| Subject: Re: New Rule at the Acorn Cafe |
Author:
Campisi
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 00:25:10 01/14/06 Sat
In reply to:
Framwinkle
's message, "Re: New Rule at the Acorn Cafe" on 23:09:40 01/13/06 Fri
>That's not the intent of the rule. We only gave one
>possible definition of a chat as an example, but as it
>says, it's to be determined by the moderators. We
>purposefully left it open-ended, and it doesn't mean
>we will always shut down anything with just a few
>people participating in it. If there's only two or
>three people dicussing a topic, but it's actually on
>topic, then we'll have no problems with it. What
>becomes a problem is when things devolve into stuff
>like:
>
>-------
>
>::Framwinkle pilots his Gundam into range of the U.N.
>building and activates his beam sword, then slashing
>the building to pieces with much maniacal laughter::
>
>"I only do it 'cause I'm evil!"
>
>-------
>
>Zomg! I love that song!
>
>-------
>
>Really? I didn't think anyone had ever heard of it.
>
>-------
>
>::flicks his zippo lighter::
>
>Oh yeah, because I'm evil, too. Just like Lord Vader.
>
>-------
>
>Feh. Neo pwns! He could beat him with hand behind his
>back and a waffle on his head.
>
>-------
>
>Mmm! Sacralicious!
>
>-------
>
>Ahem. Back to reality now. You get the idea, right?
>
>What gets annoying are the threads that get wildly off
>topic, and just start rambling on about one subject
>after another, after another, without really saying
>much of anything, so that anyone who comes along and
>reads it later has no idea what's going on, or even
>cares. That is what I call a chat, and when this
>happens, people tend to stop reading and posting to
>that thread because they can't wade through all the
>chat to find the real stuff. Chats may be fun to
>participate in, but they're not fun for other people
>to read, and when thread after thread keeps getting
>flooded with things like that, something has to be
>done about it.
>
>It's not how many people are online at a given time
>that matters, either. It's how well everyone stays on
>topic so that discussions are actually relavent. The
>example was given simply because that seemed to be a
>common characteristic of the problem threads.
>
>For now, I think we plan on leaving Veldaxx's intro
>thread alone so it can be used as an outlet for
>whatever chatting you want to engage in. Indy may
>change his mind on that later, but I don't know. As
>long as the other threads stay pretty good, he may not
>have a problem with that one thread being a black hole
>of chaos. It's easy enough for people to avoid it if
>they don't want to mess with it.
>
>Also, little side threads that split off from a main
>topic are usually ok as long as they don't last too
>long. I fully understand wanting to make funny
>comments now and then, or exploring some aspect of a
>topic that was brought up incidentally. But when that
>subject goes on, and on, and leads to another subject,
>and another subject, and another, without ever getting
>back to the original topic, that becomes a chat and a
>distraction.
Alright, then. I was just a tad worried, that's all.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 