Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

TamaChat: Should it be closed down?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked

Poll: TamaChat: Should it be closed down? (155 member(s) have cast votes)

Should TamaChat be closed down?

  1. Yes (26 votes [16.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.77%

  2. No (129 votes [83.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 83.23%

Do you use TamaChat?

  1. Yes - I am a regular chatter (48 votes [30.97%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.97%

  2. Yes - But only sometimes (74 votes [47.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.74%

  3. No - I never go into chat anymore (33 votes [21.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.29%

Have you ever had problems wih other people in TamaChat?

  1. No - The people are usually nice (89 votes [57.42%])

    Percentage of vote: 57.42%

  2. Yes - Sometimes there are mean/rude people in chat (52 votes [33.55%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.55%

  3. Yes - There are usually rude people in chat (14 votes [9.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.03%

Is chat the main feature you use on TamaTalk?

  1. Yes - I usually only come to TamaTalk for the chatroom (32 votes [20.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.65%

  2. No - I regularly participate in other areas of the site (forums, PMs, etc) (123 votes [79.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 79.35%

Vote

Runner

  • runner user photo
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 938 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 11

Posted 16 September 2011 - 07:37 AM ( #86 )

Ah well... that sounds to me like an excellent example of why it's better to ignore someone totally instead of replying to them and giving them attention in a flame war.
Of course it is not easy. But can you see why older, smarter members can help younger, inexperienced ones learn by behaving in a way that shows you can rise above childish behaviour?

As mentioned, no one gets kicked out "for no reason" - there's usually some prior behaviour involved - and even if you don't know the whole story, your friend does (and so do Admin and the TamaTalk staff). ;)


Oh believe me, this particular person would probably accuse us all of bullying her by excluding her, and then she would all report of us. This person just happens to be one of those people who love to make people angry.

And I know about almost all of the story, since I practically talk to my friend almost every day. I know it wasn't just that previous mentioned person that was the problem.

Some people just need to learn that if they don't know what something means, they should use google. Or wikipedia.

Edited by Runner, 16 September 2011 - 07:38 AM.


TamaMum

  • tamamum user photo
  • Group: Senior TamaTalk Guides
  • Posts: 13,767 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 05

Posted 16 September 2011 - 08:56 AM ( #87 )

We respect the privacy of all our members so we don't share specific information about what one person has done with another.

From the replies you've just posted it is clear that either you don't understand or that you have been mislead about the way we judge reports about members or complaints about Chat problems and the way we deal with members (and how they respond towards TamaGuides or Admin).

I am going to suggest that we stop posting about this and discuss it further in PM since this is starting to take the whole topic off course. Hopefully I can explain some of the things you've maybe misunderstood about moderating, behaviour and site rules.

Runner

  • runner user photo
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 938 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 11

Posted 16 September 2011 - 11:56 AM ( #88 )

^Yeah, that's what I was thinking, about the whole PM thing. I was gonna add something crucial I forgot in to make it make more sense, but then I had to go to school so I really had no choice but to leave it the way it was. I technically shouldn't be on this site at school, so this reply is gonna have to stay short.

graficks

  • graficks user photo
  • Group: TamaTalk Guides
  • Posts: 616 posts
  • Joined: 09-November 10

Posted 16 September 2011 - 02:57 PM ( #89 )

I think everyone's opinions, feelings and points are valid regarding this topic, but I'd like to point out very important: Enforcing rules and changes to Chat are only implemented for the goodness and safety of everyone here at TT. While I can see how some members are frustrated and/or confused why an approval system was needed for chat, it was done in favour of those who were experiencing problems. Obviously there were a fair number of users experiencing problems otherwise TT staff never would have implemented this. I think all users of TT need to understand how hard the staff work to keep this site up and running....and moderated of any problems, glitches and complaints.

The Admins and Moderators are here to help us, not to punish or ridicule us. I, for one, do not take TamaTalk for granted as an online community. I think it's amazing that users even have the option of voicing their concerns to an administrator. For the most part from what I've seen, even from browsing this topic, users' concerns are often heard and responded to. That goes a long way considering that TT staff are not paid employees and address these problems/concerns on their own free time. That, in my eyes, is a gift we should appreciate. If it wasn't for the TT staff we wouldn't have fun things like Chat, contests and the vast amount of help that is spread throughout this site.

Constructive concerns are good, it keeps the "ball" rolling in order to make things better for everyone.
  • TamaMum likes this

Space Unicorn

  • space-unicorn user photo
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 189 posts
  • Joined: 24-June 11

Posted 16 September 2011 - 11:13 PM ( #90 )

I hardly see why this would make someone not ant to go into chat. What's so bad about it? Make one topic and let Admin do the rest. That's a pretty suckish reason to not go in, in my opinion.

