What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 131 Stack Exchange communities.

Kicking in chat is pretty useless and/or pointless. Everything that happens when you are kicked is, you are sent to the room list. There's no kick message, no "kicked by" message, no kick reason, nothing. For all a user knows, it's either a transient bug or a network hiccup. How is that useful?

The user can also immediately rejoin the chat. There's no repercussions for the user being kicked, it's just annoying. Even as a mod-only tool it's basically useless and annoying/confusing rather than a helpful moderation tool.

You may want to consider either removing it, or turning it into something more effective -- maybe user-specific room-specific 30 seconds long silencing.

share|improve this question
4  
Or stop useless flagging, so I don't have to annoy you ;-) –  Ivo Flipse Jan 2 '11 at 18:35
    
Mods can also suspend for an hour. A much more useful tactic. –  C. Ross Jan 2 '11 at 18:37
    
@Ivo How is associating a room about LaTeX to the LaTeX site useless? Maybe you are not aware this is a moderator only option. –  badp Jan 2 '11 at 18:40
    
Owners of a room can change the association, can't they? –  Rebecca Chernoff Jan 2 '11 at 18:42
    
@Rebecca No they can't. I would've just done that myself, if I could've. –  badp Jan 2 '11 at 18:43
    
It changed? I'm pretty sure they could before. Hrm. –  Rebecca Chernoff Jan 2 '11 at 18:43
1  
@Rebecca No, it was always that way -- but you, as a mod, could never notice :) What did change is that new rooms are automatically associated with your user's main chat accounts' site (originally, there was no default association.) –  badp Jan 2 '11 at 18:44
    
I know I'm not a good test case, but I thought I had walked another user through doing it. I'm well aware of the default association. –  Rebecca Chernoff Jan 2 '11 at 18:46
    
@Rebecca Isn't the association setting supposed to be under room info → edit, together with the room name and description options? I think I recall screenshots about it :) –  badp Jan 2 '11 at 18:48
    
@Cross Your appreciation for nukes is duly noted, but that's quite the heavy handed measure. –  badp Jan 2 '11 at 18:54
    
Yes, the host option. Guess it did change or I'm hallucinating. –  Rebecca Chernoff Jan 2 '11 at 18:55
    
Kicking is just supposed to be a warning. If further actions need to be taken, then so be it, but kicking is supposed to be a step-one wake-up call to the user. –  Rebecca Chernoff Jan 2 '11 at 18:59
1  
@Rebecca My point exactly is that the wake up call is broken as it is. –  badp Jan 2 '11 at 19:09
4  
@Rebecca Everything that happens when you are kicked is, you are sent to the room list. There's no kick message, no "kicked by" message, no kick reason, nothing. For all a user knows, it's either a transient bug or a network hiccup. How is that useful? –  badp Jan 2 '11 at 19:14
1  
@Rebecca I'm giving attention to a problem and suggesting a few ways to improve the situation. I don't have a magic wand that gives the perfect solution to problems, so I prefer to maybe use the answers part to discuss possible fixing solutions. –  badp Jan 2 '11 at 19:27

2 Answers 2

Well looks like room owners can no longer kick.

So now you know that it had to be a mod.

While I'm sad to see it go, I see the potential missuse, as before it was too easy to kick some one from a room.

share|improve this answer
    
It was fun once, we had a owner and kicking war in a test room once here, chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/5134404#5134404 –  o̊ǝʇɐW⃗ May 11 '13 at 18:13
    
either that or the mods were having fun, and everyone was just jumping back into the room... –  o̊ǝʇɐW⃗ May 11 '13 at 18:34
    
Ah, here is something, shows that owners could kick at one time, meta.stackoverflow.com/revisions/87773/7 –  o̊ǝʇɐW⃗ May 11 '13 at 22:46

I tend to agree with you.

Although I somewhat like the room-and-user-specific short-term silencing idea, here are the issues I see:

  • Is there a problem this solves? Has there ever been a situation were silencing a user in just one room and for a short time would actually help with anything?
  • In particular, if a user behaves in such a way that they have to be silenced, does it really make sense to do this in just one room?

I'm interested to hear about ideas, but currently I err on the side of just removing this "option".

share|improve this answer
    
I just thought moderators could already suspend users for arbitrary times such as 30 seconds :) –  badp Jan 3 '11 at 15:22
    
@radp: no, suspension is 1 hour minimum (well, unless you manually unsuspend before) –  balpha Jan 3 '11 at 15:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .