FANDOM


  • Princess Callie
    Princess Callie closed this thread because:
    Thread passed Support: 25 Oppose: 15
    20:09, March 27, 2014

    As was made pretty clear in the last thread, chat isn't going anywhere. But I do have a proposable alternative.

    A temporary (NOTE THE WORD, TEMPORARY) shutdown of chat, at least one week but no more than 1 month. Chat users would, during this time, be encouraged to use the forums, participate in the Writer's Workshop, edit, write stories or guides, etc. If you need help, you may ask an admin to assist you.

    During this time, the collection of Site Rules, excluding the Chat Rules, will be updated and hopefully raised from their severely outdated state.

    Also, during this time, any threads asking about the chat will be answered by being directed to this thread and then immediately closed.

    After the trial run is over, there would be new Chat Moderator prerequisites, with applications reopened. You will be required to be active on both the chat and the wiki for 2-3 months, have at least 150 edits with 125 edits on articles. Think about it this way: If every user who wanted to become a mod did that much, it would greatly help progress the wiki. Would it be harder to get mod? Yes. Is it needed? Yes. Should a person be given mod just for being in chat for a couple of months? No.

    After the application, there will be trial run of modship supervised by an admin. This will be at least a week long.

    During the chat shutdown, should this thread pass, you are greatly encouraged and in fact personally asked in this thread to in some way assist on the main site. After the shutdown, the same; you are still encouraged to help the main site.

    Inb4 these arguments

    Oppose Oppose - I like chat. It's fun! You shouldn't shut it down!

    Obviously you did not read the word temporary. Do not be excessively stubborn as to not use the forums or help us. We have an off-topic board and can always use new content.

    Oppose Oppose - The mods don't need site experience to run chat.

    Well, no. I'll give you that. But as I said, it would help the site. If the site goes down, so does the chat. Would you rather be able to get mod by having fun but being mod for a very short time because the site gets abandoned, or would you rather help in order to get mod and actually be able to be a mod?

    Oppose Oppose - Editing is optional. You want to edit, you do it.

    Oh, so you would rather not help because someone else can do it? Don't be so lazy. Alot of you lot have said that this is the only way you're able to communicate. Well, then answer your community's call! Help us fix the site so that you can keep the way to communicate!

    Oppose Oppose - Some of us don't know how to edit.

    Duh. That's why I said ask an admin to assist. They will help.

    You made clear that a permanent shutdown is out of the question. Don't be so stubborn as to not sacrafice chat for a week to a month at best to help the site that hosts it.

    Support Support -
    {{Support}}
    Neutral Neutral -
    {{Neutral}}
    Oppose Oppose -
    {{Oppose}}
      Loading editor
    • Has the definite trial period been established?

      If not, do you have an idea?

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - This is a great idea. I'd support a full month and just see how things go.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support -

      A length like...two weeks or one month seems good enough for me

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - i would support about a week

        Loading editor
    • Necrosanity wrote:
      Has the definite trial period been established?

      If not, do you have an idea?


      Either way I'm gonna Support Support - ;p

        Loading editor
    • Support Support -

      As i said in last thread, start at 2 weeks and if it's going well beef it up to a month but no longer.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - Could be interesting. I would say that it should only be a week though to ensure that if there are problems (ejemplos: people are making pointless edits or incorrect edits to try and attain mod status or people vandalizing pages out of spite.) so that they can be rectified quickly without too many problems.

      Could be worth experimenting... Although I must say I pop onto chat infrequently and writing and editing is more my bread-and-butter here so I'm kinda biased here...

        Loading editor
    • Neutral Neutral - I don't know as of yet if I want to support this or not. Though your points are valid and this site does need some life brought back to it. I have a feeling that a lot of the users here will shut this down even with the legitimate reasons stated above. I, personally, would like to see this done and I would love to help with the site overall either way.

      The only problems I see here is with the new users and how we treat them. Even if we take the chat down, our behaviors won't really change and we will still do the same things we've been doing to the new users in terms of guidance and helping them out.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support -

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - Quite frankly, I don't really care. But a week is okay. Anything more, and people will freak the fuck out. Oh, and, like I have said in several other threads regarding chat shutdowns, it'll make me, and probably like a good 10+ more users just leave the wiki until the chat's back up. There's no requirement to edit, to be honest. If they come here to chat, let them just stay for the chat. If they want to edit, let them edit. You can't disable one of those things hoping that it'll encourage the other. Because it will not. I'm not against a chat shutdown, but I'm against shutting down chat just so people edit. That's all I have to say.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - Whatever length seems best. I dotn't use the chat all too much, anyways.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - I think that a week is good -- but if you REALLY want, please just make the limit 2 weeks. Thats as far as I would allow chat to be gone without getting a little miffed. Other than that, I feel like you aren't asking very much, and would even suggest to add an edit limit in order to be in chat (im talking somewhere around 25 legit edits, but thats just me).

        Loading editor
    • Pramirez351 wrote:
      Support Support - I think that a week is good -- but if you REALLY want, please just make the limit 2 weeks. Thats as far as I would allow chat to be gone without getting a little miffed. Other than that, I feel like you aren't asking very much, and would even suggest to add an edit limit in order to be in chat (im talking somewhere around 25 legit edits, but thats just me).

      I agree with this, chat is a privilege. Why should you be allowed to use it if you're not actively contributing to the site?

      I might amend this to saying not simply edits, but 25 acts around the website. Forum posts, blogs, comments, etc. Just to show that you wish to actually be a member of our little community, not just gum up the chat.

        Loading editor
    • i dont reaally want to sorry ;P

        Loading editor
    • Support Support -

        Loading editor
    • Neutral Neutral - Actually...forget it.

      I agree with what Scorch said down there.

      In fact, fuck it, this is just one more thread to stay out of.

      I still find funny how everyone goes "MWHUHUHUHU BOOOHOO DONT CLOZE DAOWN CHAT U MORONS, ITS KEWL" when they are asked on chat, while here they're all "YEH, GET REED OF DIS SHIET 4 SUM TIME".

      Cancer









      And don't you dare ask why am I still going to that place. It's fucking drugs in internet form.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - I have no life.. I mean it's sad really. I would not have anything to do for a week... .-. I have no real argument though....Good bye.. L.Lawliet LQS Justice will prevail... 22:47, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • エル・ローライト wrote:
      Oppose Oppose - I have no life.. I mean it's sad really. I would not have anything to do for a week... .-. I have no real argument though....Good bye..

      L.Lawliet LQS Justice will prevail... 22:47, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

      > Oppose - I like chat. It's fun! You shouldn't shut it down!

      Your argument was pretty much that.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - Okay I have an argument.. I think that we should really be asking the people who are ACTIVE on the chat, because from what I see only a one person which is pram who is sub active on the chat.. I think your asking the wrong people. I assure you it wouldn't help. I'd be bored as fuck, and so would many other people.. I think at the most take it down a day.

      L.Lawliet LQS Justice will prevail... 22:50, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • Jacket Mike wrote:

      エル・ローライト wrote:
      Oppose Oppose - I have no life.. I mean it's sad really. I would not have anything to do for a week... .-. I have no real argument though....Good bye..

      L.Lawliet LQS Justice will prevail... 22:47, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

      > Oppose - I like chat. It's fun! You shouldn't shut it down!

      Your argument was pretty much that.

      When I said I had no argument... I meant I had no legitimate point. It was just me babaling..

        Loading editor
    • エル・ローライト wrote:
      Oppose Oppose - Okay I have an argument.. I think that we should really be asking the people who are ACTIVE on the chat, because from what I see only a one person which is pram who is sub active on the chat.. I think your asking the wrong people. I assure you it wouldn't help. I'd be bored as fuck, and so would many other people.. I think at the most take it down a day.

      L.Lawliet LQS Justice will prevail... 22:50, March 18, 2014 (UTC)


      There are plenty of other things to do. Also, taking it down for only a day would ruin the point of the trial.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - For a week or two, but with a few suggestions. First is for ALL USERS to be warned beforehand. Last time chat shut down happened some people had no clue what was going on. Also just an idea, but why not set up groups doing specific jobs (grammar/spelling, flagging for deletion.. etc.). It may minimize work and maybe put a few users in the spot light for potential mods/admins. Just try and make it so users aren't in the dark.

        Loading editor
    • エル・ローライト wrote:

      Jacket Mike wrote:

      エル・ローライト wrote:
      Oppose Oppose - I have no life.. I mean it's sad really. I would not have anything to do for a week... .-. I have no real argument though....Good bye..

      L.Lawliet LQS Justice will prevail... 22:47, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

      > Oppose - I like chat. It's fun! You shouldn't shut it down!

      Your argument was pretty much that.

      When I said I had no argument... I meant I had no legitimate point. It was just me babaling..


      And? Well, your reply doesn't count then, I believe.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose -


      One: Most of those active on chat DO edit and contribute. I try to write a story every once in awhile. 


      Two: Not all of us feel comfortable going and editing other people's pastas. A wiki, sure, but when you've got a dozen ops and admins going in and Pointsgaming or editing every five seconds, we don't see a point. We edit and write our stories. Doing this is just going to cause people to stay away from Creepypasta, as the communing is what draws us here. From there, most of us write pastas. Chat isn't a distraction to editing. People aren't going to edit just because you get rid of chat.

      Three: If you feel underappreciated like you're the only one doing work, Let me play you a sad song with a violin.

      Four: I agree, that people are not editing like they should be, and the point of this site is not chat but to write Weird Tales, Dark Fables, and Horror Stories. You don't think that I feel underappreciated for my work? Sure, I do. I don't complain about it. This is the one website where I can publish my work and get criticism based on grammar, structure, and effect, not on morals like going to my family or friends with stories.

      To Reiterate the point, getting rid of chat will only anger those who DO edit and like to chat often with friends, and will cause those who frequent the chat and don't edit often to simply leave until they do. You act like People have an obligation to this website and people feel the need and obligation to follow your leadership.

      My gut tells me that regardless of votes or opinions, if enough people OPPOSE your idea, you will close this thread. These threads serve one purpose, and that is to root out who agrees and disagrees with you. You end up enforcing the policy anyway, and closing the thread.

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote:
      Oppose Oppose -


      One: Most of those active on chat DO edit and contribute. I try to write a story every once in awhile. 


      Two: Not all of us feel comfortable going and editing other people's pastas. A wiki, sure, but when you've got a dozen ops and admins going in and Pointsgaming or editing every five seconds, we don't see a point. We edit and write our stories. Doing this is just going to cause people to stay away from Creepypasta, as the communing is what draws us here. From there, most of us write pastas. Chat isn't a distraction to editing. People aren't going to edit just because you get rid of chat.

      Three: If you feel underappreciated like you're the only one doing work, Let me play you a sad song with a violin.

      Four: I agree, that people are not editing like they should be, and the point of this site is not chat but to write Weird Tales, Dark Fables, and Horror Stories. You don't think that I feel underappreciated for my work? Sure, I do. I don't complain about it. This is the one website where I can publish my work and get criticism based on grammar, structure, and effect, not on morals like going to my family or friends with stories.

      To Reiterate the point, getting rid of chat will only anger those who DO edit and like to chat often with friends, and will cause those who frequent the chat and don't edit often to simply leave until they do. You act like People have an obligation to this website and people feel the need and obligation to follow your leadership.

      My gut tells me that regardless of votes or opinions, if enough people OPPOSE your idea, you will close this thread. These threads serve one purpose, and that is to root out who agrees and disagrees with you. You end up enforcing the policy anyway, and closing the thread.


      1) Some do, some don't.

      2) Wouldn't the overall quality of pastas improve though if you had hundreds of users editing along with a dozen admins instead of just a dozen admins?

      Reiterate section: You can still chat with people through the site's IRC Chat, and I know that some people on chat stay in touch through Facebook, Skype, etc. This site also has a Forum. As for people who don't edit and only chat, we don't really need them, so it's not a big deal if they leave.

        Loading editor
    • My biggest thing  here is to build the community more. Shutting down chat would facilitate more people frequenting the forums, more people participating in blog discussions and more people in general helping to create a fun and enjoyable community for everyone. Also, I saw you whining about this on chat earlier, so start playing that violin for yourself.

      And once again, this isn't just about editing. Editing stories is a small part of the whole. Sure, it's a great thing. But we need people in the forums, we need people helping with blogs, and we need people putting in their opinions openly on the main site. Chat as it is, is a small sub-community. Not everybody likes it or uses it, not everybody that uses chat uses the main site. And that's where the problem is. Chat is essentially a high school clique at this point. Think about that for a minute before you try to argue about community and such again. The whole point is to build community. The main site is steadily declining in quality, we need the man power to fix it. 

      Plus, it's temporary. So, since so many seem to not get what that means, here:

      Tem-po-rare-e

      (adj.) Lasting only a limited amount of time; absolutely not permanent.

      This is a proposal to see how a single week goes. You'll fucking live.

      We have a lot of subforums that need populated, we have a new writers workshop needing activity, we have billions of blog posts all waiting eagerly to be commented on. Start building rapport with your fellow users outside of the chat. Not such a big deal, homeslice.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - as some of you know, i'm trying to leave this place, so.

        Loading editor
    • The Last Paladin wrote:
      Support Support - as some of you know, i'm trying to leave this place, so.


      I know exactly how you feel.

        Loading editor
    • Jacket Mike wrote:
      The Last Paladin wrote:
      Support Support - as some of you know, i'm trying to leave this place, so.

      I know exactly how you feel.

      It's so hard though

        Loading editor
    • The Last Paladin wrote:
      Jacket Mike wrote:
      The Last Paladin wrote:
      Support Support - as some of you know, i'm trying to leave this place, so.

      I know exactly how you feel.
      It's so hard though


      Absolutely.

        Loading editor
    • Jacket Mike wrote:
      The Last Paladin wrote:
      Jacket Mike wrote:
      The Last Paladin wrote:
      Support Support - as some of you know, i'm trying to leave this place, so.

      I know exactly how you feel.
      It's so hard though

      Absolutely.

      If ur on chat, tell someone to unban me ples, it was per request so

        Loading editor
    • I have no problem with the shutdown or that higher standards be placed on mod-ship, but I really don't think there's any obligation for a chat mod to be actively editing articles and be a prominent contributor on the wiki. That's not really related to the job, and is there really any risk of this site just disappearing due to lack of people editing articles? I certainly don't foresee one.

      We need the people reading the articles on this site just as much as the ones editing them, and the most important things for a chat mod are that they are, one, responsible and generally able to handle disruptive behavior (and certainly not cause it), and two, active on the chat so that they actually accomplish this. Nothing to do with being a site editor. If that were their passion, they would apply for a main site staff position.

        Loading editor
    • Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:
      I have no problem with the shutdown or that higher standards be placed on mod-ship, but I really don't think there's any obligation for a chat mod to be actively editing articles and be a prominent contributor on the wiki. That's not really related to the job, and is there really any risk of this site just disappearing due to lack of people editing articles? I certainly don't foresee one.

      We need the people reading the articles on this site just as much as the ones editing them, and the most important things for a chat mod are that they are, one, responsible and generally able to handle disruptive behavior (and certainly not cause it), and two, active on the chat so that they actually accomplish this. Nothing to do with being a site editor. If that were their passion, they would apply for a main site staff position.

      I do recall mentioning said argument in the OP. Why should that mean they shouldn't contribute to the site? Just because they don't have a job related to the main site doesn't mean they shouldn't be told they have to earn their keep to get it.

        Loading editor
    • Princess Callie wrote:
      Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:
      I have no problem with the shutdown or that higher standards be placed on mod-ship, but I really don't think there's any obligation for a chat mod to be actively editing articles and be a prominent contributor on the wiki. That's not really related to the job, and is there really any risk of this site just disappearing due to lack of people editing articles? I certainly don't foresee one.

      We need the people reading the articles on this site just as much as the ones editing them, and the most important things for a chat mod are that they are, one, responsible and generally able to handle disruptive behavior (and certainly not cause it), and two, active on the chat so that they actually accomplish this. Nothing to do with being a site editor. If that were their passion, they would apply for a main site staff position.

      I do recall mentioning said argument in the OP. Why should that mean they shouldn't contribute to the site? Just because they don't have a job related to the main site doesn't mean they shouldn't be told they have to earn their keep to get it.

      I think 125 article edits is a bit too much for a mod position, I'd say 50, iirc 125 edits is also for rollback

        Loading editor
    • The Last Paladin wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:
      I have no problem with the shutdown or that higher standards be placed on mod-ship, but I really don't think there's any obligation for a chat mod to be actively editing articles and be a prominent contributor on the wiki. That's not really related to the job, and is there really any risk of this site just disappearing due to lack of people editing articles? I certainly don't foresee one.

      We need the people reading the articles on this site just as much as the ones editing them, and the most important things for a chat mod are that they are, one, responsible and generally able to handle disruptive behavior (and certainly not cause it), and two, active on the chat so that they actually accomplish this. Nothing to do with being a site editor. If that were their passion, they would apply for a main site staff position.

      I do recall mentioning said argument in the OP. Why should that mean they shouldn't contribute to the site? Just because they don't have a job related to the main site doesn't mean they shouldn't be told they have to earn their keep to get it.
      I think 125 article edits is a bit too much for a mod position, I'd say 50, iirc 125 edits is also for rollback

      200 is rollback. And the fact is, if they don't help, legitimately, they shouldn't get the right. 50 is ridiculously low for a large majority of the users who edit on this site, believe it or not.

        Loading editor
    • Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote: I have no problem with the shutdown or that higher standards be placed on mod-ship, but I really don't think there's any obligation for a chat mod to be actively editing articles and be a prominent contributor on the wiki. That's not really related to the job, and is there really any risk of this site just disappearing due to lack of people editing articles? I certainly don't foresee one.

      We need the people reading the articles on this site just as much as the ones editing them, and the most important things for a chat mod are that they are, one, responsible and generally able to handle disruptive behavior (and certainly not cause it), and two, active on the chat so that they actually accomplish this. Nothing to do with being a site editor. If that were their passion, they would apply for a main site staff position.

      If I recall correctly, chat's doing just fine (well, not counting the drama that people complain about -- but enough of that). Main site needs all the help it could get, so if you can moderate a chat (god have mercy on your soul), you should at least have the decency to pick up after main too.

      It's absolutely true the site won't just disappear. But what if its support dissolves and it becomes defunct (more so than it already is)? We're an incredibly popular site, and probably the premier place to post creepypastas or even start writing as a craft. Ergo, we're pretty fuckin' important.

      ... Unless I read this the wrong way.

        Loading editor
    • Strap 2 alcohol-fueled rocket engines to my Support Support -.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - I would like the current moderators, such as myself, to keep our powers though. I may not be an editor but I am active in chat, I would apply for VCROC/Moderator only to do deletion appeal because apparently it still isn't being done as often as people would like, and I figure it would take a load off the admins and it was originally a volunteer thing.

        Loading editor
    • AlcohollicA wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      Oppose Oppose -

      One: Most of those active on chat DO edit and contribute. I try to write a story every once in awhile. 


      Two: Not all of us feel comfortable going and editing other people's pastas. A wiki, sure, but when you've got a dozen ops and admins going in and Pointsgaming or editing every five seconds, we don't see a point. We edit and write our stories. Doing this is just going to cause people to stay away from Creepypasta, as the communing is what draws us here. From there, most of us write pastas. Chat isn't a distraction to editing. People aren't going to edit just because you get rid of chat.

      Three: If you feel underappreciated like you're the only one doing work, Let me play you a sad song with a violin.

      Four: I agree, that people are not editing like they should be, and the point of this site is not chat but to write Weird Tales, Dark Fables, and Horror Stories. You don't think that I feel underappreciated for my work? Sure, I do. I don't complain about it. This is the one website where I can publish my work and get criticism based on grammar, structure, and effect, not on morals like going to my family or friends with stories.

      To Reiterate the point, getting rid of chat will only anger those who DO edit and like to chat often with friends, and will cause those who frequent the chat and don't edit often to simply leave until they do. You act like People have an obligation to this website and people feel the need and obligation to follow your leadership.

      My gut tells me that regardless of votes or opinions, if enough people OPPOSE your idea, you will close this thread. These threads serve one purpose, and that is to root out who agrees and disagrees with you. You end up enforcing the policy anyway, and closing the thread.


      1) Some do, some don't.

      2) Wouldn't the overall quality of pastas improve though if you had hundreds of users editing along with a dozen admins instead of just a dozen admins?

      Reiterate section: You can still chat with people through the site's IRC Chat, and I know that some people on chat stay in touch through Facebook, Skype, etc. This site also has a Forum. As for people who don't edit and only chat, we don't really need them, so it's not a big deal if they leave.

      Yes, A. And guess what?

      2: ABSOLUTELY. I totally agree. Then again, since only a few dozen on here can edit at a 3rd grade+ level, I'm not sure that's a great idea. Yes, we should have more users editing. Getting rid of chat to make a symbolic message will not solve anything.



      To reiterate the point: The admins are right, but are bitching and trying to send a message. This won't solve anything.

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote:
      AlcohollicA wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      Oppose Oppose -

      One: Most of those active on chat DO edit and contribute. I try to write a story every once in awhile. 


      Two: Not all of us feel comfortable going and editing other people's pastas. A wiki, sure, but when you've got a dozen ops and admins going in and Pointsgaming or editing every five seconds, we don't see a point. We edit and write our stories. Doing this is just going to cause people to stay away from Creepypasta, as the communing is what draws us here. From there, most of us write pastas. Chat isn't a distraction to editing. People aren't going to edit just because you get rid of chat.

      Three: If you feel underappreciated like you're the only one doing work, Let me play you a sad song with a violin.

      Four: I agree, that people are not editing like they should be, and the point of this site is not chat but to write Weird Tales, Dark Fables, and Horror Stories. You don't think that I feel underappreciated for my work? Sure, I do. I don't complain about it. This is the one website where I can publish my work and get criticism based on grammar, structure, and effect, not on morals like going to my family or friends with stories.

      To Reiterate the point, getting rid of chat will only anger those who DO edit and like to chat often with friends, and will cause those who frequent the chat and don't edit often to simply leave until they do. You act like People have an obligation to this website and people feel the need and obligation to follow your leadership.

      My gut tells me that regardless of votes or opinions, if enough people OPPOSE your idea, you will close this thread. These threads serve one purpose, and that is to root out who agrees and disagrees with you. You end up enforcing the policy anyway, and closing the thread.


      1) Some do, some don't.

      2) Wouldn't the overall quality of pastas improve though if you had hundreds of users editing along with a dozen admins instead of just a dozen admins?

      Reiterate section: You can still chat with people through the site's IRC Chat, and I know that some people on chat stay in touch through Facebook, Skype, etc. This site also has a Forum. As for people who don't edit and only chat, we don't really need them, so it's not a big deal if they leave.

      Yes, A. And guess what?

      2: ABSOLUTELY. I totally agree. Then again, since only a few dozen on here can edit at a 3rd grade+ level, I'm not sure that's a great idea. Yes, we should have more users editing. Getting rid of chat to make a symbolic message will not solve anything.



      To reiterate the point: The admins are right, but are bitching and trying to send a message. This won't solve anything.


      2) Some don't posses very good writing skills (in terms of grammar, etc.), but we could still use more people editing. I would imagine that some people who don't edit are very capable of editing, and given that we remove the chat and encourage them to edit and help the site, we'll prob. end up with more people editing than we have now.


      Reiterate: It is a message, and I feel that removing the chat will solve some issues. For example, petty drama will be reduced because people will have to use the forum more and they may resort to using third-party communications (forum is more organized and third-party communications may limit who you talk to, so you'll talk to just the friends you want to talk to, which will prob. reduce drama).

        Loading editor
    • support- first of all I want to say that I am sorry that I haven't been able to visit creepy pasta for quite awhile I have really been busy with school and work and I plan to visit mor often. Secondly I think that we shouldn't shut down perminantly but I agree that a trial run would be wonderful. 

        Loading editor
    • So the point is not to encourage users to edit, the point is to reduce the same drama that many of the admins and moderators indulge in daily?

        Loading editor
    • As I see it, the point of this is to try to breath some new line to the site through the rekindling of the rules and other stuff, while also trying to find a new way to form a community, which is through the IRC and the Forums.

      However, I may be wrong about the purpose itself

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote:
      So the point is not to encourage users to edit, the point is to reduce the same drama that many of the admins and moderators indulge in daily?

      The point is a bunch of things. The fact is, temporarily shutting down chat is something where benefits outweigh risks.

        Loading editor
    • I don't see benefits or risks.

      I see a bunch of underappreciated people complaining in the wrong way and wanting to make their complaints apparent to *everyone*. It's not going to affect anyone really, though.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - I think it is a good idea. We can weed out the people who don't help the site and who don't contribute to the site. I think that a time of 2 weeks would be enough to help the site, but if not go up to a month. Chat is good for people who actually talk, not for people who inecssently harrass people and need constant babysitting. 

        Loading editor
    • SecretSlave wrote:
      Support Support - I think it is a good idea. We can weed out the people who don't help the site and who don't contribute to the site. I think that a time of 2 weeks would be enough to help the site, but if not go up to a month. Chat is good for people who actually talk, not for people who inecssently harrass people and need constant babysitting. 

      Yes, but when we successfully weed out who's who, What's that going to solve? What's that going to do for the wiki?


      If we're talking about weeding out who's who so we can take *action* against those people, then you're talking about being exclusionistic, not to mention unorthodox and, ultimately, unjust.

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote:
      SecretSlave wrote:
      Support Support - I think it is a good idea. We can weed out the people who don't help the site and who don't contribute to the site. I think that a time of 2 weeks would be enough to help the site, but if not go up to a month. Chat is good for people who actually talk, not for people who inecssently harrass people and need constant babysitting. 
      Yes, but when we successfully weed out who's who, What's that going to solve? What's that going to do for the wiki?


      If we're talking about weeding out who's who so we can take *action* against those people, then you're talking about being exclusionistic, not to mention unorthodox and, ultimately, unjust.

      I'm not being unjust. I think that more new users would stay if there wasn't stalker behavior and constant users needing to be babysat on a regular basis because they are too immature to get off chat on their own. I also think that temporarily making chat unavailable would be good for the edits and such on the site, but only temporarily. If it's gona for good, we won't have any more new users, and quite a bit of older users would leave too. I know that quite a few users onl come for chat.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - I also think we should use Batman's idea and split up groups for certian tasks.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - Id say a week ta two weeks is all we need, any more and people will start riots. I reaaaaaaally need to get some work done and this chat is getting in my way of doing it. hell I could probably get my three stories and a fan fic ive bene working on uploaded in a two week frame.

        Loading editor
    • Nobody said anyone had to be on chat. It seems like the legislators can't regulate themselves.


      @Slave: How will it affect editing in the sense that it will cause users to want to edit?


      See, here's the thing. If chat is keeping from people who could edit from editing, why are they on chat? Either they want to chat or they want to edit. What you're doing is taking the option away. 


      I see a ton of users who claim "Oh, this'll give me opportunities to edit more." And that's great! Except you've just admitted that your time could be better spent and you've had opportunities, you just chose to waste them chatting, and you're using the chat as an excuse for your irresponsibility. You're using other users lack of editing as a scapegoat.


      Writing pages, sure. More users should be writing pages. How many actually edit? I know I don't often. To reiterate that point, Editing is full of pointsgamers and people who don't know what the hell they are doing. You are sending more people who don't know what the hell they are doing into the equation.

        Loading editor
    • I'm juuuuuuust waiting for this thread to get passed and everyone suddenly go:

      "BOOOOOOHOOOOOZ CH0T WUZ SHUT DOWN, ADMINZ SAK. MARIA, U BIOTCH, FAK U, #IHATECHANGE, #BRINGCHATBACK, #FUCKCPW".

      If we shut down chat for two hours, there will be already thousands of people bitching and whining like if they're in some kind of children daycare.

      In fact, quick proposal: Rename CPW to CDW (Children Daycare Wiki).

      Support Support -

      Neutral Neutral -

      Oppose Oppose -

        Loading editor
    • Jacket Mike wrote:
      I'm juuuuuuust waiting for this thread to get passed and everyone suddenly go:

      "BOOOOOOHOOOOOZ CH0T WUZ SHUT DOWN, ADMINZ SAK. MARIA, U BIOTCH, FAK U, #IHATECHANGE, #BRINGCHATBACK, #FUCKCPW".

      If we shut down chat for two hours, there will be already thousands of people bitching and whining like if they're in some kind of children daycare.

      In fact, quick proposal: Rename CPW to CDW (Children Daycare Wiki).

      Support Support -

      Neutral Neutral -

      Oppose Oppose -

      See, here's a guy who actually raises some good points.


      The question is, are you going to get rid of chat entirely so it's not a "distraction" for you, when it's really not a distraction at all, or are you not?

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote:
      Jacket Mike wrote:
      I'm juuuuuuust waiting for this thread to get passed and everyone suddenly go:

      "BOOOOOOHOOOOOZ CH0T WUZ SHUT DOWN, ADMINZ SAK. MARIA, U BIOTCH, FAK U, #IHATECHANGE, #BRINGCHATBACK, #FUCKCPW".

      If we shut down chat for two hours, there will be already thousands of people bitching and whining like if they're in some kind of children daycare.

      In fact, quick proposal: Rename CPW to CDW (Children Daycare Wiki).

      Support Support -

      Neutral Neutral -

      Oppose Oppose -

      See, here's a guy who actually raises some good points.


      The question is, are you going to get rid of chat entirely so it's not a "distraction" for you, when it's really not a distraction at all, or are you not?


      Probably not.

      But, I don't give a fuck. In my eyes, both sides are wrong. And as I said before, I'm staying out of this.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - seems like a decent idea for about 2 weeks at least

        Loading editor
    • I have an idea. We take away the chat, for one week, for anybody who was banned from the chat even once. Now a good portion of trouble makers are gone.

      Of course, this is probably a nearly, if not completely, impossible request.

        Loading editor
    • Forestfleet wrote:
      I have an idea. We take away the chat, for one week, for anybody who was banned from the chat even once. Now a good portion of trouble makers are gone.

      Of course, this is probably a nearly, if not completely, impossible request.


      We're not just talking about troublemakers. We're talking about even more complex shit.

        Loading editor
    • Jacket Mike wrote:
      Forestfleet wrote:
      I have an idea. We take away the chat, for one week, for anybody who was banned from the chat even once. Now a good portion of trouble makers are gone.

      Of course, this is probably a nearly, if not completely, impossible request.


      We're not just talking about troublemakers. We're talking about even more complex shit.

      I see. I don't exactly go onto chat much, so what are these more complex problems?

        Loading editor
    • Forestfleet wrote:
      I have an idea. We take away the chat, for one week, for anybody who was banned from the chat even once. Now a good portion of trouble makers are gone.

      Of course, this is probably a nearly, if not completely, impossible request.

      Most people who have been banned once or even twice, aren't "troublemakers." They're people that have made bad desicions. I know quite a few mods who have been banned, whether before or after their mod-ship because of bad decisions. 

        Loading editor
    • Forestfleet wrote:
      Jacket Mike wrote:
      Forestfleet wrote:
      I have an idea. We take away the chat, for one week, for anybody who was banned from the chat even once. Now a good portion of trouble makers are gone.

      Of course, this is probably a nearly, if not completely, impossible request.


      We're not just talking about troublemakers. We're talking about even more complex shit.
      I see. I don't exactly go onto chat much, so what are these more complex problems?


      Lots of. I can spend minutes naming them here.

      I'll name some:

      • Drama.
      • Admins who need to take their eyes off the site to watch the chat, which leaves the chat unprotected.
      • People being total ignorants and hypocrites, such as asking for something then asking for another.
      • More drama.

      And other stuff.

      No wonder my activity decayed so fucking much in chat.

      Being banned from it now is like being released from prison.

        Loading editor
    • Jacket Mike wrote:
      Forestfleet wrote:
      Jacket Mike wrote:
      Forestfleet wrote:
      I have an idea. We take away the chat, for one week, for anybody who was banned from the chat even once. Now a good portion of trouble makers are gone.

      Of course, this is probably a nearly, if not completely, impossible request.


      We're not just talking about troublemakers. We're talking about even more complex shit.
      I see. I don't exactly go onto chat much, so what are these more complex problems?

      Lots of. I can spend minutes naming them here.

      I'll name some:

      • Drama.
      • Admins who need to take their eyes off the site to watch the chat, which leaves the chat unprotected.
      • People being total ignorants and hypocrites, such as asking for something then asking for another.
      • More drama.

      And other stuff.

      No wonder my activity decayed so fucking much in chat.

      Being banned from it now is like being released from prison.

      Or more like you were brought out of prison because they decided you were too bad for prison.

        Loading editor
    • Fuck it, Dude. Lets go bowling.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - Ill support this one. I would love to become a mod or even an admin one day .. i petsonally am one of the people who is uncimfortable witj editting other peoples work. Perhaps its times to come out of the shell.

        Loading editor
    • Neutral Neutral - Simply because, from what I have seen, anyone who opposes is going to be ridiculed, and to put it bluntly, I'm not going to take that.

        Loading editor
    • Neutral Neutral - I am not too sure. Chat has its pros and cons. Most people on chat have actually made over thousands of contributions to this wiki so removing chat would be really unfair to them. On the other hand, some people may not have many ways to communicate with their friends other than chat.

      Removing chat could actually make some other users contribute more to this site. It could also make them furious enough to leave this site meaning that this site has LESS people to add to it in case they actually try to contribute. You could also try being more considerate to to other users that like chat since this does not revolve around how you feel. True, petty drama may happen on chat but this is the internet. DEAL WITH IT. You may feel that you are fulfilling your duty to this site but these actions may have a catastrophic effect on the population of users on this site.

      It is a risk. Some users may actually be motivated to contribute more since they want chat back (like a reward). However they may also leave and join other sites thus causing the population of users in this site to decline.

      I do not oppose nor support this.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - Okay. This shit has to stop. and it has to stop right now. What happened the last time you tried to shut down chat temporarily? We left until it came back. We didn't edit more we didn't go to the forums more We didn't do anything we didn't do before because theres no POINT it doing so. Just because you take away something we like doesn't mean we have to do a thing that you want us to do, all that does is make us More likely to REFUSE To even make an Effort. All this causes is more problems, it causes site drama, it causes user count to lessen it causes Wiki Interest to Plummet. You know what a pass time of mine is that actually relates to the site is? I archive Pastas that are linked in chat onto my computer. I do this because I dislike things becomming Lost forever and destroyed even if the material is pointless and shitty. and i'm able to DO THIS because of the chat. Without chat this job would be impossible for me because i do not have patience to archieve every single damn thing instead of just random things linked in chat. And the simple fact that you repeatedly try to close chat down is not doing you any favours among the community, The chat is not Physically hurting you, the site, or anybody. Why do you insist on Closing it down like its some sort of irradiated hell hole akin to Chernobyl? Its frankly pointless. And also. The new chat mod prerequisites are absolutely Pointless and unneeded. Its a chat mod. Not an administrator. They have no juristdiction on editing so they should not have to be required to have article edits at all.

      UPDATE

      Oh and you know what literally JUST happened? I was sitting in chat. during a dead hour. A user comes in, And asks me "How do i add a story.. i really need help" And I explained to them the process. IN CHAT. I just Benefitted The Site Through Chat. My argument Rests.

        Loading editor
    • The Last Paladin wrote:
      Support Support - as some of you know, i'm trying to leave this place, so.

      Also, Just because you want to leave doesn't mean you should have the right to take it away from everyone else who do not want to leave.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - - Now, I know it's been said several times, but I shall state it again: removing chat to try to send a message is a dumb idea.  

      One, people behave like three year olds when they get something taken away that they don't like.  They'll bitch and moan, won't cooperate at all, and will basically wait until their demands are met before they decide they may become civil again.


      Two, hoping that closing it down, even temporarily, to get extra editors (especially "high quality") is just a fucking self-delusion.  Most people have trouble with basic sentence structure and proper punctuation, let alone spelling things correctly in addition to the aforementioned items.  Beyond that, motivating people through negative reinforcement like that is just likely to get some asshole who will delete good things out of revenge, causing more work for the mods and admins.


      Three, the whole concept of closing chat, even temporarily, for your reasons is a tactic that negatively affects a good demographic.  You're basically just deciding to try to employ an exclusionary policy on a casual reader group (myself being in this group).  Sure, we don't make many edits, I only have six or seven myself.  This may not seem like much, but given that some of us come here to enjoy the community of people and get deeper involved within the social culture of the community, only making a few edits isn't bad.  Consider that many of us come home from full days of work (myself usually having 10 hour work days), and we go to the chat to enjoy the community.  Sure, we're not making edits, but we are not terrorizing the community and releasing stories and articles that seem to be the true source of your anger.  Punishing those that have done no wrong is no different than being a tyrant.

      End of my ranting/explanations.  I could explain myself more, but there's no need to do that.  Personally, I have done nothing that requires it.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - Just leave it the way it is

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - honestly, this whole site is a rig, in a way, only what the people like can be mods, and so many rules on pastas, just no. i could deal with a week, but i guarantee you will have the same mods as before. Many users dont even make pastas due to the amount of rules. I would let it happen, but for only a short time, and keep a fucking open mind on mods.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - Sure I think it'll be ok, but just for week or 2.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - this is exactly what we need right now

        Loading editor
    • I can't believe the overwhelming support. There is like, what? 4 opposes?

        Loading editor
    • TTRoseLalonde wrote:
      Oppose Oppose - Three, the whole concept of closing chat, even temporarily, for your reasons is a tactic that negatively affects a good demographic.  You're basically just deciding to try to employ an exclusionary policy on a casual reader group (myself being in this group).  Sure, we don't make many edits, I only have six or seven myself.  This may not seem like much, but given that some of us come here to enjoy the community of people and get deeper involved within the social culture of the community, only making a few edits isn't bad.  Consider that many of us come home from full days of work (myself usually having 10 hour work days), and we go to the chat to enjoy the community.  Sure, we're not making edits, but we are not terrorizing the community and releasing stories and articles that seem to be the true source of your anger.  Punishing those that have done no wrong is no different than being a tyrant.

      You can still enjoy the community through IRC Chat and the Forums. And no one's being punished, as far as I am concerned (I assume you mean punishing users by shutting down chat? Chat is going no where generally speaking and we don't need it). Also, I know you defended your lack of editing, but remember what the front page says, "we're a literature wikia." With that in mind, I think users are obliged to edit, etc. to some extent. This site is not solely for the community (talking with friends, etc.).

        Loading editor
    • AlcohollicA wrote:
      TTRoseLalonde wrote:
      Oppose Oppose - Three, the whole concept of closing chat, even temporarily, for your reasons is a tactic that negatively affects a good demographic.  You're basically just deciding to try to employ an exclusionary policy on a casual reader group (myself being in this group).  Sure, we don't make many edits, I only have six or seven myself.  This may not seem like much, but given that some of us come here to enjoy the community of people and get deeper involved within the social culture of the community, only making a few edits isn't bad.  Consider that many of us come home from full days of work (myself usually having 10 hour work days), and we go to the chat to enjoy the community.  Sure, we're not making edits, but we are not terrorizing the community and releasing stories and articles that seem to be the true source of your anger.  Punishing those that have done no wrong is no different than being a tyrant.
      You can still enjoy the community through IRC Chat and the Forums. And no one's being punished, as far as I am concerned (I assume you mean punishing users by shutting down chat? Chat is going no where generally speaking and we don't need it). Also, I know you defended your lack of editing, but remember what the front page says, "we're a literature wikia." With that in mind, I think users are obliged to edit, etc. to some extent. This site is not solely for the community (talking with friends, etc.).


