Let anyone with an account talk in chat
- *Existing suspension mechanisms still apply, and suspension-related feature-requests are on the table
- This would not include privilege to create or invite others to rooms
BUT, each site can decide through meta-discussion how to fine-tune this:
- Option to only allow below-rep users who have at least one undeleted post on the parent Q&A site (alive for at least M days), and no posts deleted as rude/abusive in the past N years.
- Option to make rate limiting more aggressive, and by how much.
- Ex. If the site wants below-rep chat users to only be able to send one message every 10 minutes, they can do that. Only 5 per day? Sure. Up to them.
- Setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in chat.
- Option to allow below-rep chat users to reply once to each chat message from a rep-qualified chat user that @<name>s them, regardless of what the above rate limit says, but still subject to the "globally-applicable" rate limit. This means privileged users can allow conversation to continue more freely, and they are in control. Ex. If people don't want to hear from a troll, they can just stop feeding / talking to said troll.
- Option to disable oneboxing on below-rep chat users' messages (and if the site doesn't disable it site-wide, an option for the default value for each room)
And, room owners for site chatrooms have related controls for their rooms (probably under the room's "Access" tab):
Options to make things further constrained than the site-level settings:
- They can set an even more aggressive rate limit than the site settings (and setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in the room)
- If the site settings allow replies to privileged users to skip the per-site-below-rep-rate-limit, the room owners can opt to disallow it.
- Option to make these messages go into a queue for room-owner approval before being displayed to other room members, or hide these messages which have any spam/rude/abusive flags from users who can't handle chat flags until the flag is actioned.
- Sites can pick what they want as default values for those room-level options.
An escape hatch to lift constraints (Ex. when someone demonstrates a pattern of good behaviour): Similar to feature-requests like Invite low rep users to participate in chat / Allow inviting people with rep < 20 to private chat?, and riffing on the existing feature where room owners can pick people to allow to talk in a room, allowing room owners to let specific below-rep chat users to talk in their chat room.
- Any room owner can use this to lift the room-specific constraints, but it won't lift the site-level constraints.
- Room owners with some higher amount of rep (maybe at the same level where gallery room privileges are earned) can lift the site-level restrictions, and are held accountable (to some degree) if that below-rep chat user misbehaves. If there's reason to, this can be further constrained so that it only applies when the grantor is in the room.
- If the site decides they don't want this to be possible for their site's chat rooms, they can make it so through a site-level setting.
And for user settings, allow rep-privileged chat users to block/ignore all below-rep chat users, or choose a rep threshold to automatically ignore users below it.
Let anyone with an account talk in chat
- *Existing suspension mechanisms still apply, and suspension-related feature-requests are on the table
- This would not include privilege to create or invite others to rooms
BUT, each site can decide through meta-discussion how to fine-tune this:
- Option to only allow below-rep users who have at least one undeleted post on the parent Q&A site (alive for at least M days), and no posts deleted as rude/abusive in the past N years.
- Option to make rate limiting more aggressive, and by how much.
- Ex. If the site wants below-rep chat users to only be able to send one message every 10 minutes, they can do that. Only 5 per day? Sure. Up to them.
- Setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in chat.
- Option to allow below-rep chat users to reply once to each chat message from a rep-qualified chat user that @<name>s them, regardless of what the above rate limit says, but still subject to the "globally-applicable" rate limit. This means privileged users can allow conversation to continue more freely, and they are in control. Ex. If people don't want to hear from a troll, they can just stop feeding / talking to said troll.
- Option to disable oneboxing on below-rep chat users' messages (and if the site doesn't disable it site-wide, an option for the default value for each room)
And, room owners for site chatrooms have related controls for their rooms (probably under the room's "Access" tab):
Options to make things further constrained than the site-level settings:
- They can set an even more aggressive rate limit than the site settings (and setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in the room)
- If the site settings allow replies to privileged users to skip the per-site-below-rep-rate-limit, the room owners can opt to disallow it.
- Option to make these messages go into a queue for room-owner approval before being displayed to other room members, or hide these messages which have any spam/rude/abusive flags from users who can't handle chat flags until the flag is actioned.
- Sites can pick what they want as default values for those room-level options.
An escape hatch to lift constraints (Ex. when someone demonstrates a pattern of good behaviour): Similar to feature-requests like Invite low rep users to participate in chat / Allow inviting people with rep < 20 to private chat?, and riffing on the existing feature where room owners can pick people to allow to talk in a room, allowing room owners to let specific below-rep chat users to talk in their chat room.
