Active Users:2571 Time:19/06/2026 01:37:21 PM
Then that, again, seems a problem that coding can't solve. Joel Send a noteboard - 11/10/2010 07:33:32 AM
I mean, it's fair enough, but all the complaining about the absence of a RAFO Chat ignores the fact that a perfectly good group chat exists for all of us, in several forms. If people don't want to use it 'cos of who's there, one of its plusses is creating your own chats for people you want to talk with, then deciding if you bring in others. So if it still falls short of what people want, well, it's not who's there doing what, it's who's not, and that's something RAFO can't really fix.

Once again, if people want a chat, there are plenty of ways to host one, and most of them are better than what wotmanias ten year old code could handle. If people want a Chat they'll make sure they get one, and if they don't, so why argue about it? So far that's all there's been is a wistful longing, so if people don't want to actually USE a chat and talk about what they want, so be it.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Chat - 10/10/2010 07:34:44 AM 1188 Views
Yes - 10/10/2010 11:10:18 AM 725 Views
Hey you - 10/10/2010 04:14:47 PM 802 Views
Hey Missa - 13/10/2010 04:35:46 AM 684 Views
I've already had several days like that. Yet people keep insisting RAFO is better without chat. *NM* - 10/10/2010 05:29:46 PM 425 Views
it depends which chat we get. - 10/10/2010 05:44:58 PM 786 Views
You're in the Skype Chat now, btw. - 10/10/2010 10:59:24 PM 702 Views
When chat used to be down for long stretches, everyone would just pile into AIM chat. - 10/10/2010 06:54:33 PM 840 Views
Which they could easily do with Skype and get voice, yet no one does. - 10/10/2010 10:56:55 PM 884 Views
The idea of voice chat creeps me out on so many levels *NM* - 11/10/2010 12:34:22 AM 815 Views
So don't do voice; we rarely do. - 11/10/2010 07:35:33 AM 811 Views
Same *NM* - 11/10/2010 09:40:29 AM 338 Views
Is that why the Edinburgh gathering pics are always nothing but sign language and dirty gestures? *NM* - 11/10/2010 10:36:00 PM 424 Views
Come and find out *NM* - 11/10/2010 10:48:56 PM 311 Views
The group that is popularized as being a part of that is not enticing to long standing wotmaniacs. *NM* - 11/10/2010 03:29:57 AM 470 Views
This. *NM* - 11/10/2010 04:43:52 AM 297 Views
Then that, again, seems a problem that coding can't solve. - 11/10/2010 07:33:32 AM 851 Views
I don't think most want to download another program when they had it so easy before. - 11/10/2010 10:39:55 PM 872 Views
Honestly, I think the "one time event" is the biggest problem. - 12/10/2010 04:20:04 AM 881 Views
I disagree. I don't think enough people think it worth the effort to deal with Skype. - 12/10/2010 04:28:21 AM 767 Views
What effort? - 12/10/2010 04:38:42 AM 758 Views
The effort beyond clicking two buttons. - 13/10/2010 04:25:57 AM 635 Views
Install, make a SN and search for people you email. - 13/10/2010 04:43:09 AM 809 Views
Re: - 12/10/2010 11:00:56 PM 637 Views
Then where are they? - 13/10/2010 04:00:46 AM 703 Views
You have a faulty memory. Chat was incredibly active as late as 2007. - 13/10/2010 04:24:25 AM 781 Views
Again, that's people, and not/having Chat won't change that. - 13/10/2010 04:45:40 AM 788 Views
Incorrect - 13/10/2010 04:58:30 AM 815 Views
Initially only the person who started it can boot. - 13/10/2010 05:12:27 AM 864 Views
Re: Initially only the person who started it can boot. - 13/10/2010 02:45:50 PM 728 Views
And me! - 13/10/2010 03:27:15 PM 745 Views
oops, sorry about that. *NM* - 13/10/2010 03:42:33 PM 682 Views
What do you mean where are they? There isn't a chat linked to the site. - 13/10/2010 10:44:10 PM 838 Views
So? - 14/10/2010 04:52:37 AM 815 Views
Are you deliberately trying to not understand? - 14/10/2010 05:54:16 AM 932 Views
Not deliberately. - 14/10/2010 06:21:09 AM 820 Views
I doubt that as well, frankly. *NM* - 13/10/2010 03:32:33 PM 347 Views
Things aren't what they used to be... - 13/10/2010 10:46:04 PM 750 Views
No - 13/10/2010 04:45:29 AM 719 Views
"Unmoderated" would be going too far. - 13/10/2010 04:53:19 AM 855 Views
Most of the group consists of long-standing Wotmaniacs, so. *NM* - 12/10/2010 05:25:39 AM 418 Views
I probably didn't phrase that right. Maybe an -er after long and an "in good" before standing. - 12/10/2010 11:02:30 PM 819 Views
Also, what qualifies as "good standing"? Who's the judge? *NM* - 13/10/2010 05:36:23 AM 450 Views
The one who wants to chat, of course? *NM* - 13/10/2010 07:23:15 AM 411 Views
Jonte is right. The judges are numerous. Each with their own motivations and interests. *NM* - 13/10/2010 11:10:04 PM 387 Views
I'd fuck myself to death with a spike of frozen cat piss before I'd chat with that skype crowd. - 13/10/2010 11:42:16 PM 838 Views
Colorful. You big, gay elitist. *NM* - 14/10/2010 12:06:14 AM 420 Views
See - 14/10/2010 05:42:21 AM 722 Views
we are Rafonauts now. - 13/10/2010 03:16:32 PM 683 Views
Yeah, I know, I came up with the term. Many still consider the "old gang" as "wotmaniacs" though. - 13/10/2010 11:01:58 PM 857 Views
I sure hope you're right. - 14/10/2010 05:04:26 AM 904 Views
I am RAFOlk. - 14/10/2010 06:22:25 AM 710 Views
When I got facebook I stopped logging in to aim. - 11/10/2010 01:24:26 AM 732 Views
There's a Chat if you want one. - 10/10/2010 11:01:57 PM 839 Views
i wouldn't say mutely - 10/10/2010 11:40:13 PM 819 Views
Ditto. - 10/10/2010 11:53:32 PM 746 Views
Well, like I said, talk about something else. - 11/10/2010 01:32:15 AM 769 Views
do you know how hard it is stopping sports fanatics talking about sports? - 11/10/2010 09:59:56 AM 859 Views
I'll usually shut up if someone carries another topic. - 12/10/2010 04:25:19 AM 784 Views
I'd deign to chat with you, m'friend. *NM* - 13/10/2010 11:43:13 PM 372 Views
- 14/10/2010 05:45:26 AM 749 Views
Re: - 14/10/2010 05:47:07 AM 773 Views
While I'm passing through, "Hi wooly and Kit. Long time." *NM* - 14/10/2010 10:14:49 PM 419 Views

Reply to Message