      Nobody uses the IRC chat anymore. Hell, was it even used atleast for once?

        Loading editor
    • Jacket Mike wrote:

      AlcohollicA wrote:
      TTRoseLalonde wrote:
      Oppose Oppose - Three, the whole concept of closing chat, even temporarily, for your reasons is a tactic that negatively affects a good demographic.  You're basically just deciding to try to employ an exclusionary policy on a casual reader group (myself being in this group).  Sure, we don't make many edits, I only have six or seven myself.  This may not seem like much, but given that some of us come here to enjoy the community of people and get deeper involved within the social culture of the community, only making a few edits isn't bad.  Consider that many of us come home from full days of work (myself usually having 10 hour work days), and we go to the chat to enjoy the community.  Sure, we're not making edits, but we are not terrorizing the community and releasing stories and articles that seem to be the true source of your anger.  Punishing those that have done no wrong is no different than being a tyrant.
      You can still enjoy the community through IRC Chat and the Forums. And no one's being punished, as far as I am concerned (I assume you mean punishing users by shutting down chat? Chat is going no where generally speaking and we don't need it). Also, I know you defended your lack of editing, but remember what the front page says, "we're a literature wikia." With that in mind, I think users are obliged to edit, etc. to some extent. This site is not solely for the community (talking with friends, etc.).


      Nobody uses the IRC chat anymore. Hell, was it even used atleast for once?

      It was created 3 days ago.

        Loading editor
    • Lil' Miss Rarity wrote:

      Jacket Mike wrote:


      AlcohollicA wrote:
      TTRoseLalonde wrote:
      Oppose Oppose - Three, the whole concept of closing chat, even temporarily, for your reasons is a tactic that negatively affects a good demographic.  You're basically just deciding to try to employ an exclusionary policy on a casual reader group (myself being in this group).  Sure, we don't make many edits, I only have six or seven myself.  This may not seem like much, but given that some of us come here to enjoy the community of people and get deeper involved within the social culture of the community, only making a few edits isn't bad.  Consider that many of us come home from full days of work (myself usually having 10 hour work days), and we go to the chat to enjoy the community.  Sure, we're not making edits, but we are not terrorizing the community and releasing stories and articles that seem to be the true source of your anger.  Punishing those that have done no wrong is no different than being a tyrant.
      You can still enjoy the community through IRC Chat and the Forums. And no one's being punished, as far as I am concerned (I assume you mean punishing users by shutting down chat? Chat is going no where generally speaking and we don't need it). Also, I know you defended your lack of editing, but remember what the front page says, "we're a literature wikia." With that in mind, I think users are obliged to edit, etc. to some extent. This site is not solely for the community (talking with friends, etc.).

      Nobody uses the IRC chat anymore. Hell, was it even used atleast for once?
      It was created 3 days ago.


      Odd, I thought it was created in 2012 or something.

      I believe it's this?

        Loading editor
    • Jacket Mike wrote:

      Lil' Miss Rarity wrote:

      Jacket Mike wrote:


      AlcohollicA wrote:
      TTRoseLalonde wrote:
      Oppose Oppose - Three, the whole concept of closing chat, even temporarily, for your reasons is a tactic that negatively affects a good demographic.  You're basically just deciding to try to employ an exclusionary policy on a casual reader group (myself being in this group).  Sure, we don't make many edits, I only have six or seven myself.  This may not seem like much, but given that some of us come here to enjoy the community of people and get deeper involved within the social culture of the community, only making a few edits isn't bad.  Consider that many of us come home from full days of work (myself usually having 10 hour work days), and we go to the chat to enjoy the community.  Sure, we're not making edits, but we are not terrorizing the community and releasing stories and articles that seem to be the true source of your anger.  Punishing those that have done no wrong is no different than being a tyrant.
      You can still enjoy the community through IRC Chat and the Forums. And no one's being punished, as far as I am concerned (I assume you mean punishing users by shutting down chat? Chat is going no where generally speaking and we don't need it). Also, I know you defended your lack of editing, but remember what the front page says, "we're a literature wikia." With that in mind, I think users are obliged to edit, etc. to some extent. This site is not solely for the community (talking with friends, etc.).

      Nobody uses the IRC chat anymore. Hell, was it even used atleast for once?
      It was created 3 days ago.


      Odd, I thought it was created in 2012 or something.

      I believe it's this?

      That's not for us. We'd be channel #wikia-cpn

        Loading editor
    • Lil' Miss Rarity wrote:

      Jacket Mike wrote:

      Lil' Miss Rarity wrote:

      Jacket Mike wrote:


      AlcohollicA wrote:
      TTRoseLalonde wrote:
      Oppose Oppose - Three, the whole concept of closing chat, even temporarily, for your reasons is a tactic that negatively affects a good demographic.  You're basically just deciding to try to employ an exclusionary policy on a casual reader group (myself being in this group).  Sure, we don't make many edits, I only have six or seven myself.  This may not seem like much, but given that some of us come here to enjoy the community of people and get deeper involved within the social culture of the community, only making a few edits isn't bad.  Consider that many of us come home from full days of work (myself usually having 10 hour work days), and we go to the chat to enjoy the community.  Sure, we're not making edits, but we are not terrorizing the community and releasing stories and articles that seem to be the true source of your anger.  Punishing those that have done no wrong is no different than being a tyrant.
      You can still enjoy the community through IRC Chat and the Forums. And no one's being punished, as far as I am concerned (I assume you mean punishing users by shutting down chat? Chat is going no where generally speaking and we don't need it). Also, I know you defended your lack of editing, but remember what the front page says, "we're a literature wikia." With that in mind, I think users are obliged to edit, etc. to some extent. This site is not solely for the community (talking with friends, etc.).

      Nobody uses the IRC chat anymore. Hell, was it even used atleast for once?
      It was created 3 days ago.

      Odd, I thought it was created in 2012 or something.

      I believe it's this?

      That's not for us. We'd be channel #wikia-cpn

      Oh okay.

        Loading editor
    • The IRC chat was used 3 days ago to spam the words "f*gg*t" and "N*gg*r." And nothing else.

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote: The IRC chat was used 3 days ago to spam the words "f*gg*t" and "N*gg*r." And nothing else.

      Actually we had an in depth conversation about the site after those users left.

        Loading editor
    • Neutral Neutral - I do not care beyond this point, and I see it like this. (And yes, I know it's only for 2 weeks) If the CHAT goes down, the SITE, will soon follow. You can't give peopel the site, and then expect them to just edit, that's tantamount to them working in a cubicle with no interaction with each other. 

      By removing the chat, You are removing the people, and the possibility of more stories, and some of them are very good, because a good majority of these stories start in chat as a collaboration. 

      As for "Being encouraged to use the forums", again, tantamount to putting them in a cubicle. They need SOCIAL interaction, if they are to help on this site. People don't want to just edit things, sometimes, they need to take a break and go talk with people on the chat, laugh a bit, then go back to editing. A "cubicle" has no such interactions. 

      Oh, so one person bitches about chat being an unruly place and everyone decides to be sheep and follow that? Funny, I haven't laughed harder at that. This site isn't going to get better without a chat.

      Yes, I am a chat mod, but guess what? I understand these people's view points. Some of them think it would be beneficial, some of them don't.

      Tl;dr The chat goes down, the site loses people and stories.

        Loading editor
    • mutual- I don't think that we should close down chat becuase it give new comers the chance to get to know other wiki users. Yes there will be those who are negative and bias but I don't think you should punish everyone for it I think that those who do it should be punished alone, such as a short term ban and if it continues they should get permanently baned. I know that I haven't been a active member lately but that is only because I have been so busy with school and work. So my opinion is not really going to accepted. I will try to start being more active.

        Loading editor
    • oops I meant to put that It would be a good idea for the trial run to see how it works out my bad.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - How about just one week?

        Loading editor
    • Defrether wrote: I do not care beyond this point, and I see it like this. (And yes, I know it's only for 2 weeks) If the CHAT goes down, the SITE, will soon follow. You can't give peopel the site, and then expect them to just edit, that's tantamount to them working in a cubicle with no interaction with each other. 

      By removing the chat, You are removing the people, and the possibility of more stories, and some of them are very good, because a good majority of these stories start in chat as a collaboration. 

      As for "Being encouraged to use the forums", again, tantamount to putting them in a cubicle. They need SOCIAL interaction, if they are to help on this site. People don't want to just edit things, sometimes, they need to take a break and go talk with people on the chat, laugh a bit, then go back to editing. A "cubicle" has no such interactions. 

      Oh, so one person bitches about chat being an unruly place and everyone decides to be sheep and follow that? Funny, I haven't laughed harder at that. This site isn't going to get better without a chat.

      Yes, I am a chat mod, but guess what? I understand these people's view points. Some of them think it would be beneficial, some of them don't.

      Tl;dr The chat goes down, the site loses people and stories.

      Chat is the reason people come to this site and post stories? Really? Because it seems to me the main reason people come here is to read and post stories. Not fucking chat. And it's not like chat is the only outlet for communication (or "socializing") on this site; just look at the forums, blog posts, etc. Editing isn't the only thing to do around here.

        Loading editor
    • LOLSKELETONS wrote:

      Defrether wrote: I do not care beyond this point, and I see it like this. (And yes, I know it's only for 2 weeks) If the CHAT goes down, the SITE, will soon follow. You can't give peopel the site, and then expect them to just edit, that's tantamount to them working in a cubicle with no interaction with each other. 

      By removing the chat, You are removing the people, and the possibility of more stories, and some of them are very good, because a good majority of these stories start in chat as a collaboration. 

      As for "Being encouraged to use the forums", again, tantamount to putting them in a cubicle. They need SOCIAL interaction, if they are to help on this site. People don't want to just edit things, sometimes, they need to take a break and go talk with people on the chat, laugh a bit, then go back to editing. A "cubicle" has no such interactions. 

      Oh, so one person bitches about chat being an unruly place and everyone decides to be sheep and follow that? Funny, I haven't laughed harder at that. This site isn't going to get better without a chat.

      Yes, I am a chat mod, but guess what? I understand these people's view points. Some of them think it would be beneficial, some of them don't.

      Tl;dr The chat goes down, the site loses people and stories.

      Chat is the reason people come to this site and post stories? Really? Because it seems to me the main reason people come here is to read and post stories. Not fucking chat. And it's not like chat is the only outlet for communication (or "socializing") on this site; just look at the forums, blog posts, etc. Editing isn't the only thing to do around here.

      Chat: about 30 people every day.

      Main site: over 2.000 users and about 600 edits every day.

      > Implying chat getting shut down for 2 weeks will make the site lose people.

        Loading editor
    • Scorch, we were not spamming "Nigger" or "Faggot", we actually did talk about the site and the current mods. Those words, however, are allowed there. But nobody spammed either of them, at least not when I was on the IRC.

        Loading editor
    • SOMEGUY123 wrote:
      LOLSKELETONS wrote:

      Defrether wrote: I do not care beyond this point, and I see it like this. (And yes, I know it's only for 2 weeks) If the CHAT goes down, the SITE, will soon follow. You can't give peopel the site, and then expect them to just edit, that's tantamount to them working in a cubicle with no interaction with each other. 

      By removing the chat, You are removing the people, and the possibility of more stories, and some of them are very good, because a good majority of these stories start in chat as a collaboration. 

      As for "Being encouraged to use the forums", again, tantamount to putting them in a cubicle. They need SOCIAL interaction, if they are to help on this site. People don't want to just edit things, sometimes, they need to take a break and go talk with people on the chat, laugh a bit, then go back to editing. A "cubicle" has no such interactions. 

      Oh, so one person bitches about chat being an unruly place and everyone decides to be sheep and follow that? Funny, I haven't laughed harder at that. This site isn't going to get better without a chat.

      Yes, I am a chat mod, but guess what? I understand these people's view points. Some of them think it would be beneficial, some of them don't.

      Tl;dr The chat goes down, the site loses people and stories.

      Chat is the reason people come to this site and post stories? Really? Because it seems to me the main reason people come here is to read and post stories. Not fucking chat. And it's not like chat is the only outlet for communication (or "socializing") on this site; just look at the forums, blog posts, etc. Editing isn't the only thing to do around here.
      Chat: about 30 people every day.

      Main site: over 2.000 users and about 600 edits every day.

      > Implying chat getting shut down for 2 weeks will make the site lose people.

      Yes, I get that, but seriously, this isn't too encouraging for people to try and come on the site, and yes, we have a SHITTON of users, but there is a reason I am neutral, I'm trying to see both sides of the argument right now, and can't pick a side. 

      As for the users leaving: Alot of the users in chat were actually VERY beneficial to the chat, and when we closed it last time, they didn't come back. Yeah, you'll get people to review the pastas, and whatnot, but what about the people that want to try and get some criticism? Chat is the perfect place to do that. Oh yeah, sure, we'll all just go to the forums, and ASSUME someone will read them.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - We should give this "trial" a fair hand. It wouldn't be shutting it down completely, and I like that people are actually giving consideration to the work that has to be done around the wiki. No doubt I'm in full support of this idea.

        Loading editor
    • Neutral Neutral - Seems like a longshot to me, caused a lot of chat drama today and everyone put up fair points, even though for now I'm leaning towards a support, I'm going to stay neutral for now.