- Any room owner can use this to lift the room-specific constraints, but it won't lift the site-level constraints.
- Room owners with some higher amount of rep (maybe at the same level where gallery room privileges are earned) can lift the site-level restrictions, and are held accountable (to some degree) if that below-rep chat user misbehaves. If there's reason to, this can be further constrained so that it only applies when the grantor is in the room.
- If the site decides they don't want this to be possible for their site's chat rooms, they can make it so through a site-level setting.
And for user settings, allow rep-privileged chat users to block/ignore all below-rep chat users.
Let anyone with an account talk in chat
- *Existing suspension mechanisms still apply, and suspension-related feature-requests are on the table
- This would not include privilege to create or invite others to rooms
BUT, each site can decide through meta-discussion how to fine-tune this:
- Option to only allow below-rep users who have at least one undeleted post on the parent Q&A site (alive for at least M days), and no posts deleted as rude/abusive in the past N years.
- Option to make rate limiting more aggressive, and by how much.
- Ex. If the site wants below-rep chat users to only be able to send one message every 10 minutes, they can do that. Only 5 per day? Sure. Up to them.
- Setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in chat.
- Option to allow below-rep chat users to reply once to each chat message from a rep-qualified chat user that @<name>s them, regardless of what the above rate limit says, but still subject to the "globally-applicable" rate limit. This means privileged users can allow conversation to continue more freely, and they are in control. Ex. If people don't want to hear from a troll, they can just stop feeding / talking to said troll.
- Option to disable oneboxing on below-rep chat users' messages (and if the site doesn't disable it site-wide, an option for the default value for each room)
And, room owners for site chatrooms have related controls for their rooms (probably under the room's "Access" tab):
Options to make things further constrained than the site-level settings:
- They can set an even more aggressive rate limit than the site settings (and setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in the room)
- If the site settings allow replies to privileged users to skip the per-site-below-rep-rate-limit, the room owners can opt to disallow it.
- Option to make these messages go into a queue for room-owner approval before being displayed to other room members, or hide these messages which have any spam/rude/abusive flags from users who can't handle chat flags until the flag is actioned.
- Sites can pick what they want as default values for those room-level options.
An escape hatch to lift constraints (Ex. when someone demonstrates a pattern of good behaviour): Similar to feature-requests like Invite low rep users to participate in chat / Allow inviting people with rep < 20 to private chat?, and riffing on the existing feature where room owners can pick people to allow to talk in a room, allowing room owners to let specific below-rep chat users to talk in their chat room.
- Any room owner can use this to lift the room-specific constraints, but it won't lift the site-level constraints.
- Room owners with some higher amount of rep (maybe at the same level where gallery room privileges are earned) can lift the site-level restrictions, and are held accountable (to some degree) if that below-rep chat user misbehaves. If there's reason to, this can be further constrained so that it only applies when the grantor is in the room.
- If the site decides they don't want this to be possible for their site's chat rooms, they can make it so through a site-level setting.
And for user settings, allow rep-privileged chat users to block/ignore all below-rep chat users, or choose a rep threshold to automatically ignore users below it.
Let anyone with an account talk in chat
- *Existing suspension mechanisms still apply, and suspension-related feature-requests are on the table
- This would not include privilege to create or invite others to rooms
BUT, each site can decide through meta-discussion how to fine-tune this:
- Option to only allow below-rep users who have at least one undeleted post on the parent Q&A site (alive for at least M days), and no posts deleted as rude/abusive in the past N years.
- Option to make rate limiting more aggressive, and by how much.
- Ex. If the site wants below-rep chat users to only be able to send one message every 10 minutes, they can do that. Only 5 per day? Sure. Up to them.
- Setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in chat.
- Option to allow below-rep chat users to reply once to each chat message from a rep-qualified chat user that @<name>s them, regardless of what the above rate limit says, but still subject to the "globally-applicable" rate limit. This means privileged users can allow conversation to continue more freely, and they are in control. Ex. If people don't want to hear from a troll, they can just stop feeding / talking to said troll.
- Option to disable oneboxing on below-rep chat users' messages (and if the site doesn't disable it site-wide, an option for the default value for each room)
And, room owners for site chatrooms have related controls for their rooms (probably under the room's "Access" tab):
Options to make things further constrained than the site-level settings:
- They can set an even more aggressive rate limit than the site settings (and setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in the room)
- If the site settings allow replies to privileged users to skip the per-site-below-rep-rate-limit, the room owners can opt to disallow it.
