We need to set a time for the IRC.
Moderators: ~xpr'd~, tyteen4a03, Stinky, Emerald141, Qloof234, jdl
We need to set a time for the IRC.
We need to set a daily time when everyone goes on the IRC. Because when anyone goes on usually there's no one else on it.
Right now, for me, it's 11:30 PM. We should find a good time for when we can all go on it.
(Right now I am on the IRC.)
Right now, for me, it's 11:30 PM. We should find a good time for when we can all go on it.
(Right now I am on the IRC.)
-
- Rainbow AllStar
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 4:56 pm
Emerald, I think that doesn't make much difference. Europe, or at least the Netherlands also changed from summertime (Daylight Saving Time) to wintertime, a week ago. In summer it's GMT + 2 here, and in winter (real time) GMT + 1. Perhaps the best option is to use just GMT. I guess that's BB's time in the winter, 0:39 right now.
- tyteen4a03
- Rainbow AllStar
- Posts: 4380
- Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:16 am
- Contact:
I'm not sure what IRC exactly is. Just a sort of chatroom, just like Skype, MSN, or Google chat? Then perhaps you better make an agreement with people who also would like to chat, perhaps in the "Skype" topic. As for me, I use Google chat and also MSN sometimes, but I'm not really a chat-type. I'd rather say it on the forum so I have time to think about it.
What? no.billy bob wrote:But that makes the IRC completely useless.tyteen4a03 wrote:Anyway everybody have their own time and pace. Let it be that way.
Just because some people aren't on at certain times doesn't defeat the purpose of something.
Imagine if at a shop, the workers came and went as they pleased. That doesn't defeat the point of selling stuff.
she/her | Sayori#2285
It certainly defeats the purpose of this.~xpr'd~ wrote:Just because some people aren't on at certain times doesn't defeat the purpose of something.
The point of the IRC isn't to sell stuff, there is a point though, and it requires someone else online. Unlike in a shop, if there is no one else there, then it is pointless going. The reasons for going to a shop, and the reasons for going to the IRC, are completely different.~xpr'd~ wrote:Imagine if at a shop, the workers came and went as they pleased. That doesn't defeat the point of selling stuff.
Why? Just because people go on at different times doesn't mean you will never ever meet with somebody. It's not pointless, the point of it is to chat with other people. If you think it's pointless, don't go on. People meet other people on the IRC all the time.billy bob wrote:It certainly defeats the purpose of this.~xpr'd~ wrote:Just because some people aren't on at certain times doesn't defeat the purpose of something.
she/her | Sayori#2285
- tyteen4a03
- Rainbow AllStar
- Posts: 4380
- Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:16 am
- Contact:
-
- Rainbow AllStar
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 4:56 pm
Yes it does. If no one goes on at the same time, then no one will meet each other. The point of the IRC is to meet each other.~xpr'd~ wrote:Why? Just because people go on at different times doesn't mean you will never ever meet with somebody.billy bob wrote:It certainly defeats the purpose of this.~xpr'd~ wrote:Just because some people aren't on at certain times doesn't defeat the purpose of something.
People don't always follow the same time they go on IRC. They might go on a noon one day and go on at seven the next. That's also not the point of IRC. The point of IRC is to chat with each other.billy bob wrote:Yes it does. If no one goes on at the same time, then no one will meet each other. The point of the IRC is to meet each other.
she/her | Sayori#2285
Exactly. And how are you supposed to do that when there's almost never anyone else to chat with? That's the point that BB is making.~xpr'd~ wrote:The point of IRC is to chat with each other.
Also, even if people do go on at different times every day, it's still unlikely that there will be anyone else there at that same time as well.
snipped useless edit
dlcs18
I wouldn't dare to say that.Matt wrote:yes I suck
Well it seems three people on this forum are complaining that no one else is on IRC when they are. Only one of them wants to make an agreement about at what time they are online. So it seems the IRC is not very popular. Unless the three of you want to make an agreement to chat with each other at a specified time, you better think of something else.