Maybe there are new people that are shy to make an approval topic, you never really know...

OldSchoolTama

  • oldschooltama user photo
  • Group: Senior TamaTalk Guides
  • Posts: 8,550 posts
  • Joined: 09-August 07

Posted 17 September 2011 - 01:50 AM ( #91 )

Maybe there are new people that are shy to make an approval topic, you never really know...

There shouldn't be a reason for someone to be shy, I think. No one else sees the topic you make except for you and Admin, as explained earlier in this very topic, HERE. The approval forum is a protected forum.

joshnemo

  • joshnemo user photo
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 243 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 06

Posted 20 September 2011 - 01:21 AM ( #92 )

Personally, I am against having the Chatroom closed down. Most of the users are very nice and calm, and as there are only few who enter the room, rarely does anything become out of control. :blink:

.chasm.

  • chasm user photo
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 159 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 21 September 2011 - 12:29 PM ( #93 )

It doesn't matter how many times the guides say that an insta-ban won't happen, people are still scared of it. It does feel like one false move and you're out, no matter how many times we're told that it isn't like that.

The approval system hasn't been that successful when it comes to spammers, either. The whole thing was meant to be a way of keeping the people who misbehaved out, but there are still spammers in the chat, and the occasional troll.

OldSchoolTama

  • oldschooltama user photo
  • Group: Senior TamaTalk Guides
  • Posts: 8,550 posts
  • Joined: 09-August 07

Posted 21 September 2011 - 01:07 PM ( #94 )

The approval system hasn't been that successful when it comes to spammers, either. The whole thing was meant to be a way of keeping the people who misbehaved out, but there are still spammers in the chat, and the occasional troll.

Pardon me for possibly stating the obvious but if this is the case, why aren't they reported (this is meant to be a question posed to any chatter who still sees spammers and trolls in the chat room, almost in a rhetorical fashion, not meant to target any particular member)? That's why that system is in place. I don't think the approval system is meant to be perfect and we often give way more than second chances to those who keep breaking the rules, including those who say they'll behave and go right ahead and keep breaking the rules anyway. That has nothing to do with the approval system; it has to do with the particular personalities we deal with.

.chasm.

  • chasm user photo
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 159 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 21 September 2011 - 03:30 PM ( #95 )

Pardon me for possibly stating the obvious but if this is the case, why aren't they reported (this is meant to be a question posed to any chatter who still sees spammers and trolls in the chat room, almost in a rhetorical fashion, not meant to target any particular member)? That's why that system is in place. I don't think the approval system is meant to be perfect and we often give way more than second chances to those who keep breaking the rules, including those who say they'll behave and go right ahead and keep breaking the rules anyway. That has nothing to do with the approval system; it has to do with the particular personalities we deal with.


It tends to be spammers who have been reported in the past, before the approval system was put in place. They have been approved, even though they have done the same multiple times in the past. Why are they still approved, especially if they've been given more than second chances?

OldSchoolTama

  • oldschooltama user photo
  • Group: Senior TamaTalk Guides
  • Posts: 8,550 posts
  • Joined: 09-August 07

Posted 21 September 2011 - 04:12 PM ( #96 )

To give members the benefit of the doubt and try to turn over a new leaf. We don't auto-ban (unless the problematic member grossly violates a site rule), we PM all involved parties to hear all sides of the story, and we give many chances. I daresay there have been times for everyone when a second or third chance benefited their situation, no matter the situation, right? I think Admin kind of sums it up here, in one of the previous posts he made:

I can assure you that the intent isn't to remain hovering over anyone who enters chat with our fingers ready to click and remove their access at the slightest hint of a broken rule. I think the Guides and I all understand what online life is like. We know there are trolls... We know there are annoying people... We also know that there are people with nothing but the best intentions who sometimes make mistakes. If anything, I have worked really hard to give people the benefit of second (and sometimes 3rd and 4th) chances because I know what it is like. I think we try to be fair. Now the downside to all this fair ness and chances are people who say 'whatever' and try to wreak havoc anyway. This gives us a tool to block them out.

Now, I am still unsure as to why these people aren't being reported. What's the harm in reporting problematic members again and again? That's why the report function is there. If anything, this brings them to our attention so that we can take the appropriate action in a timely manner. If no one reports problematic members, how would we know what issues to deal with? You may think that we can just refer to the backlogs and sift out problematic members eventually, but honestly? Admins and Guides would be here forevermore trying to complete that daunting task. We do our best to remember repeat offenders. We may have an approval system in place but even before the approval system came to be, we also counted on other members (especially those who frequent the chat room) to be our eyes and ears, especially since Admins and Guides can't be around 24/7. There's even a section in the User Guide on how to report members in Chat.

