Active Users:665 Time:18/03/2026 04:49:46 AM
Not deliberately. Joel Send a noteboard - 14/10/2010 06:21:09 AM
Format advantages or not, people still have to make an effort to find your chat room. With a site hosted chat all they need to do is make one click to check who's in and make a decision whether to enter or not.

It's not that much of an effort, and the reason I say that is because minimal deterrence is usually enough to put me off, but I not only managed, I was even kinda running the show at first. You click "download, " double click your new icon and enter your SN and password. Now you just need people, so click OK when it tries to add your email list, or do it manually; since I don't want to expend any more effort than necessary either, I did the former. Then you click on someone's name and start talking; if they're in an existing conversation you can ask them to add you, but the conversations are very impromptu, so you can just start a new one and bring in who you want.

A monkey could do this; I think one did and now he's posting about it on the CMB. Yes, it requires more work THE FIRST TIME (after that you can stay logged in, and your conversations remain open, so it really is as simple as just clicking, seeing who's in and deciding if you want to join. ) On the other hand, the first time we do a RAFO chat would require a little effort from Ben, too, and a lot more than a two minute download plus typing two strings of text. Skype's so ridiculously easy the only reason I can see NOT to do it is that it's simply not worth even minimal effort. That's fine, but it's not evidence RAFO needs its own chat. The whole thing reminds me of some comments I heard about various things on wotmania that some Admins would start a new project then watch it slowly die from lack of interest. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is pretty much what happened with wotmania Chat a good year or two before the site went down the last time. If people aren't willing to even put in the effort for a one time download and two strings of text, I see no reason to expect they'll put in the effort to maintain a vibrant chat, because that's the one place that, even more than MBs, lives or dies by user (NOT Admin) activity.

I really didn't intend to turn this thread into pro vs. anti Skype or re-open old wounds (though, once again, I think the reasons RAFO has no chat run a lot deeper than just wotmania Chat and who was or wasn't in there at any given time. ) I'll be honest though, from here it looks like interest in any kind of chat is sporadic and intermittent. If there were dozens of people constantly clamoring for a venue in which they could all talk in real time, I'd feel differently, but it seems more like a dozen or two Elders who've been around long enough to remember the old Chat and, when it's late and they're bored, wish they could pop in for an hour or two every few weeks. That incidentally means that every month or two 2-3 more people join one of the Skype conversations, hang around for a week or two, and then leave. That's fine, too; it doesn't cost me a dime to run Skype (part of why I have it) and if there's no conversation to follow it requires no attention. If, however, it were part of an entire website in which I continued to invest no small amount of time, money and energy I might be less indulgent. ;)
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 1157 Views
Yes - 10/10/2010 11:10:18 AM 690 Views
Hey you - 10/10/2010 04:14:47 PM 768 Views
Hey Missa - 13/10/2010 04:35:46 AM 649 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 407 Views
it depends which chat we get. - 10/10/2010 05:44:58 PM 727 Views
You're in the Skype Chat now, btw. - 10/10/2010 10:59:24 PM 655 Views
When chat used to be down for long stretches, everyone would just pile into AIM chat. - 10/10/2010 06:54:33 PM 803 Views
Which they could easily do with Skype and get voice, yet no one does. - 10/10/2010 10:56:55 PM 825 Views
The idea of voice chat creeps me out on so many levels *NM* - 11/10/2010 12:34:22 AM 772 Views
So don't do voice; we rarely do. - 11/10/2010 07:35:33 AM 771 Views
Same *NM* - 11/10/2010 09:40:29 AM 319 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 405 Views
Come and find out *NM* - 11/10/2010 10:48:56 PM 298 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 430 Views
This. *NM* - 11/10/2010 04:43:52 AM 276 Views
Then that, again, seems a problem that coding can't solve. - 11/10/2010 07:33:32 AM 806 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 832 Views
Honestly, I think the "one time event" is the biggest problem. - 12/10/2010 04:20:04 AM 843 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 726 Views
What effort? - 12/10/2010 04:38:42 AM 719 Views
The effort beyond clicking two buttons. - 13/10/2010 04:25:57 AM 597 Views
Install, make a SN and search for people you email. - 13/10/2010 04:43:09 AM 768 Views
Re: - 12/10/2010 11:00:56 PM 598 Views
Then where are they? - 13/10/2010 04:00:46 AM 663 Views
You have a faulty memory. Chat was incredibly active as late as 2007. - 13/10/2010 04:24:25 AM 742 Views
Again, that's people, and not/having Chat won't change that. - 13/10/2010 04:45:40 AM 743 Views
Incorrect - 13/10/2010 04:58:30 AM 769 Views
Initially only the person who started it can boot. - 13/10/2010 05:12:27 AM 825 Views
Re: Initially only the person who started it can boot. - 13/10/2010 02:45:50 PM 691 Views
And me! - 13/10/2010 03:27:15 PM 690 Views
oops, sorry about that. *NM* - 13/10/2010 03:42:33 PM 646 Views
What do you mean where are they? There isn't a chat linked to the site. - 13/10/2010 10:44:10 PM 794 Views
So? - 14/10/2010 04:52:37 AM 779 Views
Are you deliberately trying to not understand? - 14/10/2010 05:54:16 AM 895 Views
Not deliberately. - 14/10/2010 06:21:09 AM 778 Views
I doubt that as well, frankly. *NM* - 13/10/2010 03:32:33 PM 327 Views
Things aren't what they used to be... - 13/10/2010 10:46:04 PM 710 Views
No - 13/10/2010 04:45:29 AM 674 Views
"Unmoderated" would be going too far. - 13/10/2010 04:53:19 AM 816 Views
Most of the group consists of long-standing Wotmaniacs, so. *NM* - 12/10/2010 05:25:39 AM 397 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 778 Views
Also, what qualifies as "good standing"? Who's the judge? *NM* - 13/10/2010 05:36:23 AM 431 Views
The one who wants to chat, of course? *NM* - 13/10/2010 07:23:15 AM 390 Views
Jonte is right. The judges are numerous. Each with their own motivations and interests. *NM* - 13/10/2010 11:10:04 PM 370 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 786 Views
Colorful. You big, gay elitist. *NM* - 14/10/2010 12:06:14 AM 401 Views
See - 14/10/2010 05:42:21 AM 683 Views
we are Rafonauts now. - 13/10/2010 03:16:32 PM 635 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 817 Views
I sure hope you're right. - 14/10/2010 05:04:26 AM 861 Views
I am RAFOlk. - 14/10/2010 06:22:25 AM 664 Views
When I got facebook I stopped logging in to aim. - 11/10/2010 01:24:26 AM 680 Views
There's a Chat if you want one. - 10/10/2010 11:01:57 PM 799 Views
i wouldn't say mutely - 10/10/2010 11:40:13 PM 769 Views
Ditto. - 10/10/2010 11:53:32 PM 706 Views
Well, like I said, talk about something else. - 11/10/2010 01:32:15 AM 725 Views
do you know how hard it is stopping sports fanatics talking about sports? - 11/10/2010 09:59:56 AM 804 Views
I'll usually shut up if someone carries another topic. - 12/10/2010 04:25:19 AM 738 Views
I'd deign to chat with you, m'friend. *NM* - 13/10/2010 11:43:13 PM 354 Views
- 14/10/2010 05:45:26 AM 710 Views
Re: - 14/10/2010 05:47:07 AM 737 Views
While I'm passing through, "Hi wooly and Kit. Long time." *NM* - 14/10/2010 10:14:49 PM 399 Views

Reply to Message