        Loading editor
    • UrotsukI wrote:
      Oppose Oppose - 

      UPDATE

      Oh and you know what literally JUST happened? I was sitting in chat. during a dead hour. A user comes in, And asks me "How do i add a story.. i really need help" And I explained to them the process. IN CHAT. I just Benefitted The Site Through Chat. My argument Rests.

      You could just as easily look for a blog post that explains this stuff...

        Loading editor
    • Defrether wrote:
      Yeah, you'll get people to review the pastas, and whatnot, but what about the people that want to try and get some criticism? Chat is the perfect place to do that. Oh yeah, sure, we'll all just go to the forums, and ASSUME someone will read them.

      Well, this is a literature site. People are sort of expected to read things here. Also, I created the Writer's Workshop board for a reason.

        Loading editor
    • Defrether wrote:
      Neutral Neutral -I do not care beyond this point, and I see it like this. (And yes, I know it's only for 2 weeks) If the CHAT goes down, the SITE, will soon follow. You can't give peopel the site, and then expect them to just edit, that's tantamount to them working in a cubicle with no interaction with each other. 

      By removing the chat, You are removing the people, and the possibility of more stories, and some of them are very good, because a good majority of these stories start in chat as a collaboration. 

      As for "Being encouraged to use the forums", again, tantamount to putting them in a cubicle. They need SOCIAL interaction, if they are to help on this site. People don't want to just edit things, sometimes, they need to take a break and go talk with people on the chat, laugh a bit, then go back to editing. A "cubicle" has no such interactions. 

      Oh, so one person bitches about chat being an unruly place and everyone decides to be sheep and follow that? Funny, I haven't laughed harder at that. This site isn't going to get better without a chat.

      Yes, I am a chat mod, but guess what? I understand these people's view points. Some of them think it would be beneficial, some of them don't.

      Tl;dr The chat goes down, the site loses people and stories.

      There's more than just the chat. I got to know Nooth from forums, and a lot of what I know Guy as is from the forums and blogs, not chat.

      Besides that, it won't lose people and stories. There are talk pages, forums, blogs, etc, for a reason. A user can use those for help. And people should not just come here for chat. We aren't a chat site, we're a literature site. Sure, I like to chat. I like to socialize. But, keep in mind some of these things are in fact being blocked because users see the word "chat" and jump right in.

      Some contribute little tidbit comments every now and then, but it's a pain in the ass to practically beg someone to edit or criticize, or even just write a single guide. Why? Because they're here for chat. No other reason. You even ask them to edit, you get the immediate refusal because they only like to chat. Paladin even said if the mod prereqs go through he would not go for mod anymore, because he doesn't want to edit. What does that say about the integrity of our users? Of our site?

      Of course, shutting down chat won't help get people to edit, but at least some of us who care won't have to spend our time begging users who don't want to make a contribution. At very least it will show who is willing to assist their own site. The mod prereqs will have new want-to-be-mods earn their keep. If they honestly want the position, they'll do it. It's not too much to ask to make a decent contribution and help clean up the site.

      If people can't live without 1 week, or even a month, of chat, then I wonder what the world has come to nowadays.

        Loading editor
    • Princess Callie wrote:
      Defrether wrote:
      Neutral Neutral -I do not care beyond this point, and I see it like this. (And yes, I know it's only for 2 weeks) If the CHAT goes down, the SITE, will soon follow. You can't give peopel the site, and then expect them to just edit, that's tantamount to them working in a cubicle with no interaction with each other. 

      By removing the chat, You are removing the people, and the possibility of more stories, and some of them are very good, because a good majority of these stories start in chat as a collaboration. 

      As for "Being encouraged to use the forums", again, tantamount to putting them in a cubicle. They need SOCIAL interaction, if they are to help on this site. People don't want to just edit things, sometimes, they need to take a break and go talk with people on the chat, laugh a bit, then go back to editing. A "cubicle" has no such interactions. 

      Oh, so one person bitches about chat being an unruly place and everyone decides to be sheep and follow that? Funny, I haven't laughed harder at that. This site isn't going to get better without a chat.

      Yes, I am a chat mod, but guess what? I understand these people's view points. Some of them think it would be beneficial, some of them don't.

      Tl;dr The chat goes down, the site loses people and stories.

      There's more than just the chat. I got to know Nooth from forums, and a lot of what I know Guy as is from the forums and blogs, not chat.

      Besides that, it won't lose people and stories. There are talk pages, forums, blogs, etc, for a reason. A user can use those for help. And people should not just come here for chat. We aren't a chat site, we're a literature site. Sure, I like to chat. I like to socialize. But, keep in mind some of these things are in fact being blocked because users see the word "chat" and jump right in.

      Some contribute little tidbit comments every now and then, but it's a pain in the ass to practically beg someone to edit or criticize, or even just write a single guide. Why? Because they're here for chat. No other reason. You even ask them to edit, you get the immediate refusal because they only like to chat. Paladin even said if the mod prereqs go through he would not go for mod anymore, because he doesn't want to edit. What does that say about the integrity of our users? Of our site?

      Of course, shutting down chat won't help get people to edit, but at least some of us who care won't have to spend our time begging users who don't want to make a contribution. At very least it will show who is willing to assist their own site. The mod prereqs will have new want-to-be-mods earn their keep. If they honestly want the position, they'll do it. It's not too much to ask to make a decent contribution and help clean up the site.

      If people can't live without 1 week, or even a month, of chat, then I wonder what the world has come to nowadays.


      >If people can't live without 1 week, or even a month, of chat, then I wonder what the world has come to nowadays.

      Be surprised.

        Loading editor
    • Grammatik wrote:
      Scorch, we were not spamming "Nigger" or "Faggot", we actually did talk about the site and the current mods. Those words, however, are allowed there. But nobody spammed either of them, at least not when I was on the IRC.


      @Rarity and Grammatik: Must've been before I joined. When I got the invite from meta, he was spamming those same words. 


      @Callie: I really don't give a damn about the chat. I'm protesting the fact that you guys are trying to force users to edit. I'm telling you that very few contributors feel comfortable editing someone else's work, and I'm also telling you that it seems more like you and the rest of them are just feeling underappreciated, like no one does any work, and thus you want a message sent.


      Unfortunately, for all the talk I hear of users like Devin being able to "focus on their work" because chat's gone, and users telling me it will "reduce drama"...-Which is Ironic because most of you indulge in that same drama daily- That users who actually want to edit COULD be editing and instead choose to waste their time on chat. So either the case is that Chat is indeed a distraction for users to the main purpose of the site and thus should not exist, or you are merely using it as an excuse for your (hypothetical, directed at nobody specific) personal laziness. 


      As for chat moderators needing to meet edit requirements, I think that is horribly unfair. They are not VCROC or Editors, they aren't administrators, they are Chat Moderators, there for the sole purpose of moderating the chat and keeping the chaos controlled. Why the moderators have say on Wiki structural matters, OR why they should be forced to meet an edit count to become moderators or keep their positions, I don't understand. 

      For people who have to be on the chat a certain amount of time each day, who are busy out of their f'ing skulls, you are forcing them to edit.


      So either you are overworking them, or telling them to distract themselves from MODERATION and edit. 

      And that's a good point. If the moderators are editing when they're supposed to be moderating, who controls and moderates chat? Because of those policies, it takes an incredible amount of time for any moderator to respond on the chat.


      Thus the duties of the moderator become skewed. And, quite frankly, I HATE having to hear moderators BITCH about being underappreciated and how all the users hate them because they're not doing their jobs when they are CLEARLY overworked.

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote:
      Grammatik wrote:
      Scorch, we were not spamming "Nigger" or "Faggot", we actually did talk about the site and the current mods. Those words, however, are allowed there. But nobody spammed either of them, at least not when I was on the IRC.

      @Rarity and Grammatik: Must've been before I joined. When I got the invite from meta, he was spamming those same words. 


      @Callie: I really don't give a damn about the chat. I'm protesting the fact that you guys are trying to force users to edit. I'm telling you that very few contributors feel comfortable editing someone else's work, and I'm also telling you that it seems more like you and the rest of them are just feeling underappreciated, like no one does any work, and thus you want a message sent.


      Unfortunately, for all the talk I hear of users like Devin being able to "focus on their work" because chat's gone, and users telling me it will "reduce drama"...-Which is Ironic because most of you indulge in that same drama daily- That users who actually want to edit COULD be editing and instead choose to waste their time on chat. So either the case is that Chat is indeed a distraction for users to the main purpose of the site and thus should not exist, or you are merely using it as an excuse for your (hypothetical, directed at nobody specific) personal laziness. 


      As for chat moderators needing to meet edit requirements, I think that is horribly unfair. They are not VCROC or Editors, they aren't administrators, they are Chat Moderators, there for the sole purpose of moderating the chat and keeping the chaos controlled. Why the moderators have say on Wiki structural matters, OR why they should be forced to meet an edit count to become moderators or keep their positions, I don't understand. 

      For people who have to be on the chat a certain amount of time each day, who are busy out of their f'ing skulls, you are forcing them to edit.


      So either you are overworking them, or telling them to distract themselves from MODERATION and edit. 

      And that's a good point. If the moderators are editing when they're supposed to be moderating, who controls and moderates chat? Because of those policies, it takes an incredible amount of time for any moderator to respond on the chat.


      Thus the duties of the moderator become skewed. And, quite frankly, I HATE having to hear moderators BITCH about being underappreciated and how all the users hate them because they're not doing their jobs when they are CLEARLY overworked.

      I can't agree more.

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote:
      Grammatik wrote:
      Scorch, we were not spamming "Nigger" or "Faggot", we actually did talk about the site and the current mods. Those words, however, are allowed there. But nobody spammed either of them, at least not when I was on the IRC.

      @Rarity and Grammatik: Must've been before I joined. When I got the invite from meta, he was spamming those same words. 


      @Callie: I really don't give a damn about the chat. I'm protesting the fact that you guys are trying to force users to edit. I'm telling you that very few contributors feel comfortable editing someone else's work, and I'm also telling you that it seems more like you and the rest of them are just feeling underappreciated, like no one does any work, and thus you want a message sent.


      Unfortunately, for all the talk I hear of users like Devin being able to "focus on their work" because chat's gone, and users telling me it will "reduce drama"...-Which is Ironic because most of you indulge in that same drama daily- That users who actually want to edit COULD be editing and instead choose to waste their time on chat. So either the case is that Chat is indeed a distraction for users to the main purpose of the site and thus should not exist, or you are merely using it as an excuse for your (hypothetical, directed at nobody specific) personal laziness. 


      As for chat moderators needing to meet edit requirements, I think that is horribly unfair. They are not VCROC or Editors, they aren't administrators, they are Chat Moderators, there for the sole purpose of moderating the chat and keeping the chaos controlled. Why the moderators have say on Wiki structural matters, OR why they should be forced to meet an edit count to become moderators or keep their positions, I don't understand. 

      For people who have to be on the chat a certain amount of time each day, who are busy out of their f'ing skulls, you are forcing them to edit.


      So either you are overworking them, or telling them to distract themselves from MODERATION and edit. 

      And that's a good point. If the moderators are editing when they're supposed to be moderating, who controls and moderates chat? Because of those policies, it takes an incredible amount of time for any moderator to respond on the chat.


      Thus the duties of the moderator become skewed. And, quite frankly, I HATE having to hear moderators BITCH about being underappreciated and how all the users hate them because they're not doing their jobs when they are CLEARLY overworked.

      I think you missed the point. The edit is a prerequisite. You get it before you are eligible to recieve the right. And on top of that, should you not earn your keep? Take rollback, for example. It's a fucking button. That's it. Effectively useless right. Yet, you have to have 200 article edits to get it. Why should Chat moderators be any different? The right is effectively useless on site. Useful in chat, but not on site.

      If you're going to be here, contribute. Don't just sit by and read - you don't need an account to read. You have that account to do more with your time than that and chat. Especially if you're going to complain about the quality of the site, or how you want to be an admin, or some other thing.

        Loading editor
    • Reminder: the purpose isn't to force people to edit. If you don't want to edit, so be it!

        Loading editor
    • WhyAmIReadingThis wrote:
      Reminder: the purpose isn't to force people to edit. If you don't want to edit, so be it!

      So what is the purpose, Nick? To bitch? To encourage editing? True, you will get a few chat regulars to edit, but Let me ask a question. How many users, of 20,000, regularly visit the chat? No more than a hundred or so. I could be wrong. Estimate off the top of my head. Who are you encouraging to edit by disabling the chat? The couple dozen who don't edit and probably won't during this time- OR, the people who have already volunteered to edit WHO COULD BE EDITING BUT DON'T.


      @Callie: Then get rid of chat. There's no point in having Chat Moderators that don't even do their jobs if they are going to be forced to edit. With Rollback and VCROC, those are for people who have edited and contributed to the site. It's really a title though. A chat moderator serves the purpose of moderating chat a certain number of hours each day. If that duty is skewed by the obligation to edit, They should not be "chat moderators". In fact, there shouldn't be a chat if the focus of a Chat Moderator's job is to edit. Because then he's not a chat moderator. If the right is effectively useless on the site, why do they need to have an edit count if their job is to moderate? YOU SEEM TO BE MISSING THE POINT.

        Loading editor
    • Just making sure you all are aware, this thread has been made to make anyone who opposes this look like a complete moron, and I reckon the creator knows this.

      Therefor, nobody will want to give their actual opinion, because it will be relentlessly slandered, like has happened every time in the past in a thread like this.