So on the one hand, members are aggravated because there are spammers and trolls in the chat room (and sometimes, they don't do anything about it) and on the other hand, they become aggravated that there's now a new system in place to try and have more control over who gets in. This puts us in a bit of a bind. I'd like to remind everyone that the original issue was whether or not we should close down Chat outright. The approval system is supposed to be an alternative to that. All this didn't stem from nothing because there were more than just "a few" members having problems with Chat.

.chasm.

  • chasm user photo
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 159 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 21 September 2011 - 04:24 PM ( #97 )

Now, I am still unsure as to why these people aren't being reported. What's the harm in reporting problematic members again and again? That's why the report function is there. If anything, this brings them to our attention so that we can take the appropriate action in a timely manner.


They are reported, but it isn't fun to take multiple screenshots every time the same person comes in, doing the same thing that they have done before. I know reporting isn't nearly as much work as what the guides have to do to sort everything out after the member has been reported, but the problem wouldn't be as big if people were given, say, three strikes, then banned from the chatroom - not permanently, but for a decent amount of time. I know that bans like that were used before, but I don't really think they are being used enough now.

Edited by .chasm., 21 September 2011 - 04:25 PM.


Admin

  • admin user photo
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 4,979 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 04

Posted 21 September 2011 - 05:56 PM ( #98 )

but the problem wouldn't be as big if people were given, say, three strikes, then banned from the chatroom - not permanently, but for a decent amount of time. I know that bans like that were used before, but I don't really think they are being used enough now.


Wouldn't a three strikes rule be seen as just as scary of a threat as being un-approved? I am struggling to see the difference here. The point of either of these things is, yes, to have the risk of losing your access to chat if you misbehave. Without this risk there would be little to no incentive for people to behave if they knew they could act like a brat and still be able to evade attempts at stopping them from coming in. The benefit of the approval system is it is not as easy to evade a banning. I have yet to see any evidence that shows the approval system is NOT working.

.chasm.

  • chasm user photo
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 159 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 21 September 2011 - 11:40 PM ( #99 )

Wouldn't a three strikes rule be seen as just as scary of a threat as being un-approved? I am struggling to see the difference here. The point of either of these things is, yes, to have the risk of losing your access to chat if you misbehave. Without this risk there would be little to no incentive for people to behave if they knew they could act like a brat and still be able to evade attempts at stopping them from coming in. The benefit of the approval system is it is not as easy to evade a banning. I have yet to see any evidence that shows the approval system is NOT working.


If there was a three-strike rule, then people would be allowed a chance to improve their behaviour without getting banned immediately - that's the main difference. The second chances people are giving wouldn't have to go overboard, and I think getting banned for a set amount of time would be effective. If not, then they simply get banned again. This could quite easily work with the approval system, but I don't think that system has been effective yet, because people are still being let in to spam when they have been reported multiple times in the past.

Admin

  • admin user photo
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 4,979 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 04

Posted 22 September 2011 - 05:52 AM ( #100 )

I have to respectfully disagree with you. One thing I would like to avoid is locking moderators into having to give three strikes before banning a user. Sometimes there are minor problems like spamming and then there are major problems like posting inappropriate links and such. I'd much rather stay flexible so that there is some room to judge how serious a problem is and then deal with it. We had some major problems that led up to this whole change. I would not stand for having somebody who was doing some of those things and then expecting to still get two more chances before being locked out of chat. As far as the approval system not being effective because of previous spammers being allowed back in goes, it has been mentioned before that we started this with a clean slate for everyone. If you spammed in the past (or whatever) you get another chance to start fresh and stop the behavior. If there are still problems going on then we need to have them reported.

.chasm.

  • chasm user photo
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 159 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 22 September 2011 - 09:04 AM ( #101 )

I understand that it isn't realistic to give someone three chances with some of the things that are done in the chat, so some people would not be given three chances. This would be completely deserved, though, and shouldn't be something that normal users should be worried about (going back to my earlier point that people are scared of an instant ban). There's just the problem that sometimes there isn't as much done with some users as there should be, which is where a three-strike rule could be quite effective.

Edited by .chasm., 22 September 2011 - 09:07 AM.


Yattatchi14

  • yattatchi14 user photo
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 11

Posted 27 September 2011 - 03:17 AM ( #102 )

no, I really like tamachat because you dont need to worry about waitingf for people to reply your questions.