- Option to make these messages go into a queue for room-owner approval before being displayed to other room members, or hide these messages which have any spam/rude/abusive flags from users who can't handle chat flags until the flag is actioned.
- Sites can pick what they want as default values for those room-level options.
An escape hatch to lift constraints (Ex. when someone demonstrates a pattern of good behaviour): Similar to feature-requests like Invite low rep users to participate in chat / Allow inviting people with rep < 20 to private chat?, and riffing on the existing feature where room owners can pick people to allow to talk in a room, allowing room owners to let specific below-rep chat users to talk in their chat room.
- Any room owner can use this to lift the room-specific constraints, but it won't lift the site-level constraints.
- Room owners with some higher amount of rep (maybe at the same level where gallery room privileges are earned) can lift the site-level restrictions, and are held accountable (to some degree) if that below-rep chat user misbehaves. If there's reason to, this can be further constrained so that it only applies when the grantor is in the room.
- If the site decides they don't want this to be possible for their site's chat rooms, they can make it so through a site-level setting.
And for user settings, allow rep-privileged chat users to block/ignore all below-rep chat users.
Let anyone with an account talk in chat
- *Existing suspension mechanisms still apply, and suspension-related feature-requests are on the table
- This would not include privilege to create or invite others to rooms
BUT, each site can decide through meta-discussion how to fine-tune this:
- Option to only allow below-rep users who have at least one undeleted post on the parent Q&A site (alive for at least M days), and no posts deleted as rude/abusive in the past N years.
- Option to make rate limiting more aggressive, and by how much.
- Ex. If the site wants below-rep chat users to only be able to send one message every 10 minutes, they can do that. Only 5 per day? Sure. Up to them.
- Setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in chat.
- Option to allow below-rep chat users to reply once to each chat message from a rep-qualified chat user that @<name>s them, regardless of what the above rate limit says, but still subject to the "globally-applicable" rate limit. This means privileged users can allow conversation to continue more freely, and they are in control. Ex. If people don't want to hear from a troll, they can just stop feeding / talking to said troll.
- Option to disable oneboxing on below-rep chat users' messages (and if the site doesn't disable it site-wide, an option for the default value for each room)
And, room owners for site chatrooms have related controls for their rooms (probably under the room's "Access" tab):
Options to make things further constrained than the site-level settings:
- They can set an even more aggressive rate limit than the site settings (and setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in the room)
- If the site settings allow replies to privileged users to skip the per-site-below-rep-rate-limit, the room owners can opt to disallow it.
- Option to make these messages go into a queue for room-owner approval before being displayed to other room members.
- Sites can pick what they want as default values for those room-level options.
An escape hatch to lift constraints (Ex. when someone demonstrates a pattern of good behaviour): Similar to feature-requests like Invite low rep users to participate in chat / Allow inviting people with rep < 20 to private chat?, and riffing on the existing feature where room owners can pick people to allow to talk in a room, allowing room owners to let specific below-rep chat users to talk in their chat room.
- Any room owner can use this to lift the room-specific constraints, but it won't lift the site-level constraints.
- Room owners with some higher amount of rep (maybe at the same level where gallery room privileges are earned) can lift the site-level restrictions, and are held accountable (to some degree) if that below-rep chat user misbehaves. If there's reason to, this can be further constrained so that it only applies when the grantor is in the room.
- If the site decides they don't want this to be possible for their site's chat rooms, they can make it so through a site-level setting.
And for user settings, allow rep-privileged chat users to block/ignore all below-rep chat users.
Let anyone with an account talk in chat
- *Existing suspension mechanisms still apply, and suspension-related feature-requests are on the table
- This would not include privilege to create or invite others to rooms
BUT, each site can decide through meta-discussion how to fine-tune this:
- Option to only allow below-rep users who have at least one undeleted post on the parent Q&A site (alive for at least M days), and no posts deleted as rude/abusive in the past N years.
- Option to make rate limiting more aggressive, and by how much.
- Ex. If the site wants below-rep chat users to only be able to send one message every 10 minutes, they can do that. Only 5 per day? Sure. Up to them.
- Setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in chat.
- Option to allow below-rep chat users to reply once to each chat message from a rep-qualified chat user that @<name>s them, regardless of what the above rate limit says, but still subject to the "globally-applicable" rate limit. This means privileged users can allow conversation to continue more freely, and they are in control. Ex. If people don't want to hear from a troll, they can just stop feeding / talking to said troll.
