Discussion:Re-opening the tavern? What does the community think?

Re-opening the Tavern (a dandwiki IRC channel)

Badger 18:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As some of you may recall, we used to have a chatroom where contributors could talk in real time. I think this was a very cool idea, and I was sad that I missed out on it. I've been thinking about it, and I think it's time we reopen it. We've discussed this before (the discussion can be found here), and I think we should discuss it again. I mentioned this on Green Dragon's talk page just over a week ago, and having not heard back from him yet, I decided to see what the community thinks. So, what does the community think? Are we in support of a chatroom where we can access other users in real time, or do we think that would take away from the overall wiki. I'd like to hear everyone's opinions, for and against, as well as those who have no particular opinion. While the discussion is still in a "for/against/or neutral" phase, suggestions of what you would like to see happen in the tavern are welcome. To be very clear at the end, I am for re-opening the tavern.

JazzMan 20:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For, with some stipulations. I initially thought I wouldn't like the tavern at all because of issues I've had with other wikis' off-site communication. However, I've since grown to like the convenience of it. However, I would like to propose some rules as to the use of the tavern (these are in addition to the obvious ones like "be nice" and whatnot)

1. No user is required to use the Tavern. This means that important discussions should not take place on the Tavern, unless they are well documented somewhere on-wiki.
2. Nothing said in the Tavern (aside from Admin rebukes) are binding on the wiki.

...Actually, those're the only real rules I can think of. Important discussions are defined as, but not limited to, the following: official discussions on wiki policy, reasoning behind article changes, wiki organization efforts, new template planning, etc, etc. Basically if you ever talk about something on the Tavern that someone's going to see later, it should be done on the wiki, which has a history.

I'm trying to update my preliminary rules to accommodate your rule suggestions, but I don't know what you mean by #2. Care to elaborate/clarify? --Badger 20:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks to being notified on The Tavern! JazzMan 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Name Violation 22:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

i wouldn't mind a new tavern, and Jazzman said it best about documenting important discussions.

Vrail 23:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like the tavern brought back. My reasoning may be found here

  Hooper   talk    contribs    email   03:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually strongly against one of JazzMan's notes above, which is as follows: "Nothing said in the Tavern (aside from Admin rebukes) are binding on the wiki." I strongly disagree with this. Our civility policy should be in effect for the entire site, at all times - this was probably the single biggest issue with the former Tavern.

Another item that Green Dragon can comment on better than me, is server issues. The site, as we've all seen, has been up and down and had issues lately. Can we support the tavern again before an upgrade of equipment, which would necessitate a fundraiser.

Additionally, I would want it to all be tracked with a tavern history like before. All wiki conversations are always able to be found through history, and that should be no different.

Basically, I like the idea of a chat, but in practice it was always just a high school-ish meme haven for filth that ran off potential members. Unless you can do all the above (track history, enforce all wiki policies, and confirm server stablitiy), I'm against the tavern coming back.

Even if you can confirm all those, I'm still not necessarily for it. Back when it was open, regulars there hardly ever actually contributed to the wiki - and some didn't even understand the basics of wiki code after being in the Tavern regularly for over a year. It seemed to create a subcommunity and actually resulted in less actual wiki contribution and growth.

Badger 17:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hooper makes some very valid points. That said, I'd like to try and address them.

First, I'll mention policy enforcement. While I agree that policy for the wiki and an IRC channel should be similar, some things just don't translate well between the two. Spammers can be kicked from the channel with a few keystrokes, and no reverting needs to occur. Obviously, we should have some sort of policy on "no swearing, be nice to everyone" and a set of consequences (an admin will warn you, then kick you, then ban you, etc...) but I don't think it should necessarily be the same policy we have in place here on the wiki. Similar, yes; the same, no.

Second, on server issues. This was my number one thought when thinking about how to bring the tavern back. I checked into low-bandwidth channel hosting for the wiki, as well as alternate methods. I eventually settled on Freenode.net, which provides free hosting. That means the channel will be hosted, for free, on someone else's server. We do, however, get total control of our channel. That said, there are a few drawbacks to not hosting it ourselves, but I think overall it's a solid choice.

Finally, on logging a history. I know there are tools to log history of an IRC chatroom. I'd be more than willing to learn how to log chats, and post them in a format where they can be accessed as needed. Honestly, this would likely be the easiest thing to rectify.

JazzMan 23:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I meant by non-binding, at all, so perhaps it needs to be clearer. I didn't mean that you can say whatever you want to without consequences (though see below), simply that you can't say stuff on the tavern and expect that people on-wiki will know what happened (though see below, again). In other words, if you say on the Tavern "I'm changing the damage of Super Cool Sword from 1d6 to 10d6 for reason X, Y, and Z", and the people on the tavern all agree, you can't just change the wiki article and expect there to be no on-wiki conversation. I never meant to imply that any and all wiki rules don't apply on the tavern, because they should.

