25 Jun, 2010, Lobotomy wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Just a simple yes or no poll (I forgot that the Mudbytes forum even had a polling option). I'm curious to find out whether or not I really am the only person that has a problem with the lack of a user option to disable/enable the "recently on ichat" box at will.
25 Jun, 2010, Davion wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
The 'recently on ichat' box is an advertisement for one of the MudBytes services. People usually don't give a config option to turn advertisements off ;). They exist! But rarely do front-page ads get that option (look at slashdot!)
25 Jun, 2010, Igabod wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
The point is, people who disable the advertisement have already seen it cause it will be on by default. Those of us that already know about IMC don't need the advertisement and it just takes up scroll space.
25 Jun, 2010, Lobotomy wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
The 'recently on ichat' box is an advertisement for one of the MudBytes services. People usually don't give a config option to turn advertisements off ;). They exist! But rarely do front-page ads get that option (look at slashdot!)

So…despite the fact that I very clearly, and in no uncertain terms, don't want to see the ichat box anymore, you'd rather continue to force it on me (and others) simply because it's the status quo in the obnoxious advertiser world? Is that really supposed to make sense to me?

Look, Davion, as I've said before:

I have no problem with you trying to advertise your service to other people.

That's why you would have the option enabled by default in the first place! Site visitors would automatically see the box, as well as any registered members who choose not to disable it. Furthermore, if anyone (like me) wants to disable the box (and/or later re-enable it), they would have the option available to them! Everyone literally gets what they want that way. What is so unreasonable about that?

(Ninja'd by Igabod.)
25 Jun, 2010, Igabod wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Lobotomy said:
(Ninja'd by Igabod.)


Wait till I samurai ya one day :evil:
25 Jun, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Why advertise a service you don't care about, anyway?
25 Jun, 2010, donky wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
This poll should be declared null and void, as it creates a distorted view in terms of "yes" and "no". It would be more representative if it incorporated the "pass" choice.
25 Jun, 2010, Runter wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
donky said:
This poll should be declared null and void, as it creates a distorted view in terms of "yes" and "no". It would be more representative if it incorporated the "pass" choice.


Then don't vote. That's your pass option.

I don't know how you think it would be more representative just to note people who don't have an opinion. These polls look anonymous and don't even guarantee they're representative of people who actually use the site. Maybe it should list how many accounts exist that didn't vote, right?
25 Jun, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, donky wants to be able to express what he just expressed: that he thinks the poll is stupid. I don't know why he needs it in the poll itself, because he was able to say so. :wink: Perhaps people want to state their opinion anonymously… it's what happened with the tags, at least.
26 Jun, 2010, donky wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
donky said:
This poll should be declared null and void, as it creates a distorted view in terms of "yes" and "no". It would be more representative if it incorporated the "pass" choice.


Then don't vote. That's your pass option.

I don't know how you think it would be more representative just to note people who don't have an opinion. These polls look anonymous and don't even guarantee they're representative of people who actually use the site. Maybe it should list how many accounts exist that didn't vote, right?

There is no reason for you to get upset. I agree it is unreasonable to expect a poll to represent every member of this site, or even the set of those that actively use it. But what I do not agree with is what reads to me as an angry dismissal of my right to express my viewpoint.

I do not consider this poll silly. But I do not consider that it is best served by being limited to representing two fixed and polar opposite viewpoints that not everyone who may wish to indicate their opinion may share. Because of this I consider it to be more misrepresentative than it could be. If it factored in those who would like to participate, but whose viewpoint was not offered, then it would be less misrepresentative.

My viewpoint could count for a "yes" or "no". I might select "no" simply because I don't care. Or I might select "yes" because I in general don't like the ideal of non-optional page cruft, although I don't care about this particular issue. Either way, my vote is unfair to the party who votes the other way. Does Lobotomy want me wandering in and guessing "no" is closer to my point of view, and clicking it? I doubt it, because that would counter the point of view he was hoping was most common when he created the poll.
26 Jun, 2010, donky wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Well, donky wants to be able to express what he just expressed: that he thinks the poll is stupid. I don't know why he needs it in the poll itself, because he was able to say so. :wink: Perhaps people want to state their opinion anonymously… it's what happened with the tags, at least.

