over it.

If this is about feminism, then pick your fights carefully. Trivial ones will do more harm than good.

In case you missed it, this is a trivial one.

[Pumaman]

Don't worry, I'll change Roger's "Yes, sir?" response to "Wassup, ho?"

[DGMacphee]

Or "biatch" if you're really nice to him!

[Las Naranjas]

I like it when they change Chairman to Chairperson to be PC.

Since the "man" is derived from the latin root for hand (evident in words like mandibles).

But looking for bias in "his-story" is funnier.

[Femme Stab Mode >:D]

Gee, sorry Annie, I wasn't trying to be bitchy, it's just a pet hate of mine, that's all.

[Timosity]

Since the "man" is derived from the latin root for hand (evident in words like mandibles).

but what has your hand got to do with your lower jaw

or did you mean it was evident on her mandible after the latin guy masturbated?

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

Gee, sorry Annie, I wasn't trying to be bitchy, it's just a pet hate of mine, that's all.

Heh, pet hates. Yeah, I know how those go. Personally, its the intent of the person that counts for more than the words.  

[Las Naranjas]

It's because of the dexterity in manibles in insects. Perhaps I should have chosen a more obvious example

[Robert Eric]

Pet Peeve.

[Pumaman]

I apologise for dredging up an old thread, but these rules have now been added to the AGS IRC webpage and should now be considered to be permanent:
http://www.agsforums.com/acirc.htm

One final thing that needs a decision is idling - this is an issue that can still lead to arguments. How long should people be allowed to stay on the channel without saying anything? Should there be a limit at all? Or should it be 8 hours as has been suggested to me?

[SSH]

Maybe you can have a sign like many bars have for credit:

"Please do not ask for op status, as a banning from #ags often offends"

Thank goodness that my company's firewall kills IRC traffic, or I would get fired for spending all my time there...

[AGA]

I think anyone who isn't me, or anyone I like, should be banned from #ags, personally...

[BOYD1981]

so it would just be you and people you hate?

[Evil]

Well, I dont like the "No scripting problems" rule. Majoritity of the time I need to ask a question I would be yelled at for asking it in the tech form because it is so simple. I think it should be for larger questions and if anything ask and then pm them. Maybe "Keep tech questions to a minimal. Check the manual first and if you feel it is way to simple to ask on the tech form feel free to ask on irc. Just dont abuse it with larger scripts. You should try to use pms if at all possibable."

[Moresco]

I don't see the reason for a limit on idle time...? What's the purpose of imposing a limit?  Personally I've never been in any IRC room that ever had a limit, so I don't like the idea.  If it's not hurting anyone, it should be ok.  Also, from my short experience(and it has been short), without the rants that go on there wouldn't be a whole lot going on....   That's just my experience.  Now, I may not have spent alot of time in #AGS, but rest assured I'm not new to irc & can honestly say that 'rants' are usually the norm.  Just my opinions Peace!

[Trapezoid]

Often, more than half of the people in the channel are idle. It's just sort of annoying. There's rarely a point to leaving IRC running for so long while you're not even there. I'd rather have a clear understanding of who's actually active. I don't think there'd be any harm if Roger kicked people out if they've idled to long, just to keep the list fresh. They can always re-enter.
Maybe Roger could have a temporary whitelist function if you have a specific reason to remain in the channel for extended periods without contributing to the conversation...?

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

That has been tried trap, but Rog freaked out once in a while and warned everyone in the room (many of whom were talking), that they  better start talking or prepare to be kicked. Including himself!

6 hours is long enough IMO, unless someone can come up with a good reason for staying logged in while they go to bed/school/two week trip to jamaica.

[MillsJROSS]

I just think you should change your nick to signify that you aren't currently present. If you want to stay on and log everything, that's fine with me. Just don't let me not know that you aren't there. In truth, though, you really shouldn't idle for too long. For some people, like RobertEric, it makes sense. However, if you're just there to be there...it's just pointless. If a op is there and there are sooo many people in the chat room, and it's getting annoying, then allow them to kick a few people. But only when it really becomes a burden.

-MillsJROSS

[Trapezoid]

Maybe there should be a log bot. How often is Rog not in the room? Maybe he should publish his log to a webpage, that way people wouldn't feel the need to personally log everything. It's not like they're missing much anyway, just a bunch of people saying "how com nobodies talking?////"

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

EGADS ._. what are they afraid they'll miss?? Someone talking about them, piff let them get over themselves. Missing some incredible conversation? Haha....yeah right, must be new to the channel. ._.

I maintain the quotefile, so realistically I need to be there the most, but that ain't keeping me logged in 24x7.  

[Moresco]

Wow just get over it.  It really isn't affecting you if someone idles..you just think it is.  How is it affecting you? Is it making your day go from great to awful? Seriously? Of course it isn't.  

Oh and kicking them is fun but since almost everyone has auto-rejoin it will only result in needing to ban people & that will gurantee a much quieter chat-room...that's for sure.

And again, there aren't that many people in the chatroom to begin with...sometimes I have seen maybe 12 or 14...but that's the most I've seen.  This isn't a big deal, don't you people have games to be making?

EDIT: If I sound a bit rude it's cuz JCash died & I'm still a bit pissy over it. Sorry.