      Just saying well done here.

        Loading editor
    • 150 edits with 125 edits on articles

      Terrible idea. I like how you do this for yourself, and even afterwords, maria is working on bots to put you out of the job.

      Oppose Oppose -

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote:
      WhyAmIReadingThis wrote:
      Reminder: the purpose isn't to force people to edit. If you don't want to edit, so be it!
      So what is the purpose, Nick? To bitch? To encourage editing? True, you will get a few chat regulars to edit, but Let me ask a question. How many users, of 20,000, regularly visit the chat? No more than a hundred or so. I could be wrong. Estimate off the top of my head. Who are you encouraging to edit by disabling the chat? The couple dozen who don't edit and probably won't during this time- OR, the people who have already volunteered to edit WHO COULD BE EDITING BUT DON'T.


      @Callie: Then get rid of chat. There's no point in having Chat Moderators that don't even do their jobs if they are going to be forced to edit. With Rollback and VCROC, those are for people who have edited and contributed to the site. It's really a title though. A chat moderator serves the purpose of moderating chat a certain number of hours each day. If that duty is skewed by the obligation to edit, They should not be "chat moderators". In fact, there shouldn't be a chat if the focus of a Chat Moderator's job is to edit. Because then he's not a chat moderator. If the right is effectively useless on the site, why do they need to have an edit count if their job is to moderate? YOU SEEM TO BE MISSING THE POINT.

      Again, you're missing the point. Chat is part of the site. And if chat is so little a distraction as you claim, want-to-be mods should have no problem fufilling the prerequisites.

        Loading editor
    • WiIlow wrote:
      Just making sure you all are aware, this thread has been made to make anyone who opposes this look like a complete moron, and I reckon the creator knows this.

      Therefor, nobody will want to give their actual opinion, because it will be relentlessly slandered, like has happened every time in the past in a thread like this.

      Just saying well done here.

      Yeah, I knew that entering. They'll lock this up once they know who's against and who's for, Then they'll use that against us later, and they'll abuse the shit out of us, and they'll influence policy regardless of vote because that's what they do.

      Unfortunately, I've too much pride. Tis my fatal flaw and drives me to reckless stupidity. You're absolutely right.

        Loading editor
    • WiIlow wrote:
      Just making sure you all are aware, this thread has been made to make anyone who opposes this look like a complete moron, and I reckon the creator knows this.

      Therefor, nobody will want to give their actual opinion, because it will be relentlessly slandered, like has happened every time in the past in a thread like this.

      Just saying well done here.

      Willow, from what I hear, that is the entire personality of the creator. And shutting down to make us edit? How stupid can one person be? People will leave the wiki, not edit.

        Loading editor
    • Callie stop fucking making it out as the people who oppose are morons.

      They oppose because it SHOULD NOT happen

      Forcing us to edit will just piss everyone off.

      Oppose Oppose -

        Loading editor
    • ShawnHowellsCP wrote:
      WiIlow wrote:
      Just making sure you all are aware, this thread has been made to make anyone who opposes this look like a complete moron, and I reckon the creator knows this.

      Therefor, nobody will want to give their actual opinion, because it will be relentlessly slandered, like has happened every time in the past in a thread like this.

      Just saying well done here.

      Willow, from what I hear, that is the entire personality of the creator. And shutting down to make us edit? How stupid can one person be? People will leave the wiki, not edit.


      The thing is, I get aroudnd quite a bit, and the reputation of this wiki, although known to have some good stories, is absolutely atrocious.

      The more people that are forced out of here, the more the reputation of this place is going to degrade, and less and less users are going to want to come, opting for other CP sites instead.

      But no, apparently the community and the reputation of this wiki don't matter to our God-like and glorious admins. Yeah, keep thinking that as activity dwindels and you guys end up with nothing to do here.

      Because that is what will end up happening.


      And with that, I finally say that I fully and whole-heartedly Oppose Oppose - this proposition. Go ahead. Slander me and tear apart my points, you'll only be proving me right.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - the site will become inactive without it. People come to this site to read pastas, and interact with fellow pasta readers, not to edit stuff. Basitsnake (talk) 15:55, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • This is how a death starts. You do this, select users leave, enchourage their friends to leave, and so on. Before you know it, this site is as hollow as you.

        Loading editor
    • Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      WhyAmIReadingThis wrote:
      Reminder: the purpose isn't to force people to edit. If you don't want to edit, so be it!
      So what is the purpose, Nick? To bitch? To encourage editing? True, you will get a few chat regulars to edit, but Let me ask a question. How many users, of 20,000, regularly visit the chat? No more than a hundred or so. I could be wrong. Estimate off the top of my head. Who are you encouraging to edit by disabling the chat? The couple dozen who don't edit and probably won't during this time- OR, the people who have already volunteered to edit WHO COULD BE EDITING BUT DON'T.


      @Callie: Then get rid of chat. There's no point in having Chat Moderators that don't even do their jobs if they are going to be forced to edit. With Rollback and VCROC, those are for people who have edited and contributed to the site. It's really a title though. A chat moderator serves the purpose of moderating chat a certain number of hours each day. If that duty is skewed by the obligation to edit, They should not be "chat moderators". In fact, there shouldn't be a chat if the focus of a Chat Moderator's job is to edit. Because then he's not a chat moderator. If the right is effectively useless on the site, why do they need to have an edit count if their job is to moderate? YOU SEEM TO BE MISSING THE POINT.

      Again, you're missing the point. Chat is part of the site. And if chat is so little a distraction as you claim, want-to-be mods should have no problem fufilling the prerequisites.

      THEY ARE CHAT MODERATORS. MAYBE YOU AREN'T UNDERSTANDING, Dear.

      When a chat moderator has to MODERATE for a certain amount of time, they should be focused on the chat and moderating it, instead of editing where they are paying no attention to the chaos going on in chat. WHEN THEY FINALLY DO INTERVENE, have no idea what's going, take immediate action, and usually ban the wrong user on 'accident'.

      Excuse my caps, but you're really not getting it. Stop treating me like an idiot. The purpose of a chat moderator is to moderate chat, not edit. That is the job of the user.

        Loading editor
    • Neutral Neutral - On second thought.. Why should I support this if people who want to oppose are getting reamed and treated badly? This is a place to put our opinions of what we should do.

        Loading editor
    • ChaoZStrider wrote:
      Support Support - I would like the current moderators, such as myself, to keep our powers though. I may not be an editor but I am active in chat, I would apply for VCROC/Moderator only to do deletion appeal because apparently it still isn't being done as often as people would like, and I figure it would take a load off the admins and it was originally a volunteer thing.

      After seeing what my fellow users say and the point that was made by them. This is a bad idea, so I am switching to Oppose Oppose -

        Loading editor
    • I don't know about you, but this thread is starting to show a lot more red.

        Loading editor
    • You have been admin for, what? A week? 2? I bet if this was about something that affected you, you would instantly throw flames at all supporters, as you are to the opposers. You should really have no say in what CHAT MODERATORS have to do off chat, that is their area. If I said "Admins must put 50+ hours in chat from now on", you would be on fire. What? That's not your area, and it's stupid? Look at what you are saying toward the chat and it's mods. You seriously need to start using a specific organ in your head, and stop slandering the opposers, our word is equal to yours.

        Loading editor
    • ShawnHowellsCP wrote:
      You have been admin for, what? A week? 2? I bet if this was about something that affected you, you would instantly throw flames at all supporters, as you are to the opposers. You should really have no say in what CHAT MODERATORS have to do off chat, that is their area. If I said "Admins must put 50+ hours in chat from now on", you would be on fire. What? That's not your area, and it's stupid? Look at what you are saying toward the chat and it's mods. You seriously need to start using a specific organ in your head, and stop slandering the opposers, our word is equal to yours.

      I love the fact that multiple users agreed with me.

        Loading editor
    • I don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but this has been tried before, TWICE, to no avail.

      It only served to create more drama.

      Also, another question, if you are so concerned about chat drama, then why did you make this thread and increase the drama? Did you not think "Hmm, maybe I shouldn't do this, I'm moaning about drama, and looking like a massive hypocrite because I am creating more..."

      Did that thought not cross your mind at all? Because it REALLY should have.

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      WhyAmIReadingThis wrote:
      Reminder: the purpose isn't to force people to edit. If you don't want to edit, so be it!
      So what is the purpose, Nick? To bitch? To encourage editing? True, you will get a few chat regulars to edit, but Let me ask a question. How many users, of 20,000, regularly visit the chat? No more than a hundred or so. I could be wrong. Estimate off the top of my head. Who are you encouraging to edit by disabling the chat? The couple dozen who don't edit and probably won't during this time- OR, the people who have already volunteered to edit WHO COULD BE EDITING BUT DON'T.


      @Callie: Then get rid of chat. There's no point in having Chat Moderators that don't even do their jobs if they are going to be forced to edit. With Rollback and VCROC, those are for people who have edited and contributed to the site. It's really a title though. A chat moderator serves the purpose of moderating chat a certain number of hours each day. If that duty is skewed by the obligation to edit, They should not be "chat moderators". In fact, there shouldn't be a chat if the focus of a Chat Moderator's job is to edit. Because then he's not a chat moderator. If the right is effectively useless on the site, why do they need to have an edit count if their job is to moderate? YOU SEEM TO BE MISSING THE POINT.

      Again, you're missing the point. Chat is part of the site. And if chat is so little a distraction as you claim, want-to-be mods should have no problem fufilling the prerequisites.
      THEY ARE CHAT MODERATORS. MAYBE YOU AREN'T UNDERSTANDING, Dear.

      When a chat moderator has to MODERATE for a certain amount of time, they should be focused on the chat and moderating it, instead of editing where they are paying no attention to the chaos going on in chat. WHEN THEY FINALLY DO INTERVENE, have no idea what's going, take immediate action, and usually ban the wrong user on 'accident'.

      Excuse my caps, but you're really not getting it. Stop treating me like an idiot. The purpose of a chat moderator is to moderate chat, not edit. That is the job of the user.

      So, are chat mods not users? It's called earning your keep. Saying it's a bad idea just because you don't want chat shut down is a tad bit ridiculous. Saying that because chat mod involves chat, they should do nothing for the site that hosts the chat is a tad bit ridiculous.

      On top of that, chat has become a burden. This will aleviate some of the burden for a temporary time to get the site cleaned up, and we are asking users to help. Instead of opposing basically because you think we trying to be some Neo-Nazi slave site, why not help out? I rarely see your name in the Recent Changes section.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - really some people can't write to save their life's and I'm one so we go to chat or read story but mostly chat

        Loading editor
    • Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      WhyAmIReadingThis wrote:
      Reminder: the purpose isn't to force people to edit. If you don't want to edit, so be it!
      So what is the purpose, Nick? To bitch? To encourage editing? True, you will get a few chat regulars to edit, but Let me ask a question. How many users, of 20,000, regularly visit the chat? No more than a hundred or so. I could be wrong. Estimate off the top of my head. Who are you encouraging to edit by disabling the chat? The couple dozen who don't edit and probably won't during this time- OR, the people who have already volunteered to edit WHO COULD BE EDITING BUT DON'T.


      @Callie: Then get rid of chat. There's no point in having Chat Moderators that don't even do their jobs if they are going to be forced to edit. With Rollback and VCROC, those are for people who have edited and contributed to the site. It's really a title though. A chat moderator serves the purpose of moderating chat a certain number of hours each day. If that duty is skewed by the obligation to edit, They should not be "chat moderators". In fact, there shouldn't be a chat if the focus of a Chat Moderator's job is to edit. Because then he's not a chat moderator. If the right is effectively useless on the site, why do they need to have an edit count if their job is to moderate? YOU SEEM TO BE MISSING THE POINT.

      Again, you're missing the point. Chat is part of the site. And if chat is so little a distraction as you claim, want-to-be mods should have no problem fufilling the prerequisites.
      THEY ARE CHAT MODERATORS. MAYBE YOU AREN'T UNDERSTANDING, Dear.

      When a chat moderator has to MODERATE for a certain amount of time, they should be focused on the chat and moderating it, instead of editing where they are paying no attention to the chaos going on in chat. WHEN THEY FINALLY DO INTERVENE, have no idea what's going, take immediate action, and usually ban the wrong user on 'accident'.

      Excuse my caps, but you're really not getting it. Stop treating me like an idiot. The purpose of a chat moderator is to moderate chat, not edit. That is the job of the user.

      So, are chat mods not users? It's called earning your keep. Saying it's a bad idea just because you don't want chat shut down is a tad bit ridiculous. Saying that because chat mod involves chat, they should do nothing for the site that hosts the chat is a tad bit ridiculous.

      On top of that, chat has become a burden. This will aleviate some of the burden for a temporary time to get the site cleaned up, and we are asking users to help. Instead of opposing basically because you think we trying to be some Neo-Nazi slave site, why not help out? I rarely see your name in the Recent Changes section.

      Cal, that is not your choice. If it was, it would be further watered-down and abused to get your side out their more.

        Loading editor
    • ShawnHowellsCP wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      WhyAmIReadingThis wrote:
      Reminder: the purpose isn't to force people to edit. If you don't want to edit, so be it!
      So what is the purpose, Nick? To bitch? To encourage editing? True, you will get a few chat regulars to edit, but Let me ask a question. How many users, of 20,000, regularly visit the chat? No more than a hundred or so. I could be wrong. Estimate off the top of my head. Who are you encouraging to edit by disabling the chat? The couple dozen who don't edit and probably won't during this time- OR, the people who have already volunteered to edit WHO COULD BE EDITING BUT DON'T.


