Some groups of users feel like they function well together and have agreed-upon standards established independently.
Therefore, I propose that we begin by re-writing the chat FAQ in an effort to clarify WHAT chat is for and HOW it can be used constructively.
I'll begin by laying out my own observations regarding chat...
For five years now, Chat has been the red-headed stepchild of Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange: not a particularly good fit for a Q&A site, but still an integral part of the experience for many. Divergent evolution, so to speak: the perception of chat among the minds of those who use it has taken on different forms, and the perception of chat among those who I think a web-based real time chat system like Campfire could offer that informal public gathering third place -- a space for people who love the topic to meet, discuss, and collaborate in a different way. But they also leak when stretched too far: you can't have 20 people all gathered around one jug of water, and rarely does anyone talk to crowded into their local inn, much less expect them to listen and respond constructively. And these forms of social interaction are the source of the problems described above, which cannot easily be resolved with fanciful comparisons to physical gathering-places.
As such guidance must necessarily be grounded in a shared understanding of the Re.
the 3rd point, I think expanding this might be the key to solving the current problem: "all moderation tools and privileges operate in all rooms and they will be used consistently to enforce a global, objective, not-room-determined code of conduct." I do think that code of conduct should be "if we'd delete it in a comment on Meta, we'll delete it here".
Let's solve a few easier problems first, @Candied Mango: if we can agree on a universal language, a universal culture, and a universal religion, then we can start talking about a universal set of vulgarities.I don't know if this should be an answer, but one problem I see (and I know others see it, too) is the idea of "room culture".It would foster community, and be complementary to both strict Q&A;, and meta-discussion. I hold that the problems which arise in chat are rarely those of topic or language, although that is often how they appear; rather, the persistent problem in chat is participants who hold expectations for how they or others should behave which don't match the reality of either the system or the larger culture in which it resides.One does not repeatedly charge into a brick wall thinking it will move aside; one does so believing that the wall does not exist.These are incontestable facts: I believe it is essential that we communicate these factors within the guidance given to chat participants, and do what we can to dissuade them from relying on chat for purposes they will find it ill-suited for.I said at the start that my primary goal here is to re-write the guidance that is given to folks using chat; indeed, several of my co-workers are already hard at work on this.