30 Nov, 2009, Runter wrote in the 42nd comment:
Koron said:
Aaaaanyway.
Isn't ichat one of those members-jacket-only channels? I realize there's already a trend of this with Talon and the IMC logbot schtick, but why is it that we have a purportedly elite channel open for all to see? Honestly, with things set up the way they are, there's little reason to keep the ichat/pchat divide. Might as well let the unwashed masses in, though I recommend soap for all.
Isn't ichat one of those members-jacket-only channels? I realize there's already a trend of this with Talon and the IMC logbot schtick, but why is it that we have a purportedly elite channel open for all to see? Honestly, with things set up the way they are, there's little reason to keep the ichat/pchat divide. Might as well let the unwashed masses in, though I recommend soap for all.
Dunno what you mean. It's open for anyone connected to IMC.
30 Nov, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 43rd comment:
Koron said:
Aaaaanyway.
Isn't ichat one of those members-jacket-only channels? I realize there's already a trend of this with Talon and the IMC logbot schtick, but why is it that we have a purportedly elite channel open for all to see? Honestly, with things set up the way they are, there's little reason to keep the ichat/pchat divide. Might as well let the unwashed masses in, though I recommend soap for all.
Isn't ichat one of those members-jacket-only channels? I realize there's already a trend of this with Talon and the IMC logbot schtick, but why is it that we have a purportedly elite channel open for all to see? Honestly, with things set up the way they are, there's little reason to keep the ichat/pchat divide. Might as well let the unwashed masses in, though I recommend soap for all.
I think it used to be this way – when I first came on to IMC from Talon somebody snootily remarked that I wasn't an imm on Talon or something to that effect – but really the divide doesn't exist in practice anymore.
30 Nov, 2009, Koron wrote in the 44th comment:
The whole "Perm Imm" thing gives the impression that it's for kewl kids only. We might as well do away with pchat if this isn't the case. (And here I thought I was a k00l kid! :sad:)
On the other hand, the unwashed masses are smelly and full of nonsense-puke-words.
On the other hand, the unwashed masses are smelly and full of nonsense-puke-words.
30 Nov, 2009, Davion wrote in the 45th comment:
I think allowing the mortals of some of the games to have access to ichat is a bad idea. For one, Discworld is connected and, well, people who've seen the game channel know what I'm talking about ;).
30 Nov, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 46th comment:
Mudder said:
How western centric you are! The Chinese read from right to left, would you say they were incorrect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wri...
Mudder said:
EDIT2: Though I find it ironic that you disagreed with the one part of my post that supported your argument.
I think you should consider making new posts for edits like this. I
might never have seen the comment, since it's now on an old page,
were it not for my desire to clarify the Chinese thing.
Could you explain which part I disagreed with that supported me?
Davion said:
I think allowing the mortals of some of the games to have access to ichat is a bad idea. For one, Discworld is connected and, well, people who've seen the game channel know what I'm talking about ;).
Elitist.
There's weird stuff about ichat I still don't quite understand, myself. Like, IIRC,
this one time I'm like blah blah dead-souls.net 6666 blah blah and people were
like OMFG you dirty filthy advertiser and I was like lol wut and they were like
STOP ADVERTISING YOUR MUD and im like wait for just saying dead-souls.net 6666 and
they were like losin their shit so lol i dunno its weird is all lol
30 Nov, 2009, kiasyn wrote in the 47th comment:
David Haley said:
To be perfectly honest with you, I don't think the couple of hours it would take to add this to preferences is worth you having to skip over three incredibly huge, massive lines taking up the entire front page. If other people were also this bothered by it, it would make sense, but frankly I can't agree that your preference justifies the work that would be spent.
What is it that bothers you so much anyhow? Losing screen real estate? Seeing what people are saying on imc? The colors? You have used 'somewhat' strong language to voice your opposition and I'm left a little mystified as to what's so terrible. Perhaps if you were more precise, we could work toward a solution that pleased everybody.
There are more reasonable concerns here, such as what to do with inanity on the front page from time to time (that could be viewed as a feature or a bug) and the display order. I think having old-to-new makes more sense in almost all cases; new-to-old makes sense when you're trying to see what has happened recently and don't want to keep scrolling to the end of the page.
Lobotomy said:
You're missing my point, kiasyn. I'm not saying remove it from the site entirely, nor am I saying to disable it for users by default. All I want is an option to turn the thing off.