As Badger mentioned, however, you can't directly impose on-wiki penalties for tavern violations. What happens if someone signs on as "Hooper" and starts swearing or harassing other users? It wouldn't be fair to ban you, and it wouldn't be fair to not ban the other Hooper, but there's no way to know for sure who is who. So people should be punished for bad behavior (likely by banning or kicking), but only on the tavern itself.

I think Badger also summed up how server load should not be a limitation.

I was never on the old tavern, so I didn't realize there was a history; if that's possible then it removes pretty much all of my reservations. Though that history doesn't seem to be around anymore, so it doesn't do us any good to have a history if it's not permanent.

  Hooper   talk    contribs    email   05:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you were logged into the wiki and went into the old tavern, it would auto give you that name. I may be wrong, but I believe you couldn't sign in as a name already registered on the wiki without having that password information. So you were either an IP, a random name not taken, or your own name.

James 21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally LOVE the idea. But do not let the tavern itself move your decision, think of the convinence of it. If you are about to role play in an hour or so, and you happen to think of a question that you need to know but can not find it in any of the books you own. So instead of posting on discusion and going without the question answered for that session, you could ask on the tavern and get an answer immediatly.

SgtLion 07:35, 17 August 2010 (MDT)

I don't know the entire ins and outs of the full system of the Tavern, or the full reason it was taken off in the first place. It seems to me, though, that the reason for wanting a chatroom as such is to:
Converse about general wiki ideas and thoughts
Talk with enjoyable people
Help out people looking for certain rules.
To these ends, I don't see how a tavern couldn't be set up, run to simply allow those kinds of conversations, and punish all unwanted talk, simple as. The hard part, I would imagine, is finding people with the commitment, willing and time to actually admin the place, although you could simply put trusted regulars in the place of admin, and see how it went.
Anyhow, as I said, I don't know all the details, so it's merely a point in the form of a simple solution.

69.73.185.198 16:50, 17 August 2010 (MDT)

In the mibbit server of IRC there's a D&D chatroom under #dnd. Just google mibbit and you'll find it pretty easily.

Yeah, but that is actually the channel of another DnD wiki. I was hoping to create one centered around this wiki, as a way to build up our community at little. That channel is full of some really nice guys who know DnD very well, however. If you have any questions you need answered right away, I'd go there even before calling the Wizard's help line. --Badger 16:50, 17 August 2010 (MDT)

Why Not

Personally I think it would be a wonderful and useful thing to have. It would allow someone to ask a question and get a good solid answer in real time without needing to wait until some gets around to answering it. But I can also see the bad in it some people just can't take some things seriously. It could provoke things like spam and arguments and some people could get offended. But also it takes a measure of maturity. We have to come to terms with the fact that we are all grown ups here some some things need to slide; if per chance happens to use ther word @$$ we can't all have a coniption fit and freak out on them. I'm not promoting bad language or rudeness but some people are going to say some things that people might not want to hear and that has to be taken into account. but personally I think it should go back up and if things happen they happen. --Dragoona22

Thanks for adding your thoughts, and I'll try to address your question. Traditionally, the argument against the idea of the tavern has been that it would divert traffic away from the wiki. The concern has been that people will use the tavern for general chat, and make decisions in the tavern and make changes on the wiki without consulting (or notifying) those on the wiki who don't frequent the tavern. Hooper addressed that before. However, the points you made about maturity are dead on. I think the ephemeral nature of discussion on the IRC would allow for a little more leeway with "abrasive" language, than on the wiki where things get preserved forever. --Badger 18:50, 19 August 2010 (MDT)

Dj00345 20:22, 11 March 2011 (MST)

I think that reopening the Tavern would be an excellent idea. that way we can talk to other users immediately. The Tavern needs to be reopened!!!!!! i dont see why it was closed in the first place...

I AM TOTALLY FOR REOPENING THE TAVERN!!!!!

Not exactly the wiki's chat, but I think some of the old regulars can be found here if anyone wants to chat about D&D. I sometimes pop in there, and they seem to know what they're talking about whenever I have some questions and need them answered ASAP.

Re-open please!

Since numerous new people, and not just spambots have joined, I like to think the IRC chat would be welcome. I know that I personally would enjoy talking to some of the individuals I follow on here. Also, it could potential bring gaming groups together. -- Irykyl 12:46, 20 March 2012 (MDT)

I know this was said ages ago, but I second this. --Qwertyu63 (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2012 (MDT)

Green Dragon (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2012 (MDT)

D&D Wiki is a site about D&D. Having a chat room creates some changes to that notion.