- Option to disable oneboxing on below-rep chat users' messages (and if the site doesn't disable it site-wide, an option for the default value for each room)
And, room owners for site chatrooms have related controls for their rooms (probably under the room's "Access" tab):
Options to make things further constrained than the site-level settings:
- They can set an even more aggressive rate limit than the site settings (and setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in the room)
- If the site settings allow replies to privileged users to skip the per-site-below-rep-rate-limit, the room owners can opt to disallow it.
- Option to make these messages go into a queue for room-owner approval before being displayed to other room members, or hide these messages which have any spam/rude/abusive flags from users who can't handle chat flags until the flag is actioned.
- Sites can pick what they want as default values for those room-level options.
An escape hatch to lift constraints (Ex. when someone demonstrates a pattern of good behaviour): Similar to feature-requests like Invite low rep users to participate in chat / Allow inviting people with rep < 20 to private chat?, and riffing on the existing feature where room owners can pick people to allow to talk in a room, allowing room owners to let specific below-rep chat users to talk in their chat room.
- Any room owner can use this to lift the room-specific constraints, but it won't lift the site-level constraints.
- Room owners with some higher amount of rep (maybe at the same level where gallery room privileges are earned) can lift the site-level restrictions, and are held accountable (to some degree) if that below-rep chat user misbehaves. If there's reason to, this can be further constrained so that it only applies when the grantor is in the room.
- If the site decides they don't want this to be possible for their site's chat rooms, they can make it so through a site-level setting.
And for user settings, allow rep-privileged chat users to block/ignore all below-rep chat users.
Let anyone with an account talk in chat
- *Existing suspension mechanisms still apply, and suspension-related feature-requests are on the table
- This would not include privilege to create or invite others to rooms
BUT, each site can decide through meta-discussion how to fine-tune this:
- Option to only allow below-rep users who have at least one undeleted post on the parent Q&A site (alive for at least M days), and no posts deleted as rude/abusive in the past N years.
- Option to make rate limiting more aggressive, and by how much.
- Ex. If the site wants below-rep chat users to only be able to send one message every 10 minutes, they can do that. Only 5 per day? Sure. Up to them.
- Setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in chat.
- Option to allow below-rep chat users to reply once to each chat message from a rep-qualified chat user that @<name>s them, regardless of what the above rate limit says, but still subject to the "globally-applicable" rate limit. This means privileged users can allow conversation to continue more freely, and they are in control. Ex. If people don't want to hear from a troll, they can just stop feeding / talking to said troll.
- Option to disable oneboxing on below-rep chat users' messages (and if the site doesn't disable it site-wide, an option for the default value for each room)
And, room owners for site chatrooms have related controls for their rooms (probably under the room's "Access" tab):
Options to make things further constrained than the site-level settings:
- They can set an even more aggressive rate limit than the site settings (and setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in the room)
- If the site settings allow replies to privileged users to skip the per-site-below-rep-rate-limit, the room owners can opt to disallow it.
- Option to make these messages go into a queue for room-owner approval before being displayed to other room members.
- Sites can pick what they want as default values for those room-level options.
An escape hatch to lift constraints (Ex. when someone demonstrates a pattern of good behaviour): Similar to feature-requests like Invite low rep users to participate in chat / Allow inviting people with rep < 20 to private chat?, and riffing on the existing feature where room owners can pick people to allow to talk in a room, allowing room owners to let specific below-rep chat users to talk in their chat room.
- Any room owner can use this to lift the room-specific constraints, but it won't lift the site-level constraints.
- Room owners with some higher amount of rep (maybe at the same level where gallery room privileges are earned) can lift the site-level restrictions, and are held accountable (to some degree) if that below-rep chat user misbehaves. If there's reason to, this can be further constrained so that it only applies when the grantor is in the room.
- If the site decides they don't want this to be possible for their site's chat rooms, they can make it so through a site-level setting.
And for user settings, allow rep-privileged chat users to block/ignore all below-rep chat users.
Let anyone with an account talk in chat
- *Existing suspension mechanisms still apply, and suspension-related feature-requests are on the table
- This would not include privilege to create or invite others to rooms
BUT, each site can decide through meta-discussion how to fine-tune this:
- Option to only allow below-rep users who have at least one undeleted post on the parent Q&A site (alive for at least M days), and no posts deleted as rude/abusive in the past N years.