Edit: Typo.
kiasyn said:
I suspect theres a lot of stuff said on IMC that a lot of people would be interested in, but they don't bother looking. By placing 3 lines of text on the front page I am hoping to spark more interest in IMC :)
You're missing my point, kiasyn. I'm not saying remove it from the site entirely, nor am I saying to disable it for users by default. All I want is an option to turn the thing off.
Edit: Typo.
To be perfectly honest with you, I don't think the couple of hours it would take to add this to preferences is worth you having to skip over three incredibly huge, massive lines taking up the entire front page. If other people were also this bothered by it, it would make sense, but frankly I can't agree that your preference justifies the work that would be spent.
What is it that bothers you so much anyhow? Losing screen real estate? Seeing what people are saying on imc? The colors? You have used 'somewhat' strong language to voice your opposition and I'm left a little mystified as to what's so terrible. Perhaps if you were more precise, we could work toward a solution that pleased everybody.
There are more reasonable concerns here, such as what to do with inanity on the front page from time to time (that could be viewed as a feature or a bug) and the display order. I think having old-to-new makes more sense in almost all cases; new-to-old makes sense when you're trying to see what has happened recently and don't want to keep scrolling to the end of the page.
Wow, DH said something I agree with :P
Edit: Also, when did swearing become against the rules? Cause I'm in big fucking trouble if it did :)
30 Nov, 2009, Mudder wrote in the 48th comment:
It just shows how western countries force their influence on the rest of the world? :smirk: (Remember, I posted that while totally joking)
As for the part of my argument you disagreed with. I said the caliber of people that would be attracted to cussing on the chat may not be the type we want. In other words, I was agreeing that cussing could be detrimental the site. While this does not necessarily reflect my opinions, I found it odd that you were choosing a point that if, anything, supported your argument against the bad language.
As for the part of my argument you disagreed with. I said the caliber of people that would be attracted to cussing on the chat may not be the type we want. In other words, I was agreeing that cussing could be detrimental the site. While this does not necessarily reflect my opinions, I found it odd that you were choosing a point that if, anything, supported your argument against the bad language.
30 Nov, 2009, Davion wrote in the 49th comment:
At any rate, I'm not willing to impose restrictions on IMC that I wouldn't also impose here on the site. Double standards are never good.
30 Nov, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 50th comment:
Mudder said:
As for the part of my argument you disagreed with. I said the caliber of people that would be attracted to cussing on the chat may not be the type we want. In other words, I was agreeing that cussing could be detrimental the site. While this does not necessarily reflect my opinions, I found it odd that you were choosing a point that if, anything, supported your argument against the bad language.
This is what you thought I was disagreeing with:
Mudder said:
There will also be a minority that will be attracted by this colorful use of language. Admittedly, they might not be of the caliber we want - but at least the display will weed out the dumb ones. :P
This is what I was obviously disagreeing with:
Mudder said:
Also, I doubt a few curse words will scare away the masses.
if you actually read my post:
http://www.mudbytes.net/index.php?a=topi...
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
50!
30 Nov, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 51st comment:
Davion said:
At any rate, I'm not willing to impose restrictions on IMC that I wouldn't also impose here on the site. Double standards are never good.
It's not unusual to have different rules for different media; what's acceptable around the "water cooler" might not be acceptable over email or in the conference room, if you will allow an office metaphor. I think it's worth noting that the forum already discourages swearing to some extent, although it's not (in and of itself) against the rules.
30 Nov, 2009, Mudder wrote in the 52nd comment:
I was refering this:
That "do we need their type" was the part of my post that would have supported your argument. Though it's a moot point, because I wasn't serious anyway.
I certainly read your entire post, as I make sure to read everyones post, especially if I intend on replying to them. Though I may only comment on certain parts.
Cratylus said:
I am not concerned about confusion. And it is awful, awful early in your participation here and
there to be pulling the "do we need their type" card.
there to be pulling the "do we need their type" card.
That "do we need their type" was the part of my post that would have supported your argument. Though it's a moot point, because I wasn't serious anyway.
I certainly read your entire post, as I make sure to read everyones post, especially if I intend on replying to them. Though I may only comment on certain parts.
30 Nov, 2009, Skol wrote in the 53rd comment:
The order thing should be simple enough to fix, it only takes the last 3 right? reverse sort and call it good.