1. It is an non-moderated area.
2. It's use does not extend well into the D&D-universe.
   1. One cannot roll die.
   2. Narration is poor compared to voice narration.
   3. D&D rule-sets (character sheets, combat-grids, combat information, etc) are poorly represented across the "gaming table".
3. It's use is uncertain at best.
4. A chat room requires extensive maintenance for all the changes that D&D Wiki proper sees (e.g. the recent downtime was circumvented by changing D&D Wiki's IP– this would have led to complications with a chat room I imagine.

For these reasons I do not think we should bother. D&D Wiki's function is well represented by its format, and people form groups and play D&D anyway: I find that "endorsing" a lesser form of this practice would be counter-intuitive.

Badger (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2012 (MST)

Green Dragon, thanks for finally taking the time to weigh in on this issue. I'd like to address each of the points you made, in order.

1. It would not be a non-moderated area, and moderation of the chatroom has been discussed at length here(as have rules and punishments for rule violations).
2. Real time communication with other human beings is the very essence of the D&D.
   1. There are extensions one can use to roll dice (like random number generators) (It's also worth noting that you can't roll dice on the wiki, but that's a whole other story).
   2. Since mankind invented the written word, it has become incredibly easy to convey meaning over text. Use of italics and boldface text makes narrating and playing a game in text incredibly straightforward.
   3. I've personally run several games over IRC, or via an email/message board situation. They are very popular. It's a different sort of game than the usual tabletop experience, but still very fun.
3. Its use has been clearly mentioned by several users who have posted earlier on this page. Sgtlion and Dragoona22 both mentioned some uses. Naturally, as use became more widespread, we'd find more uses for it (and better defined ones).
4. A chat room would require little to no additional maintenance. As mentioned, I've looked into alternate means of hosting, and logging of chats. It could be run independently of the wiki, or alongside it. Any downtime on the chat room would be an inconvenience, but since its intent is to serve as a way to chat with other people, it wouldn't be a huge loss if we were down for a few hours/days.

At the very least, we should give it a try, and quit if it becomes a hassle to maintain and use. I don't see any of your objections as a reason not to try.

Sorry about taking awhile to respond, but considering it took Green Dragon over 2 years to respond to my initial discussion, I think my delay of a month and a half to respond seems pretty reasonable.

Green Dragon (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2013 (MST)

I thought I responded elsewhere, but when I could not find it I responded (yes, it took a while :P). Sorry about that.

Do you mean creating a virtual environment akin to http://www.rpgobjects.com/index.php?c=orpg&m=features that works with D&D Wiki? I agree with this idea, since it is different from just a chat (which you might as well do on your chat program). Do you know of how this is possible without programming?

At this time, though, it is more important to get the skin done.

Salasay Δ 08:19, 26 January 2013 (MST)

I'm all for it. I would like to get it back; i either wasn't here for it or wasn't wiki-ing seriously while it was here. I think that it would be a cool thing to have back.

Heres an idea

i just looked up everyone who was on the helpers page and asked each one individually to look at some homebrew stuff. while a tavern for the entire wiki might not be a very good idea overall i would like to see a single talk page that the helpers and/or admins would have on their watchlist so that we wouldn't have to track them all down. Mordred the dark (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2014 (MDT)

For the record User_Talk:Admin fulfils this, though maybe we should advertise it more noticeably. --SgtLion (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2015 (MDT)

---

SgtLion (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2015 (MDT)

Sorry to be the rebearer of old sentiments. But I think re-opening the Tavern (or equivalent chat) is something we should consider again. It can simply be a lil' IRC chat, ban vulgarities, have a couple trusted admins, even I can set up a bot for public logging, basic rule enforcement and rolling dice if it turned out useful. It fulfils at least two express purposes that our wiki medium is absolutely poor with:

• Lost people looking for help - These people may find their way to an admin/gooduser's page if they've a good tablespoon of luck, otherwise they're pretty stuffed and often make poor edits.
• Community integration - New users to this site who are contributing good edits and having fun times may still be struggling to feel part of the dandwiki community. If not, wonderful, but for a large portion of users who feel the need to either fade away from isolation or leave messages on multiple people's talk pages because they're dying for community input, they're being failed by the slow, maze-like, super-formal process of wiki talk.

Though maybe not good, it might also be considered for other purposes like in-depth discussion and close collaboration. My personal feeling is the best benefits are engagement, and the simple convenience of just finding out things and opinions without having to write a formal letter to someone else every time.

Let's note that this wouldn't have to be hosted on a dandwiki server, largely automoderated, can be kept strictly formal or informal as desired, likely strictly not for DnD games, but just a casual place for people to talk useful things about dandwiki.

Back to Main Page → Meta Pages → Discussions