The Wonderland Board

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.)

‎

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.

ARGH DONT REMIND ME OF SETTING AN IRC SERVER UP

Anyways everybody have their own time and pace. Let it be that way.

tyteen4a03 wrote:Anyway everybody have their own time and pace. Let it be that way.

But that makes the IRC completely useless.

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.

billy bob wrote:

tyteen4a03 wrote:Anyway everybody have their own time and pace. Let it be that way.

But that makes the IRC completely useless.

What? no.
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.

Well, maybe when someone is on the IRC they can post here that they are on. Isn't that a bad plan?

~xpr'd~ wrote:Just because some people aren't on at certain times doesn't defeat the purpose of something.

It certainly defeats the purpose of this.

~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.

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.

Well, it seems no one agrees with you, considering all the above posts, and considering that no one responded on your suggestion to set a daily time when everyone goes on the IRC.

billy bob wrote:

~xpr'd~ wrote:Just because some people aren't on at certain times doesn't defeat the purpose of something.

It certainly defeats the purpose of this.

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.

IRC is just a place to chat, except it is usually open to everybody.

‎

~xpr'd~ wrote:

billy bob wrote:

~xpr'd~ wrote:Just because some people aren't on at certain times doesn't defeat the purpose of something.

It certainly defeats the purpose of this.

Why? Just because people go on at different times doesn't mean you will never ever meet with somebody.

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.

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.

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.

~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.

snipped useless edit

Matt wrote:yes I suck

I wouldn't dare to say that.

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.

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

What?

billy bob wrote:

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

What?

What happened to my post replying to that?

*starts to suspect power abuse*

snipped... really don't think that was necessary @tyteen

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.

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.

I agree.

~xpr'd~ wrote:snipped... really don't think that was necessary @tyteen

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.

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.

~xpr'd~ wrote:snipped... really don't think that was necessary @tyteen

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.

@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 wrote:Don't think a single agreement needs a post itself, except if he/she has anything to add.

And I think it's not part of a moderators work to delete a post for that reason.

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.

Matt wrote:I still think it was a bad idea for MS to remove the ability for anyone to edit their own posts.

http://pcpuzzle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=273870#273870

Double post.
The link didn't work:

http://pcpuzzle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=273870#273870

tyteen4a03 wrote:

~xpr'd~ wrote:snipped... really don't think that was necessary @tyteen

Don't think a single agreement needs a post itself, except if he/she has anything to add.

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.