What happened to my post replying to that?billy bob wrote:What?dlcs18 wrote:Also, even if people do go on at different times every day, it's still unlikely that there will be anyone else there at that same time as well.
snipped useless edit
*starts to suspect power abuse*
i should change my signature to be rude to people who hate pictures of valves
Emerald141 wrote:I must say that I sort of agree with BB here. The shop metaphor would be accurate if there were at least two workers on at a time- when I go on the IRC, usually no one else is there.
I agree.dlcs18 wrote: ~xpr'd~ wrote:
The point of IRC is to chat with each other.
Exactly. And how are you supposed to do that when there's almost never anyone else to chat with? That's the point that BB is making.
Also, even if people do go on at different times every day, it's still unlikely that there will be anyone else there at that same time as well.
Uijt jt nz tjhobuvsf.
I didn't see Nobody's post, so I can't say anything about this situation. But in general I would like to say this.~xpr'd~ wrote:snipped... really don't think that was necessary @tyteen
In my opinion, if there are problems on the forum, moderators should act, trying to solve them, using their moderator permissions only if necessary.
If someone asks them to edit something, they're free to choose what they think it's best; doing what they're asked for or not.
Otherwise they should not edit, delete etc... too much, but rather moderate the same way as every non-moderator can so: just by reasonable talking and explaining their opinion.
In my opinion merging posts is never really necessary, but if it happens very often that someone double posts because he/she presses the submit button too soon, before thinking better, then a moderator can say something about it.
As I said, when there's a problem, you can try to solve it, but it's impossible to avoid any problem beforehand. Using the moderator permission too much can lead to annoyance instead.
No offense to any of the moderators though, just giving my opinion. Don't dare to edit it.
- tyteen4a03
- Rainbow AllStar
- Posts: 4380
- Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:16 am
- Contact:
Don't think a single agreement needs a post itself, except if he/she has anything to add. I remember deleting maxnick's post also, well at least I think I did.~xpr'd~ wrote:snipped... really don't think that was necessary @tyteen
@Marinus: Usually when I see a double post (could be different content, just the same user) and they happen to be: 1. connected (e.g to add a point) and/or 2. posting time is near (e.g a few minutes/hours) I merge them.
(PS: Nobody's post was about something about me merging dlcs's post, forgot what it was but it was short)
And at last, I handle every case separately, while I do take other cases as a reference.
Back on topic: I try to idle when I can, I am very much an IRC person :P
It seems that my double postiong has caused discussion beyond the topic's original subject...
tyteen, when you merged my posts I think you should have said "edit: merged posts" instead of "edit: not rly". There might have been some confusion as to whether you merged the posts or if the posts were already in that state and you just added that you "edited it (but not really)".
I still think it was a bad idea for MS to remove the ability for anyone to edit their own posts. People are going to end up pressing submit and then think of something else to add and that's exactly why the edit button was invented.
tyteen, when you merged my posts I think you should have said "edit: merged posts" instead of "edit: not rly". There might have been some confusion as to whether you merged the posts or if the posts were already in that state and you just added that you "edited it (but not really)".
I still think it was a bad idea for MS to remove the ability for anyone to edit their own posts. People are going to end up pressing submit and then think of something else to add and that's exactly why the edit button was invented.
dlcs18
And I think it's not part of a moderators work to delete a post for that reason.Tyteen wrote:Don't think a single agreement needs a post itself, except if he/she has anything to add.
If someone says he/she disagrees with another posts, then we may expect, and/or ask him/her to explain why he/she disagrees. But if someone says to agree, perhaps the previous poster(s) ha(s|ve) already made clear why they have that opinion, so the next poster has nothing to explain, but since everyone is free to state his/her opinion, it is OK so say "I agree", rather then an anonymous vote in a poll.
About merging posts: I may agree with your reasons why you merge them, but still it's not really necessary. As you can see too much editing deleting (or in general, using your technical moderator permissions) can cause confusion, while it's just the moderators job to avoid confusion.
http://pcpuzzle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=273870#273870Matt wrote:I still think it was a bad idea for MS to remove the ability for anyone to edit their own posts.
Except it does, and the post didn't need any editing. You could've just posted a reply like almost every other person on this forum would've.tyteen4a03 wrote:Don't think a single agreement needs a post itself, except if he/she has anything to add.~xpr'd~ wrote:snipped... really don't think that was necessary @tyteen
she/her | Sayori#2285