Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-25075055-20140228200248/@comment-25075055-20140301185318

Rules against capsing and flooding are missing from this proposed rule set. I will update the rule on this, thanks for pointing this out. * About the swearing rule: current rule disallows only excessive swearing and swearing directed at a user -- this means that posting some swear words is still perfectly okay, such as swearing when you quit a game or calling something that you have "shit". Please don't swear with malicious intent is in my opinion quite vague and subjective and moreover, even if the swearing isn't malicious, a lot of swearing can be quite annoying. This means that's certainly a no against changing the swearing rule. Instead, I'd prefer if the current rule would actually be implemented. There is a lot of swearing on the chat and the current group of moderators doesn't take any action against it. Personally, I don't think we should have a total lockdown on swearing. If people want to swear within reason, then they should be allowed to do so. I agree the rule is a little vague, but I didn't want to expand on it too much and just wanted to leave it with a simple "don't swear at other users with malicious intent".

* Sexual references the same as abovementioned: currently the topic is brought up quite regularly when there is no real need for it. Innuendos and all are fine though, I would suggest here something like "Keep sexual references to a minimum", to discourage but not completely disallow it. Additionally, sexual references directed at users are no fun at all. The way the new rule is written is intended to keep the sexual references to a minimum. Most of the chat users are mature enough to know when they should stop discussing it so I don't think we should state absolute minimum's.

* Respect towards moderators: on one side I do believe this is necessary, but something simple like "listen to what mods say and respect their decisions in regards to bans" would be enough -- heeding to all they say is really not necessary, and as Katanagod pointed out above, moderators who actually take the actions they need to enforce the rules, will in fact be respected. I know this to be true from experience as well. Our mods have done many actions but they still get no respect anyway.

* Besides that, I find that upon being promoted, moderators should follow and make others follow the wiki rules. They agreed to be in this position, they should heed the rules for it until a change is made. Currently it seems to me that moderators just do whatever they personally find fit, and thus not implement rules that have been voted for and supported by the community in the past. Each moderator has different limits and some mods may be fine with letting some discussions slide whereas others may not. At this present point, some moderators are choosing not to enforce certain rules because they are a little restrictive and needless.

* Don't ask for moderator promotions -- yeah, I definitely think people make themselves seem too eager when asking for any position actually, therefore shrinking the chance they will actually get this promotion. I find it a bit much to completely forbid this however. I somewhat agree with you, I'll make a small tweak.

* At last, I also find it a valid point what Katanagod said about chat invasions: if this has happened in the past, it is definitely worth adding in the rules, just in case. Also, (mostly in regards to what REPTILE said up there) forbidding to link chats is just to avoid people mass joining another chat. When you are talking about another wiki, you can just link that wiki. There really is no reason to link another wiki's chat directly. I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, based on what wiki it is. I myself run my own wiki and it would be annoying to be banned from linking to my wiki's chat (if it was enabled) just because a rule said so. As I say, it should really be on a case-by-case basis. :)