- Option to make rate limiting more aggressive, and by how much.
- Ex. If the site wants below-rep chat users to only be able to send one message every 10 minutes, they can do that. Only 5 per day? Sure. Up to them.
- Setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in chat.
- Option to allow below-rep chat users to reply once to each chat message from a rep-qualified chat user that @<name>s them, regardless of what the above rate limit says, but still subject to the "globally-applicable" rate limit. This means privileged users can allow conversation to continue more freely, and they are in control. Ex. If people don't want to hear from a troll, they can just stop feeding / talking to said troll.
And, room owners for site chatrooms have related controls for their rooms (probably under the room's "Access" tab):
Options to make things further constrained than the site-level settings:
- They can set an even more aggressive rate limit than the site settings (and setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in the room)
- If the site settings allow replies to privileged users to skip the per-site-below-rep-rate-limit, the room owners can opt to disallow it.
- Option to make these messages go into a queue for room-owner approval before being displayed to other room members.
- Sites can pick what they want as default values for those room-level options.
An escape hatch to lift constraints (Ex. when someone demonstrates a pattern of good behaviour): Similar to feature-requests like Invite low rep users to participate in chat / Allow inviting people with rep < 20 to private chat?, and riffing on the existing feature where room owners can pick people to allow to talk in a room, allowing room owners to let specific below-rep chat users to talk in their chat room.
- Any room owner can use this to lift the room-specific constraints, but it won't lift the site-level constraints.
- Room owners with some higher amount of rep (maybe at the same level where gallery room privileges are earned) can lift the site-level restrictions, and are held accountable (to some degree) if that below-rep chat user misbehaves. If there's reason to, this can be further constrained so that it only applies when the grantor is in the room.
- If the site decides they don't want this to be possible for their site's chat rooms, they can make it so through a site-level setting.
And for user settings, allow rep-privileged chat users to block/ignore all below-rep chat users.
Let anyone with an account talk in chat
- *Existing suspension mechanisms still apply, and suspension-related feature-requests are on the table
- This would not include privilege to create or invite others to rooms
BUT, each site can decide through meta-discussion how to fine-tune this:
- Option to only allow below-rep users who have at least one undeleted post on the parent Q&A site (alive for at least M days), and no posts deleted as rude/abusive in the past N years.
- Option to make rate limiting more aggressive, and by how much.
- Ex. If the site wants below-rep chat users to only be able to send one message every 10 minutes, they can do that. Only 5 per day? Sure. Up to them.
- Setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in chat.
- Option to allow below-rep chat users to reply once to each chat message from a rep-qualified chat user that @<name>s them, regardless of what the above rate limit says, but still subject to the "globally-applicable" rate limit. This means privileged users can allow conversation to continue more freely, and they are in control. Ex. If people don't want to hear from a troll, they can just stop feeding / talking to said troll.
- Option to disable oneboxing on below-rep chat users' messages (and if the site doesn't disable it site-wide, an option for the default value for each room)
And, room owners for site chatrooms have related controls for their rooms (probably under the room's "Access" tab):
Options to make things further constrained than the site-level settings:
- They can set an even more aggressive rate limit than the site settings (and setting to zero messages per <any time window> means below-rep chat users can't talk in the room)
- If the site settings allow replies to privileged users to skip the per-site-below-rep-rate-limit, the room owners can opt to disallow it.
- Option to make these messages go into a queue for room-owner approval before being displayed to other room members.
- Sites can pick what they want as default values for those room-level options.
An escape hatch to lift constraints (Ex. when someone demonstrates a pattern of good behaviour): Similar to feature-requests like Invite low rep users to participate in chat / Allow inviting people with rep < 20 to private chat?, and riffing on the existing feature where room owners can pick people to allow to talk in a room, allowing room owners to let specific below-rep chat users to talk in their chat room.
- Any room owner can use this to lift the room-specific constraints, but it won't lift the site-level constraints.
- Room owners with some higher amount of rep (maybe at the same level where gallery room privileges are earned) can lift the site-level restrictions, and are held accountable (to some degree) if that below-rep chat user misbehaves. If there's reason to, this can be further constrained so that it only applies when the grantor is in the room.
- If the site decides they don't want this to be possible for their site's chat rooms, they can make it so through a site-level setting.
And for user settings, allow rep-privileged chat users to block/ignore all below-rep chat users.