      @Callie: Then get rid of chat. There's no point in having Chat Moderators that don't even do their jobs if they are going to be forced to edit. With Rollback and VCROC, those are for people who have edited and contributed to the site. It's really a title though. A chat moderator serves the purpose of moderating chat a certain number of hours each day. If that duty is skewed by the obligation to edit, They should not be "chat moderators". In fact, there shouldn't be a chat if the focus of a Chat Moderator's job is to edit. Because then he's not a chat moderator. If the right is effectively useless on the site, why do they need to have an edit count if their job is to moderate? YOU SEEM TO BE MISSING THE POINT.

      Again, you're missing the point. Chat is part of the site. And if chat is so little a distraction as you claim, want-to-be mods should have no problem fufilling the prerequisites.
      THEY ARE CHAT MODERATORS. MAYBE YOU AREN'T UNDERSTANDING, Dear.

      When a chat moderator has to MODERATE for a certain amount of time, they should be focused on the chat and moderating it, instead of editing where they are paying no attention to the chaos going on in chat. WHEN THEY FINALLY DO INTERVENE, have no idea what's going, take immediate action, and usually ban the wrong user on 'accident'.

      Excuse my caps, but you're really not getting it. Stop treating me like an idiot. The purpose of a chat moderator is to moderate chat, not edit. That is the job of the user.

      So, are chat mods not users? It's called earning your keep. Saying it's a bad idea just because you don't want chat shut down is a tad bit ridiculous. Saying that because chat mod involves chat, they should do nothing for the site that hosts the chat is a tad bit ridiculous.

      On top of that, chat has become a burden. This will aleviate some of the burden for a temporary time to get the site cleaned up, and we are asking users to help. Instead of opposing basically because you think we trying to be some Neo-Nazi slave site, why not help out? I rarely see your name in the Recent Changes section.

      Cal, that is not your choice. If it was, it would be further watered-down and abused to get your side out their more.

      Chat is how we get a good percent of our users, it is a large piece of a puzzle. I'm sorry you haven't solved the puzzle yet.

        Loading editor
    • Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      WhyAmIReadingThis wrote:
      Reminder: the purpose isn't to force people to edit. If you don't want to edit, so be it!
      So what is the purpose, Nick? To bitch? To encourage editing? True, you will get a few chat regulars to edit, but Let me ask a question. How many users, of 20,000, regularly visit the chat? No more than a hundred or so. I could be wrong. Estimate off the top of my head. Who are you encouraging to edit by disabling the chat? The couple dozen who don't edit and probably won't during this time- OR, the people who have already volunteered to edit WHO COULD BE EDITING BUT DON'T.


      @Callie: Then get rid of chat. There's no point in having Chat Moderators that don't even do their jobs if they are going to be forced to edit. With Rollback and VCROC, those are for people who have edited and contributed to the site. It's really a title though. A chat moderator serves the purpose of moderating chat a certain number of hours each day. If that duty is skewed by the obligation to edit, They should not be "chat moderators". In fact, there shouldn't be a chat if the focus of a Chat Moderator's job is to edit. Because then he's not a chat moderator. If the right is effectively useless on the site, why do they need to have an edit count if their job is to moderate? YOU SEEM TO BE MISSING THE POINT.

      Again, you're missing the point. Chat is part of the site. And if chat is so little a distraction as you claim, want-to-be mods should have no problem fufilling the prerequisites.
      THEY ARE CHAT MODERATORS. MAYBE YOU AREN'T UNDERSTANDING, Dear.

      When a chat moderator has to MODERATE for a certain amount of time, they should be focused on the chat and moderating it, instead of editing where they are paying no attention to the chaos going on in chat. WHEN THEY FINALLY DO INTERVENE, have no idea what's going, take immediate action, and usually ban the wrong user on 'accident'.

      Excuse my caps, but you're really not getting it. Stop treating me like an idiot. The purpose of a chat moderator is to moderate chat, not edit. That is the job of the user.

      So, are chat mods not users? It's called earning your keep. Saying it's a bad idea just because you don't want chat shut down is a tad bit ridiculous. Saying that because chat mod involves chat, they should do nothing for the site that hosts the chat is a tad bit ridiculous.

      On top of that, chat has become a burden. This will aleviate some of the burden for a temporary time to get the site cleaned up, and we are asking users to help. Instead of opposing basically because you think we trying to be some Neo-Nazi slave site, why not help out? I rarely see your name in the Recent Changes section.


      Excuse me? "Earn our keep"?

      We built up a reputation, and became chat mods, and keep shit out of the chat. That RIGHT THERE, is our god damned keep, Callie!

      You are acting like we just came along and got the damn position! We worked just as hard as anyone else to get it! Don't you even DARE say we have done nothing to earn our place, because we sure as hell have!

        Loading editor
    • I've got a strange, but reliable feeling the next thread will be titled "Proposition to demote Calsan".

        Loading editor
    • Where is all this "slander" coming from? People aren't getting reamed any more or any less.

      I really think editing is only part of this. We shouldn't just be focusing on making users edit and making mods edit, etc. We should be focusing on the whole. Shutting chat down for a trial basis might bolster activity on the main site. Something that you people seem to keep ignoring is that we have forums that we're trying to populate. We have comments and blogs all of which need attention.

      Willow, you're right, we have a shitty reputation. This trial is an attempt to build our community, bolster edits, encourage people to participate in the community outside of chat. Admittedly, shutting down chat will probably result in a negligible amount of edits from the average user base. However, if we increase user presence and encourage people to participate as a group in the forums and on the blogs, we can really improve this place. The chat seems like a clique. And similarly, thinking about it, we sort of have a rudimentary clique going on with the main site, namely users who don't really use chat but are super active. I feel like if we cultivate a more personable atmosphere, with more active users in the community we can get a better reputation.

      I mean, what's our reputation right now? We are too strict, we delete willy-nilly, chat is great, etc. etc. 

      Though, I do think mods have a responsibility to the site. I stand by what I said, they should be required to have a set amount of activity on the main site before they can become a mod of any kind.

        Loading editor
    • Noothgrush wrote:
      Where is all this "slander" coming from? People aren't getting reamed any more or any less.

      I really think editing is only part of this. We shouldn't just be focusing on making users edit and making mods edit, etc. We should be focusing on the whole. Shutting chat down for a trial basis might bolster activity on the main site. Something that you people seem to keep ignoring is that we have forums that we're trying to populate. We have comments and blogs all of which need attention.

      Willow, you're right, we have a shitty reputation. This trial is an attempt to build our community, bolster edits, encourage people to participate in the community outside of chat. Admittedly, shutting down chat will probably result in a negligible amount of edits from the average user base. However, if we increase user presence and encourage people to participate as a group in the forums and on the blogs, we can really improve this place. The chat seems like a clique. And similarly, thinking about it, we sort of have a rudimentary clique going on with the main site, namely users who don't really use chat but are super active. I feel like if we cultivate a more personable atmosphere, with more active users in the community we can get a better reputation.

      I mean, what's our reputation right now? We are too strict, we delete willy-nilly, chat is great, etc. etc. 

      Though, I do think mods have a responsibility to the site. I stand by what I said, they should be required to have a set amount of activity on the main site before they can become a mod of any kind.

      They are chat mods. Chat. They are not admins who watch the site, they watch the damn chat. That is their area. Do admins need 50+ hours in chat to be hired as admin? No. Why? They watch the site, not chat. It is the same thing.

      If people come for the chat, alright. Great.

      Come for the site itself, alright. Great. 

      It does not matter. Almost everyone in chat contributes. They do the admins job better, too. I see more people talking about pastas that should be removed, and making propositions that go farther than admins.

        Loading editor
    • And by the way, the editing thing. We shoudl encourage it: if you have the ability then by all means.

      However, the average user can't edit or write to save their lives. We should encourage editing, but not make it seem like it's a requirement to be here. And I think we should also focus on encouraging some of the people in chat to edit more, I know for fact that some of you are very capable editors and reviewers.

        Loading editor
    • WiIlow wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      WhyAmIReadingThis wrote:
      Reminder: the purpose isn't to force people to edit. If you don't want to edit, so be it!
      So what is the purpose, Nick? To bitch? To encourage editing? True, you will get a few chat regulars to edit, but Let me ask a question. How many users, of 20,000, regularly visit the chat? No more than a hundred or so. I could be wrong. Estimate off the top of my head. Who are you encouraging to edit by disabling the chat? The couple dozen who don't edit and probably won't during this time- OR, the people who have already volunteered to edit WHO COULD BE EDITING BUT DON'T.


      @Callie: Then get rid of chat. There's no point in having Chat Moderators that don't even do their jobs if they are going to be forced to edit. With Rollback and VCROC, those are for people who have edited and contributed to the site. It's really a title though. A chat moderator serves the purpose of moderating chat a certain number of hours each day. If that duty is skewed by the obligation to edit, They should not be "chat moderators". In fact, there shouldn't be a chat if the focus of a Chat Moderator's job is to edit. Because then he's not a chat moderator. If the right is effectively useless on the site, why do they need to have an edit count if their job is to moderate? YOU SEEM TO BE MISSING THE POINT.

      Again, you're missing the point. Chat is part of the site. And if chat is so little a distraction as you claim, want-to-be mods should have no problem fufilling the prerequisites.
      THEY ARE CHAT MODERATORS. MAYBE YOU AREN'T UNDERSTANDING, Dear.

      When a chat moderator has to MODERATE for a certain amount of time, they should be focused on the chat and moderating it, instead of editing where they are paying no attention to the chaos going on in chat. WHEN THEY FINALLY DO INTERVENE, have no idea what's going, take immediate action, and usually ban the wrong user on 'accident'.

      Excuse my caps, but you're really not getting it. Stop treating me like an idiot. The purpose of a chat moderator is to moderate chat, not edit. That is the job of the user.

      So, are chat mods not users? It's called earning your keep. Saying it's a bad idea just because you don't want chat shut down is a tad bit ridiculous. Saying that because chat mod involves chat, they should do nothing for the site that hosts the chat is a tad bit ridiculous.

      On top of that, chat has become a burden. This will aleviate some of the burden for a temporary time to get the site cleaned up, and we are asking users to help. Instead of opposing basically because you think we trying to be some Neo-Nazi slave site, why not help out? I rarely see your name in the Recent Changes section.


      Excuse me? "Earn our keep"?

      We built up a reputation, and became chat mods, and keep shit out of the chat. That RIGHT THERE, is our god damned keep, Callie!

      You are acting like we just came along and got the damn position! We worked just as hard as anyone else to get it! Don't you even DARE say we have done nothing to earn our place, because we sure as hell have!

      Did I say you've done nothing? No. Many of the original mods who applied at least had to do something other than be active in chat to get it.

      But yeah, there are users who one day I'll walk in and they're mod. They've been there less than a month and have 10-50 edits. Yet that's cool? I apologize if some reason I'm asking too much for users who want to be chat mods to actually have a reputation on site too. In particular when they start expressing the want to become admins.

      How hard is 150 edits? How hard is it to edit 125 articles? If you are sitting there saying every user who has been here a month and has just suddenly gained a star in the past week is earning it, I have to disagree.

        Loading editor
    • Princess Callie wrote:
      WiIlow wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      WhyAmIReadingThis wrote:
      Reminder: the purpose isn't to force people to edit. If you don't want to edit, so be it!
      So what is the purpose, Nick? To bitch? To encourage editing? True, you will get a few chat regulars to edit, but Let me ask a question. How many users, of 20,000, regularly visit the chat? No more than a hundred or so. I could be wrong. Estimate off the top of my head. Who are you encouraging to edit by disabling the chat? The couple dozen who don't edit and probably won't during this time- OR, the people who have already volunteered to edit WHO COULD BE EDITING BUT DON'T.


      @Callie: Then get rid of chat. There's no point in having Chat Moderators that don't even do their jobs if they are going to be forced to edit. With Rollback and VCROC, those are for people who have edited and contributed to the site. It's really a title though. A chat moderator serves the purpose of moderating chat a certain number of hours each day. If that duty is skewed by the obligation to edit, They should not be "chat moderators". In fact, there shouldn't be a chat if the focus of a Chat Moderator's job is to edit. Because then he's not a chat moderator. If the right is effectively useless on the site, why do they need to have an edit count if their job is to moderate? YOU SEEM TO BE MISSING THE POINT.

      Again, you're missing the point. Chat is part of the site. And if chat is so little a distraction as you claim, want-to-be mods should have no problem fufilling the prerequisites.
      THEY ARE CHAT MODERATORS. MAYBE YOU AREN'T UNDERSTANDING, Dear.

      When a chat moderator has to MODERATE for a certain amount of time, they should be focused on the chat and moderating it, instead of editing where they are paying no attention to the chaos going on in chat. WHEN THEY FINALLY DO INTERVENE, have no idea what's going, take immediate action, and usually ban the wrong user on 'accident'.

      Excuse my caps, but you're really not getting it. Stop treating me like an idiot. The purpose of a chat moderator is to moderate chat, not edit. That is the job of the user.

      So, are chat mods not users? It's called earning your keep. Saying it's a bad idea just because you don't want chat shut down is a tad bit ridiculous. Saying that because chat mod involves chat, they should do nothing for the site that hosts the chat is a tad bit ridiculous.

