As you all may or may not be aware, we have the following rule in the clan chat:
|“||Blocked users will be allowed to access the friends and clan chats; however any rank and future eligibility of rank is removed, as per discussion.||”|
— RuneScape:Clan Chat Rule #7
I think it's incredibly stupid to 1. derank a person in the clan chat for a small on-wiki issue that may result in a block and 2. permanently blacklist a person from being ranked because of something that may have happened several years ago.
For example, 3i+1 was blocked by Karlis in 2009 for blanking the main page. It was an honest mistake that he made three years ago. He knows better now. Besides, he's been a rank for over two years without incident; it would be stupid to remove his eligibility now due to some a three-year-old block.
People learn from their mistakes and if the community decides that a candidate is worthy of a rank, it would be stupid to let a silly procedural hurdle like this to get in the way.
For a few of the more salient points, here is how I envision some scenarios in the revised system. Feel free to agree/disagree with me on these points.
- Users blocked for RS:UTP violations on the wiki will also be banned from the Clan Chat for an equivalent amount of time, per Forum:Wiki vs CC Blocks. At the expiry of the block, the user will be given the rank that he/she held prior to the block unless there is consensus to remove it.
- As decided in Forum:Correlation between Sysop and CC, sysops/bureaucrats who lose sysop/bureaucrat rights on the wiki, voluntarily or not, will lose their clan rank unless the user has passed a specific request for said rank. (This mainly applies to administrators/bureaucrats who had their ranks grandfathered in before Forum:Regarding adminship and ranks).
- Bureaucrats who lose the bureaucrat right but retain the sysop right will be deranked from overseer/deputy owner to admin/organizer unless there is consensus to either keep the higher rank or completely remove the rank.
- Grandfathered sysops who lose the sysop right and have passed a RfR for a sergeant/lieutenant rank will be deranked to lieutenant unless there is consensus to do something different. (For example, Stelercus, Ryan M, and Glenndona passed RfRs prior to RfAs and would retain a lieutenant rank should they lose their adminship.)
- In the event the owner of the clan breaks a rule and needs to be banned, ownership will temporarily transfer to one of the deputy owners. The owner can elect to reclaim ownership of the clan at the expiry of the block unless it is related to RS:UTP, in which case the owner will have the appropriate rank for his/her usergroup. Of course, consensus can decide something different.
I don't think these nuanced points are likely to come up, but it's nice to have a framework in place.
Support - *nods in approval* Talk 09:37, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
Support - Per Fergie. Doesn't make too much sense to completely bar them. If they're that bad, it's not like they would pass an RfR anyway. Nex 02:20, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it's not the bad people that I'm concerned about. This rule bars good ranks from getting ranked (well, at least in theory... I can't think of a case in which people actually applied this, which is just as well, as it's a dumb rule.) --King LiquidheliumTalk 02:23, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
Support - Some of these rules seem just dumb, and I didn't even know about some of them... It doesn't make sense to stop someone from being a rank, even if they just did one bad thing previously, especially if they have changed since the original incident.04:27, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
Support - I've been banned from the chat in the past for a few small arguments (Only being like 24 hours or so...) But that never stopped positive consensus on my RfR that happened about a year later. This rule is to an extent stupid, and it should be removed.13:59, February 24, 2012 (UTC)