30 Nov, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 54th comment:
Mudder said:
I certainly read your entire post, as I make sure to read everyones post, especially if I intend on replying to them. Though I may only comment on certain parts.
Then apparently you failed to read it for comprehension.
What you think I was referring to with this
Cratylus said:
And it is awful, awful early in your participation here and
there to be pulling the "do we need their type" card.
there to be pulling the "do we need their type" card.
is this
Mudder said:
Admittedly, they might not be of the caliber we want - but at least the display will weed out the dumb ones. :P
But you are mistaken. What I was referring to with this
Cratylus said:
And it is awful, awful early in your participation here and
there to be pulling the "do we need their type" card.
there to be pulling the "do we need their type" card.
was this
Mudder said:
I doubt the type of person that is so confused by this setup is the type of people we want to attract anyway.
Note that my post which you claimed to have read is split into sections dealing with
specific elements of your arguments. At the point where I mention your "do we need
their type" attitude, I have not yet come to the part where you discuss those
attracted by crude language.
lrn 2 rd
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
30 Nov, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 55th comment:
kiasyn said:
Edit: Also, when did swearing become against the rules? Cause I'm in big fucking trouble if it did :)
Swearing was never made against the rules, but when the Guidelines were posted, one of them does ask to keep swearing on ichat to a minimum. Not that anyone has ever actually followed that, but still it is there.
IMC2 Network Guidelines said:
ichat This is the flagship channel of the network for Immortals. Although we do not strictly outlaw swearing or crude language, please be civil.
Please refrain from using language that is commonly considered to be racist, sexist, or degrading. Use your own good judgment so that we
don't have to. We want people to join the network and stay, not end up driven off because of crude or offensive language.
Please refrain from using language that is commonly considered to be racist, sexist, or degrading. Use your own good judgment so that we
don't have to. We want people to join the network and stay, not end up driven off because of crude or offensive language.
Again, it's there. But no one has ever really followed it. They are guidelines after all, and not rules.
Also, of note, I'm not sure why it says Samson posted those, because I posted them… Maybe he reposted them…
30 Nov, 2009, kiasyn wrote in the 56th comment:
Kayle said:
Swearing was never made against the rules, but when the Guidelines were posted, one of them does ask to keep swearing on ichat to a minimum. Not that anyone has ever actually followed that, but still it is there.
kiasyn said:
Edit: Also, when did swearing become against the rules? Cause I'm in big fucking trouble if it did :)
Swearing was never made against the rules, but when the Guidelines were posted, one of them does ask to keep swearing on ichat to a minimum. Not that anyone has ever actually followed that, but still it is there.
I was talking about MUDBytes.
30 Nov, 2009, kiasyn wrote in the 57th comment:
Skol said:
The order thing should be simple enough to fix, it only takes the last 3 right? reverse sort and call it good.
its actually a matter of just removing the sort completely. the difficulty of the fix isnt a challenge here.
30 Nov, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 58th comment:
Oh, thought you meant on the network. Nvm then. :P
30 Nov, 2009, Mudder wrote in the 59th comment:
Cratylus said:
Fair enough. I can admit when I am wrong.But you are mistaken. What I was referring to with this
Cratylus said:
Though when you realized I was mistaken, I find it odd that you only quoted me instead yourself. It isn't important though, because I was the one who was mistaken in this case.Note that my post which you claimed to have read is split into sections dealing with
specific elements of your arguments. At the point where I mention your "do we need
their type" attitude, I have not yet come to the part where you discuss those
attracted by crude language.
lrn 2 rd
specific elements of your arguments. At the point where I mention your "do we need
their type" attitude, I have not yet come to the part where you discuss those
attracted by crude language.
lrn 2 rd
Yet for someone who is concerned about scaring off new people through simple curse words, you came off pretty condescending in your reply.
I find that a 14 yr old spewing profanity in place of every day language might be a bit of a turn off, but worse I find is when people act to demean others for no apparent reason. :tongue:
30 Nov, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 60th comment:
Mudder said:
I find that a 14 yr old spewing profanity in place of every day language might be a bit of a turn off, but worse I find is when people act to demean others for no apparent reason. :tongue:
It's my standard response to someone distorting my statements.
Nothing personal.
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
Also, I demand news be removed from the front page.