#AGS IRC - Public Consultation

Started by Pumaman, Sat 12/07/2003 23:26:23

Previous topic - Next topic

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.
Currently Working On: Monkey Island 1.5

Andail

#2
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...

Limey Lizard, Waste Wizard!
01101101011000010110010001100101001000000111100101101111011101010010000001101100011011110110111101101011

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 ( :P ). 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.
"I'm a moron" - LGM
http://sylpher.com/novomestro
Your resident Novocastrian.

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.
Status: Trying to come up with some ideas...

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.
Ã, Ã, 

scotch

#11
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


scotch


Meowster

#14
I used various methods of blackmail and anyway, that's all forgotten.  :'(

( ;D)

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

OneThinkingGal and ._.

#15
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.

Quote from: Dryhump on Sun 13/07/2003 02:58:54
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

QuoteWe 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.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk