Open Forum Discussions and Debate

why the h#ll would anyone want to bring that sh#t back?

Oh an opinion!
I have been using this site for two months and only had one bad experience, which really was not bad. My next statement might be a shocker to some, but for the first month I did not say anything. I know, I know, hard to believe, but it is true. I listened to you conversations and how you lovingly teased each other, how you showed concern for each other and just told about your day, I listened to a point to where I felt comfortable to join in and visit other forums on this site. One person said it right and it is a way that I feel at times, I believe it was Rena in either SA1 or SA2, she could not afford therapy so she comes here. That to me was a perfect statement. This site has enabled me to talk to people and not become a total hermit.

There are many forums in here which has lots of chatting going on. More suggestions have been made for different topics which would be great, examples would be gardening forum, parents and grandparents brag page or to ask questions, like when will my daughter stop eating cat food; a forum for sports fans--we all have many interest and one of those interest is to share by chatting.

About another chat room, as most of you know I spend quite a bit of my evenings in there. Apparently before I arrived that was a happening place and then there must have been some trouble. I can tell you for the past 4+ weeks that room has been a life saver to me. And so far no trouble. We have our silly moments, we have had general conversations, there is always where are you from and what do you do conversations and yes the late night therapy sessions. The time I have spent in there has been great. I can just imagine the horrible problem that must have occurred before me to make everyone leave.

In an opinion, I believe you should give the chat room you have another chance before adding another one.

I like your post Canuk Greg.

May I also add that this site has been very educational to me. I am sure you know that text books only give selected knowledge, here I have learned so much about the different places and also new vocabulary. Which is clean and not laden with foul language.

I agree with Angie and Greg, I don't use the chatroom but see it as another forum for MEMBERS to share and discuss, secure in the knowledge that only members have access. There are lots of ways non-members can participate on this site, and they do. You make your choices.

I don't chat in the chatroom. It is too fast for me. I like to chat on SA3 and you can talk about whatever you want there. Personally, I prefer chatting with people who use their name or nickname. It seems a little creepy when someone posts a comment with a false name that is obviously used to conceal their identity regarding what is posted. (ie: ''always post'') It's different when the pseudonym is used in the context of a particular topic being discussed as a lighthearted ploy. (ie: when the tv shows were remembered and some posts were made as characters from the shows.) But if you want another chat page where you can ''play'' around, then I would suggest opening another page and title it ''Anything Goes.''

some clarification regarding made-up names... most of us who used them did so as a 'lighthearted ploy.' It was part of the silliness of the site at one point, and generally people would unmask if someone new came in or if a regular showed up who didn't want to play.

I'd be interested to see what would happen if an open chatroom were made available again.

I agree with you, Stella, and I find it appalling that some people's attitude is that, if they're not interested in using a different format, no one else should be allowed to. And some of these are the very same folks who kept saying ''just scroll past it,'' (or ''kiss my....'') when several people voiced objection to some of the things that were going on here a year ago. In this case, they wouldn't even have to scroll past anything. Talk about a double standard...

So is the problem here that people who are not members want to use a format that Gath, the'owner' of the site, has declared only members can use?

Not exactly, Mary. There are a number of places here where people who have not become subscribers can post; the Easy page, for example, as well as all the personal pages and the SA page and here, for that matter. Why not another?

Mary, I'm fine with or without the chatroom. But I don't think the availability of the chatroom is the issue here... I think a lot of people miss the fun and the witty banter that went on in the chatroom.

Reading the many responses, I reinerate that I find the offered communication avenues are plentiful.... looking back to the mean-sprited exchanges that have been posted in the past, under unknown pseudonyms, and posted simply to hurt, It seems the current restrictions are needed. The choice to join or not, in order to enjoy the perks, remains with those who have held back...They must decide what is more important to them....a principal, or being a full partner in an enjoyable site that makes every effort to be mindful of all who take part!

it would be nice to have a forum to carry on the fun and witty banter. It doesn't have to be a new chatroom, but it might be.

Yes, and I wear a size 42 jacket. That should be enough for anybody.

So why don't the witty banter people continue wittily bantering on the other pages that are open?

Mary, there has, as a matter of fact, been an attempt at that on the SA page, but the pace is just not quite right, and you cannot see who is in there at any given moment. But given your sneering characterization of those exchanges as ''witty banter'' I do not think you will be persuaded in any case.

I have another suggestion for those that wish to exchange witty banter but want the privacy that the chatroom seems to afford. You could meet on a member's page. Have your discussion and then the member can delete any posts that he/she may want to. This way you can get together with those that want to partake, talk about whatever and then erase it so as not to impede your creative flow.

Hey Ian, I was not sneering! It was an honest question. I myself am hopeless at amusing posts but enjoy reading others that are. Maybe remarks like yours are one reason the situation is as it is!

Stella, thanks for that suggestion. In some ways, that's been happening recently, and it may be the best solution for now.

Stella, if you think that scheduling on the SA page is difficult, imagine the problems in the method you're proposing. As a matter of fact, about a year ago, there was an ugly exchange, over several weeks, between those who turned the Easy page into a perma-chatroom for a few people, maybe six or eight individuals, and those who objected to the bandwidth-hogging (which evolved into the cute ''CPing.''). If you're at all curious, go to July 2006. [I was, of course, in the forefront of that conflict, although I will say that I directed my harshest comments at conduct, not particular people. The ''other side'' in that dispute were the ones who engaged in name-calling.] The bandwidth hogs kept saying that the chatroom did not allow them to schedule, and that posting 30 or 40 times on the Easy page was their only option, and their prerogative.

Then wouldn't the problem be the same with the chatroom? How would you coordinate the people to chat with at the same time? I think it would be easier on individual pages because the ''owner'' of the page is alerted via email of the post and thus a ''chain-post'' could be initiated. Again, just a suggestion since I am perfectly happy chatting at my snail pace.

In principle, Stella, you're absolutely right. But a significant part of the chatroom's charm was the spontaneity. Seeing ''sugar'', ''tea'', ''cocoa'' and ''buttermilk'' logged in was an invitation to instant fun.

stella, it wasn't. Oddly enough, people all seemed to know how to congregate at the same time. It was very popular for a long while. There were often as many as a dozen people in there all at once, both regulars and, frequently, newcomers.

Even though I wasn't asked, I'll put in my 2 cents. I've used the chatroom about 6 times. Conversely, I post on SA3 because we have chatted about different topics (charter schools, taxes, etc.), along with just life's day-to-day happenings. As shown on this page, some people want to ridicule and berate others who don't share their view. If you want to chat and have fun under different aliases, why not set up MSN or Yahoo messenger and have your fun there? As for bandwith hogging, my husband got a good laugh at that.

'No one goes there anymore, its too crowded.'

Yogi Berra

I've been sidetracked here because I have to study...
The chatroom in the 'early days' was an introduction for quite a few people to get to 'know' each other. Not everyone interacts in the same way and many chose not to enter the chatroom for their own reasons. Gath has now formatted the site to allow for people to interact at various levels - personal pages/msgs/forum pages and it works well. The one thing that the chatroom allowed for, as Ian said, was spontaniety, and this was a draw card for many. To see a silly name 'sitting' in there was an invitation for creativity and hilarity that you could either choose to join in with or not - it was often a split second decision, that, if it required joining as a free member, spontaniety would be lost. For me personally, I don't have the ability to sit at the pc during the day and I have now got out of the habit of logging into the chatroom regularly at my tea/lunch breaks - perhaps people are just too busy - but the chatroom does allow for us to 'see' who is available for a natter at a glance, whereas the pages don't...
If gath opened another chatroom it would be open to abuse again and I'm not sure if gath would countenance that.
This whole debate might be a moot point if gath has reasons that he cannot reinstate the chatroom to its original format...in which case -so be it, but I shall treasure the larfs we had and relegate the sludge to the bowels of sudokuland (am I waffling enough for you col?)...
btw has anyone contacted Gath?

you have not only waffled admirably Billy - but toasted and crumpeted as well.

So that is a resounding yes then . That is what the orginal chatroom had about it spontaniety and as a result of the restrictions (which I have no qualms about) put in place it has lost that. However, an addition of another similiar to the orginal chatroom would only be used by those of us who would like to return to said spontaneity and log in as any character should they choose to do so. Mid afternoons for me where a bit of laugh logging in as Antigone or some such creature... The right to choose not to enter the chatroom is entirely up to the person in question so shouldn't affect the majority of members who prefer not to do so. I have left Gath a message regarding the introduction of a new chatroom so will let you know if and when I hear from Gath.

I agree.

I find myself a proponent of your theorum, Antigone.

What's the difference between being civil and being nice (or 'noice')?

about two inches anne (sorry couldn't resist).

laughing, andre!

civil is courteous and polite probably addressing someone on a more formal basis. Nice is more of a slang type word in my opinion indicating kind or sweet.

Hi Everyone,

There are a few issues with setting up another chatroom that doesn't require membership (ie - the old style).

1. Someone will come along and harrass people and then everyone will be upset. It happened before, I don't see why it wouldn't happen again.

2. Even before I changed the chatroom, there wasn't many people using it - it is quite a bit of work to set up for 15 (max) people to use.

3. The chatroom earns $0. Hosting and domain-name costs come to ~$50 a year. Not much, but it is another de-motivator.

If you can address some of these issues (particularly #1) then perhaps we can get something moving. Put your thinking caps on .


Gath

Also, there might be other options.

Other forums display the names of members who are currently logged on (or at least logged on in the last 30 minutes). Would that be good?


Gath

One thing I used to like about these pages was that one could comment or post to friendly, supportive people and have an enjoyable time. A recent experience when an innocent post of mine was judged and condemned by another who then saw fit to publicly post his personal criticism has shocked me. What's so wrong with thinking the best of others?

You're absolutely right! Please don't judge everyone by the few, though. Thanks.

OK - I wasnt going to post BUT............If there was another chatroom - I wouldnt use it (and you know how I LOVE a chat)....I get all I need from the chatroom we have now - and I don't miss the "Bad Boy"'s of the past chatroom experiences AT ALL. However - I would like to stress, I am not opposed to others having and using a new 'anything goes' chatroom as long as they are prepared for some really nasty stuff - similar to what we put up with in the old (pre re-vamp) days

Aw, sure you would, Colonel. If you didn't, I'd be standing at attention forever.

There's a lot of talk here about "nasty" stuff that happened in the old chatroom.

Two questions:

How much of the convo in the old chatroom got nasty? [I think it was pretty rare, really. And I distinctly remember logging in two or three times a days for a bit of a break, fun and convo, seldom finding acrimony or harassment.] When it did get nasty, people left and came back a little while later. The problem posters, having little maturity, patience or attention span, had left, usually for weeks. And ironically, things got much more barbed on the Easy page, and I will confess to being a contributor to that. (But please don't anybody jump in now and say they're praying for me.)

Why are people who have no interest in using the old-style chatroom so vigorously objecting to it being made to those who might like to see it restored, especially when they will still have all the mechanisms that they prefer and can ignore the old/new chatroom without losing anything? That seems a bit mean-spirited, directed more at individuals rather than at an idea.