I think it is stupid that it does not offer a choice I can stand behind. But I do not think it is stupid in and of itself. I do not care about anonymity, but I care about things that claim to be representative of choices to allow all those who would seriously participate, to do so.
26 Jun, 2010, Runter wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Actually I'm not that upset at all. I think these polls are dumb for a long list of reasons. I just don't think it's worth complaining about. And the overall thing I disagree with you about is that this third option adds *any* legitimacy to these polls. If they should be null and void without that option, then they still should be with it. Personally, I say let people who enjoy the polls and make them for fun have their fun. You can add your third option to your polls. Maybe you can even add a 9th or tenth. I still won't take them serious.
26 Jun, 2010, donky wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
Actually I'm not that upset at all.
Ah, thanks for the correction. On rereading, I can see that this is clearly the case. At the time, I found the notion that someone would choose to deny me the ability to have a direct stake in the results of the poll hostile. The ambiguities of text..
26 Jun, 2010, Fizban wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Voted yes.

Don't honestly have a problem seeing it, and not sure I'd even choose to disable it if/when given the ability to do so, but at the same time I see absolutely no harm in giving people the ability to do so.

Davion said:
The 'recently on ichat' box is an advertisement for one of the MudBytes services. People usually don't give a config option to turn advertisements off ;).


That's completely irrelevant. No one is paying you per impression of the ichat box, thus it isn't the same as the traditional advertisements other sites have.
26 Jun, 2010, Fizban wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Hmm, just realized that it actually already is indirectly optional.

This page allows you to change your skin, the MB2 skin includes no advertisements or the ichat box, and personally I find it more aesthetically pleasing as well.

EDIT: The skin seems to be somewhat incomplete in other ways as well though unfortunately, particularly some of the images don't show correctly and you can't view/manipulate threads tags.
26 Jun, 2010, Koron wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
That's completely irrelevant. No one is paying you per impression of the ichat box, thus it isn't the same as the traditional advertisements other sites have.

This. Displaying it for people who are new here and thus are more unlikely to know about IMC makes sense. For long-timers who are likely to fall into one of two crowds (the "already on IMC" and the "not interested in IMC" crowds–although I suppose the "I'll get around to it some day" people also exist), forcing it to be there does next to nothing for attracting new users. Granted, having it there is a pretty spiffy bit of code, but it's not like it gets anyone money.
26 Jun, 2010, Lobotomy wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Fizban said:
Hmm, just realized that it actually already is indirectly optional.

This page allows you to change your skin, the MB2 skin includes no advertisements or the ichat box, and personally I find it more aesthetically pleasing as well.

EDIT: The skin seems to be somewhat incomplete in other ways as well though unfortunately, particularly some of the images don't show correctly and you can't view/manipulate threads tags.

Yeah, that one came up a while back as well (here and here). Aside from it being incomplete, I still find that skin to be particularly ugly; so I prefer to use the original skin. Regardless of that, however, there should still be a skin-independent configuration for disabling/enabling the ichat box. If/when the MB2 skin ever gets "fixed" it's likely that it would then be set to include the ichat box which would once again create a need for a skin-independent configuration anyways.
26 Jun, 2010, Fizban wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
Lobotomy said:
Fizban said:
Hmm, just realized that it actually already is indirectly optional.

This page allows you to change your skin, the MB2 skin includes no advertisements or the ichat box, and personally I find it more aesthetically pleasing as well.

EDIT: The skin seems to be somewhat incomplete in other ways as well though unfortunately, particularly some of the images don't show correctly and you can't view/manipulate threads tags.

Yeah, that one came up a while back as well (here and here). Aside from it being incomplete, I still find that skin to be particularly ugly; so I prefer to use the original skin. Regardless of that, however, there should still be a skin-independent configuration for disabling/enabling the ichat box. If/when the MB2 skin ever gets "fixed" it's likely that it would then be set to include the ichat box which would once again create a need for a skin-independent configuration anyways.


Curious, is this what it looks like for you?

Just wondering if it looks different in different browsers or if the reason you dislike it is simply a difference in preference.
27 Jun, 2010, Lobotomy wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Fizban said:
Curious, is this what it looks like for you?

Approximately (this is how it appears (on my crappy monitor) in Opera) . As a side note, I just noticed that the MB2 skin completely lacks an option for logging out. :thinking:

Fizban said:
Just wondering if it looks different in different browsers or if the reason you dislike it is simply a difference in preference.

As far as I know, it's just a difference in preference.
27 Jun, 2010, Ssolvarain wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
The imc box obviously makes you feel insecure about the size of your junk, so this should be top priority, admins.
DO YOU HEAR ME?!

Your ruining his internet and life experience with that little box. He can't even scroll his page down, poor guy.
0.0/63