|
|
Post by Qwerty on Mar 26, 2010 20:13:57 GMT -5
I'll have to say no on it as well. It seems like a good idea, but then everyone would spend their time on the spam chat. But then we can't really tighten rules on the normal chat.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Mar 26, 2010 20:34:46 GMT -5
I hereby declare this motion as killed. We won't utilize a spam chat until our minds should change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vertigo on Mar 26, 2010 20:40:59 GMT -5
Alright.
There really isn't enough spam on the chat normally for it to be too serious of a problem...
|
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Mar 26, 2010 21:34:09 GMT -5
Then you could just as easily say, 'Why do we need a general chat when we have a general talk board?' Chats have a different quality to them. Yes, but you're forgetting the basic purpose that the chat was made for; The purpose of the chat is to be a fast, easy method of communication between members. Topic has nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Mar 26, 2010 21:36:02 GMT -5
And that "somewhere" is the spam chat. We cannot crack down as easily right now because they have nowhere to go. If we have a spam chat, we can actually refer people to it. Merely taking time to address this, my point was that, while people flood to your somewhere, the general chat dies. And then everyone roams a chat with laxed rules. Adjust behavior? There's nobody on chat who spams 24/7. Spamming is not a main part of behavior for most. They can act many other ways, and if the spam chat were made, they can unleash their 'spammy' side there. You, Sir, Are incorrect. People absolutely do not spam for the purposes of spamming in itself. People spam for the reaction. The only people who spam are those who enjoy it, and those who enjoy it are trolls. Trolls have no interest in designated areas, because nobody notices spam where spam is expected. Ok, so while all activity is lost in the main chat, everybody will be on the "Spam" chat because it isn't as strict. That doesn't make any sense at all. My point in its entirety. I really don't think we should have a whole separate chat just to cater to people's childish spam needs. That's what the Spam Board is for.  Which, I would like to bring to attention, was demoted to a sub-board. Spam is bad. Spam is not something we wish to invite, but it is something we must inevitably cope with. The Spam Sub-Board is sufficent for this, there is thereby no reason to invite more through the creation of a spam chat. Despite the motion having been killed, may the record show I have voted against the issue at hand. The Defence Rests. |
|
|
|
Post by Vertigo on Mar 26, 2010 21:45:43 GMT -5
Then you could just as easily say, 'Why do we need a general chat when we have a general talk board?' Chats have a different quality to them. Yes, but you're forgetting the basic purpose that the chat was made for; The purpose of the chat is to be a fast, easy method of communication between members. Topic has nothing to do with it. You do realize that you just contradicted your previous point. Topic doesn't matter as you said, so a spam board and a spam chat together would matter. Well, the motion failed completely. And Fox, some spam is for the reaction. The said event MF was speaking of in the original post was spam for the fun of it. |
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Mar 27, 2010 0:08:46 GMT -5
I agree with Fox completely.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Mar 27, 2010 0:24:31 GMT -5
Why are we still discussing it? Don't a majority of us already agree not to make it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Mar 27, 2010 2:23:41 GMT -5
Fox, you quoted a post of mine and you completely ignored the fact that I changed my mind later. Anyway, if we need a spam chat, we can always just go to an Xat.
|
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Mar 27, 2010 3:15:58 GMT -5
And that "somewhere" is the spam chat. We cannot crack down as easily right now because they have nowhere to go. If we have a spam chat, we can actually refer people to it. that, while people flood to your somewhere, the general chat dies. And then everyone roams a chat with laxed rules. Perhaps you misunderstood, but you are regardlessly incorrect. It is a fact I did acknowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Mar 27, 2010 14:07:51 GMT -5
Very well.  |
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Mar 27, 2010 14:17:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Mar 27, 2010 14:18:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Mar 27, 2010 19:35:12 GMT -5
[foxlock]
...that didn't work, did it?
Why do we even bother to lock threads here?
|
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Mar 27, 2010 19:57:41 GMT -5
As Qwerty said, it's a symbolic thing. It just officializes the end of the discussion.
And it's also an opportunity to use big fancy text. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Vertigo on Mar 27, 2010 20:00:25 GMT -5
I don't have a lock symbol.
Hmm...
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Mar 27, 2010 20:11:58 GMT -5
You must make one, then.
|
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Mar 27, 2010 20:12:35 GMT -5
I don't have a lock symbol. Hmm... ...And it's also a display of power, Fox.  |
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Mar 27, 2010 20:58:40 GMT -5
I had one once, but it was crap anyway. I'll have to maek a new, better one. And it will be awesome.
Animation FTW.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Mar 27, 2010 21:20:53 GMT -5
 I give up. I'll join the rest of you and also perpetuate a thread that should have ended a while ago by making this very post... |
|
[M:7000]
