Lift the ban on Server Talk in the Lobby

Ticket #3746
Opened by: CraftyFoxe
Status: Open
Feature Request
2017-04-17 20:17:08


For a long time there's been a ban about server talk in the lobby, but people in the server hall are the only ones who talk about Minecraft anymore. If we lift the ban on server talk in the main room, there will be a more active community / chat. Minecraft should have a larger focus in the chatroom.

Comments (16)

Ralex said 2017-05-11 20:44:21
It could, but that's why mods exist as well.

MCF runs a chat as well, and it's got a very open-ended #chat, that's in effect "keep it appropriate, no server ads." and it's played out pretty well. There's still not too much server talk, but there's still quite a bit of discussion going on.

The "fear" that it's going to dominate I personally think is exaggerated. There's not much evidence to really say it actually will, just "it could"s
Autumn Fyre said 2017-05-11 19:21:48
Well a little of it wouldn't be, but it could quickly dominate the chat. Have you ever noticed how many forum posts there are asking for ideas, opinions, etc? I feel like these should stay in the forums.
CraftyFoxe said 2017-05-10 08:09:48
How is people asking for opinions, ideas, etc considered spam?
Autumn Fyre said 2017-05-01 18:32:26
That's true!
Autumn Fyre said 2017-05-01 18:31:35
Not a good idea because the lobby would end up filled with spam (such as trash-talk/complaints about bad experiences, people asking for opinions, ideas, etc and even "this-is-what-I-did-on-my-sever-today" type stuff).

However, I also agree with Palaeos - if some clear cuts could be made between sever talk and advertising, this could turn out quite nicely!
Palaeos said 2017-04-29 22:48:09
If we were to change policy on this it would have to be clear where the line between talk ends and advertising begins, there is always going to be that one guy who wants to push and see how far he can talk about his server before it being considered advertising by the rules. I can see a new tactic of advertising being a guy who joins chat just to tell us he is going to play on his server if we don't consider it advertising.

I'm open to the changes so long as the boundaries are clear from the start.
Pepijn said 2017-04-29 20:30:04
An annoying problem is that it's hard to just try this out since it involves a policy change. You can speculate all you want, but you can never be certain. Keep in mind though that the current no server talk policy was implemented for a reason. Of course that was done at a time when chat was busier however.

From what I understand is that chat is eventually going to be sort of sitewide (?) which will probably increase the activity of chat again, so that should maybe be considered as well.
Myraaa said 2017-04-28 11:31:04
I actually like this, especially because the only people that are ever in server hall are there to advertise. You can't find help in there. If server talk (excluding advertising, obviously) was allowed in the main lobby, it could be helpful for a lot of people.
CraftyFoxe said 2017-04-26 20:43:27
I agree that general server chat should be allowed in the Lobby and not outright server advertising with IPs. Like a conversation can actually happen where we can discuss the minecraft community in depth. Some people aren't looking for a server, but they just want to talk about stuff.

No server talk rule should be changed to No server advertising. And this is usually the policy of actual servers talking about other servers. As long as they don't say the IP/ direct link to server website , its not advertising.
Havingfun_ISKEY said 2017-04-26 18:05:08
Server hall shouldn't be the default lobby. As said before by other people, most people come onto PMC chat to talk in the general lobby anyways, and it would quickly become annoying for people who aren't interested in servers. It's the members' fault if they don't read the rules.
Ralex said 2017-04-26 17:54:02
#chat implies that most topics are acceptable. #serverhall *to me* is not clear at all about it's meaning, and I can easily see it being just a place to advertise servers.

What is wrong with generic server chat in #chat? As long as it doesn't descend into advertisements, it's still chat effectively. It doesn't really make sense to me that such a limit should be made on chat. It's effectively like calling it "off-topic" chat because you can't talk about MC, because Server Hall is there for it.
Zitzabis said 2017-04-25 13:50:30
Lobby is a topic neutral ground where it can then split topics out from it. Hence why we have server hall as a location to speak in, and lobby is the default. People don't come to chat for server talk, they come for chatting. So the Lobby is the best default.

If server hall is the only place that talks about MC, then people can go there. But chat is not about talking about MC, but instead...chatting.

There are more people looking for non-server than server talk, and as server talk mostly consists for plugin troubleshooting or spamming your server IP, it's best to designate it to it's own room so that people can go there if they need that stuff.
It is unwise to make people have to move to another room to avoid that kind of clutter, instead it should work where people can move to another room if they want that clutter.
Ralex said 2017-04-25 13:40:57
"Server talk" is very generic. It would make sense that some talk about servers be okay, but not to the point where it's going into advertisement.

"I want to run a server, what could I look for in regards to X" would make sense in chat.
akashi said 2017-04-25 12:33:37
most people come into chat to talk in the lobby, also those people who come on first should read the rules as it clearly states no server talk in the lobby.
CraftyFoxe said 2017-04-21 22:26:45
Another way to fix it is to make Server Hall the default room instead of Lobby. So people who aren't particularly interested in servers go to another room.

You know how many countless people first come on to chat only to get infracted to chat for server talk everyday. That would fix it.
Elliemination said 2017-04-21 22:04:59
Disagree. Sorry ):