      On top of that, chat has become a burden. This will aleviate some of the burden for a temporary time to get the site cleaned up, and we are asking users to help. Instead of opposing basically because you think we trying to be some Neo-Nazi slave site, why not help out? I rarely see your name in the Recent Changes section.


      Excuse me? "Earn our keep"?

      We built up a reputation, and became chat mods, and keep shit out of the chat. That RIGHT THERE, is our god damned keep, Callie!

      You are acting like we just came along and got the damn position! We worked just as hard as anyone else to get it! Don't you even DARE say we have done nothing to earn our place, because we sure as hell have!

      Did I say you've done nothing? No. Many of the original mods who applied at least had to do something other than be active in chat to get it.

      But yeah, there are users who one day I'll walk in and they're mod. They've been there less than a month and have 10-50 edits. Yet that's cool? I apologize if some reason I'm asking too much for users who want to be chat mods to actually have a reputation on site too. In particular when they start expressing the want to become admins.

      How hard is 150 edits? How hard is it to edit 125 articles? If you are sitting there saying every user who has been here a month and has just suddenly gained a star in the past week is earning it, I have to disagree.

      Name one user who is like that. One.

        Loading editor
    • Noothgrush wrote:
      And by the way, the editing thing. We shoudl encourage it: if you have the ability then by all means.

      However, the average user can't edit or write to save their lives. We should encourage editing, but not make it seem like it's a requirement to be here. And I think we should also focus on encouraging some of the people in chat to edit more, I know for fact that some of you are very capable editors and reviewers.

      The ones who like to review (as I do paragraph by paragraph discections) will do it on there own time, but at least you are being resonable.

        Loading editor
    • ShawnHowellsCP wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      WiIlow wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      WhyAmIReadingThis wrote:
      Reminder: the purpose isn't to force people to edit. If you don't want to edit, so be it!
      So what is the purpose, Nick? To bitch? To encourage editing? True, you will get a few chat regulars to edit, but Let me ask a question. How many users, of 20,000, regularly visit the chat? No more than a hundred or so. I could be wrong. Estimate off the top of my head. Who are you encouraging to edit by disabling the chat? The couple dozen who don't edit and probably won't during this time- OR, the people who have already volunteered to edit WHO COULD BE EDITING BUT DON'T.


      @Callie: Then get rid of chat. There's no point in having Chat Moderators that don't even do their jobs if they are going to be forced to edit. With Rollback and VCROC, those are for people who have edited and contributed to the site. It's really a title though. A chat moderator serves the purpose of moderating chat a certain number of hours each day. If that duty is skewed by the obligation to edit, They should not be "chat moderators". In fact, there shouldn't be a chat if the focus of a Chat Moderator's job is to edit. Because then he's not a chat moderator. If the right is effectively useless on the site, why do they need to have an edit count if their job is to moderate? YOU SEEM TO BE MISSING THE POINT.

      Again, you're missing the point. Chat is part of the site. And if chat is so little a distraction as you claim, want-to-be mods should have no problem fufilling the prerequisites.
      THEY ARE CHAT MODERATORS. MAYBE YOU AREN'T UNDERSTANDING, Dear.

      When a chat moderator has to MODERATE for a certain amount of time, they should be focused on the chat and moderating it, instead of editing where they are paying no attention to the chaos going on in chat. WHEN THEY FINALLY DO INTERVENE, have no idea what's going, take immediate action, and usually ban the wrong user on 'accident'.

      Excuse my caps, but you're really not getting it. Stop treating me like an idiot. The purpose of a chat moderator is to moderate chat, not edit. That is the job of the user.

      So, are chat mods not users? It's called earning your keep. Saying it's a bad idea just because you don't want chat shut down is a tad bit ridiculous. Saying that because chat mod involves chat, they should do nothing for the site that hosts the chat is a tad bit ridiculous.

      On top of that, chat has become a burden. This will aleviate some of the burden for a temporary time to get the site cleaned up, and we are asking users to help. Instead of opposing basically because you think we trying to be some Neo-Nazi slave site, why not help out? I rarely see your name in the Recent Changes section.


      Excuse me? "Earn our keep"?

      We built up a reputation, and became chat mods, and keep shit out of the chat. That RIGHT THERE, is our god damned keep, Callie!

      You are acting like we just came along and got the damn position! We worked just as hard as anyone else to get it! Don't you even DARE say we have done nothing to earn our place, because we sure as hell have!

      Did I say you've done nothing? No. Many of the original mods who applied at least had to do something other than be active in chat to get it.

      But yeah, there are users who one day I'll walk in and they're mod. They've been there less than a month and have 10-50 edits. Yet that's cool? I apologize if some reason I'm asking too much for users who want to be chat mods to actually have a reputation on site too. In particular when they start expressing the want to become admins.

      How hard is 150 edits? How hard is it to edit 125 articles? If you are sitting there saying every user who has been here a month and has just suddenly gained a star in the past week is earning it, I have to disagree.

      Name one user who is like that. One.

      L was. Despite being here for a month he was given a temp run. While he may have been demoted, he was a mod while other mods were in chat. With that being said, temporary mods, according to many, have to meet set prerequisites. He didn't.

      While I won't judge his modship, I don't think that it was well earned.

        Loading editor
    • Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      WhyAmIReadingThis wrote:
      Reminder: the purpose isn't to force people to edit. If you don't want to edit, so be it!
      So what is the purpose, Nick? To bitch? To encourage editing? True, you will get a few chat regulars to edit, but Let me ask a question. How many users, of 20,000, regularly visit the chat? No more than a hundred or so. I could be wrong. Estimate off the top of my head. Who are you encouraging to edit by disabling the chat? The couple dozen who don't edit and probably won't during this time- OR, the people who have already volunteered to edit WHO COULD BE EDITING BUT DON'T.


      @Callie: Then get rid of chat. There's no point in having Chat Moderators that don't even do their jobs if they are going to be forced to edit. With Rollback and VCROC, those are for people who have edited and contributed to the site. It's really a title though. A chat moderator serves the purpose of moderating chat a certain number of hours each day. If that duty is skewed by the obligation to edit, They should not be "chat moderators". In fact, there shouldn't be a chat if the focus of a Chat Moderator's job is to edit. Because then he's not a chat moderator. If the right is effectively useless on the site, why do they need to have an edit count if their job is to moderate? YOU SEEM TO BE MISSING THE POINT.

      Again, you're missing the point. Chat is part of the site. And if chat is so little a distraction as you claim, want-to-be mods should have no problem fufilling the prerequisites.
      THEY ARE CHAT MODERATORS. MAYBE YOU AREN'T UNDERSTANDING, Dear.

      When a chat moderator has to MODERATE for a certain amount of time, they should be focused on the chat and moderating it, instead of editing where they are paying no attention to the chaos going on in chat. WHEN THEY FINALLY DO INTERVENE, have no idea what's going, take immediate action, and usually ban the wrong user on 'accident'.

      Excuse my caps, but you're really not getting it. Stop treating me like an idiot. The purpose of a chat moderator is to moderate chat, not edit. That is the job of the user.

      So, are chat mods not users? It's called earning your keep. Saying it's a bad idea just because you don't want chat shut down is a tad bit ridiculous. Saying that because chat mod involves chat, they should do nothing for the site that hosts the chat is a tad bit ridiculous.

      On top of that, chat has become a burden. This will aleviate some of the burden for a temporary time to get the site cleaned up, and we are asking users to help. Instead of opposing basically because you think we trying to be some Neo-Nazi slave site, why not help out? I rarely see your name in the Recent Changes section.

      Callie, I just said to you, I don't care if chat gets DELETED. I'm saying PICK ONE, and stop constantly complaining. These threads are pointless and they are your way of spreading drama. It doesn't matter who votes for what, EVEN in threads where Opposition was in favor, you still initiated the policy and closed the thread.

      PICK ONE, Legislate, and stop pretending like we even have a say.

      I don't edit. I write. If I see a recently posted pasta that needs repaired, I'll edit it. I WRITE primarily.

      Chat mods are users, they just have responsibilities to the chat. If the chat is a burden, Do what you will. Don't create threads to root out your enemies and cause drama. Because that's what this is about really, you stirring up drama.


      BUT NO, thank you for being direct on me and bringing me into this on a personal level to the fact of connoisseurmanship in criticizing my contributions to the wiki. I've written 25 plus pastas. Sure, I've been here for almost a year, but four months of it was deprived by Threads like this and user-stirred up drama.

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      WhyAmIReadingThis wrote:
      Reminder: the purpose isn't to force people to edit. If you don't want to edit, so be it!
      So what is the purpose, Nick? To bitch? To encourage editing? True, you will get a few chat regulars to edit, but Let me ask a question. How many users, of 20,000, regularly visit the chat? No more than a hundred or so. I could be wrong. Estimate off the top of my head. Who are you encouraging to edit by disabling the chat? The couple dozen who don't edit and probably won't during this time- OR, the people who have already volunteered to edit WHO COULD BE EDITING BUT DON'T.


      @Callie: Then get rid of chat. There's no point in having Chat Moderators that don't even do their jobs if they are going to be forced to edit. With Rollback and VCROC, those are for people who have edited and contributed to the site. It's really a title though. A chat moderator serves the purpose of moderating chat a certain number of hours each day. If that duty is skewed by the obligation to edit, They should not be "chat moderators". In fact, there shouldn't be a chat if the focus of a Chat Moderator's job is to edit. Because then he's not a chat moderator. If the right is effectively useless on the site, why do they need to have an edit count if their job is to moderate? YOU SEEM TO BE MISSING THE POINT.

      Again, you're missing the point. Chat is part of the site. And if chat is so little a distraction as you claim, want-to-be mods should have no problem fufilling the prerequisites.
      THEY ARE CHAT MODERATORS. MAYBE YOU AREN'T UNDERSTANDING, Dear.

      When a chat moderator has to MODERATE for a certain amount of time, they should be focused on the chat and moderating it, instead of editing where they are paying no attention to the chaos going on in chat. WHEN THEY FINALLY DO INTERVENE, have no idea what's going, take immediate action, and usually ban the wrong user on 'accident'.

      Excuse my caps, but you're really not getting it. Stop treating me like an idiot. The purpose of a chat moderator is to moderate chat, not edit. That is the job of the user.

      So, are chat mods not users? It's called earning your keep. Saying it's a bad idea just because you don't want chat shut down is a tad bit ridiculous. Saying that because chat mod involves chat, they should do nothing for the site that hosts the chat is a tad bit ridiculous.

      On top of that, chat has become a burden. This will aleviate some of the burden for a temporary time to get the site cleaned up, and we are asking users to help. Instead of opposing basically because you think we trying to be some Neo-Nazi slave site, why not help out? I rarely see your name in the Recent Changes section.

      Callie, I just said to you, I don't care if chat gets DELETED. I'm saying PICK ONE, and stop constantly complaining. These threads are pointless and they are your way of spreading drama. It doesn't matter who votes for what, EVEN in threads where Opposition was in favor, you still initiated the policy and closed the thread.

      PICK ONE, Legislate, and stop pretending like we even have a say.

      I don't edit. I write. If I see a recently posted pasta that needs repaired, I'll edit it. I WRITE primarily.

      Chat mods are users, they just have responsibilities to the chat. If the chat is a burden, Do what you will. Don't create threads to root out your enemies and cause drama. Because that's what this is about really, you stirring up drama.

      You're so negative.

      Why not look at this thread as a brainstorm? By participating and arguing all you serve to do is spread the bullshit further. Be constructive, regardless of any percieved motives of OP.

        Loading editor
    • Noothgrush wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      WhyAmIReadingThis wrote:
      Reminder: the purpose isn't to force people to edit. If you don't want to edit, so be it!
      So what is the purpose, Nick? To bitch? To encourage editing? True, you will get a few chat regulars to edit, but Let me ask a question. How many users, of 20,000, regularly visit the chat? No more than a hundred or so. I could be wrong. Estimate off the top of my head. Who are you encouraging to edit by disabling the chat? The couple dozen who don't edit and probably won't during this time- OR, the people who have already volunteered to edit WHO COULD BE EDITING BUT DON'T.


      @Callie: Then get rid of chat. There's no point in having Chat Moderators that don't even do their jobs if they are going to be forced to edit. With Rollback and VCROC, those are for people who have edited and contributed to the site. It's really a title though. A chat moderator serves the purpose of moderating chat a certain number of hours each day. If that duty is skewed by the obligation to edit, They should not be "chat moderators". In fact, there shouldn't be a chat if the focus of a Chat Moderator's job is to edit. Because then he's not a chat moderator. If the right is effectively useless on the site, why do they need to have an edit count if their job is to moderate? YOU SEEM TO BE MISSING THE POINT.

      Again, you're missing the point. Chat is part of the site. And if chat is so little a distraction as you claim, want-to-be mods should have no problem fufilling the prerequisites.
      THEY ARE CHAT MODERATORS. MAYBE YOU AREN'T UNDERSTANDING, Dear.

      When a chat moderator has to MODERATE for a certain amount of time, they should be focused on the chat and moderating it, instead of editing where they are paying no attention to the chaos going on in chat. WHEN THEY FINALLY DO INTERVENE, have no idea what's going, take immediate action, and usually ban the wrong user on 'accident'.

      Excuse my caps, but you're really not getting it. Stop treating me like an idiot. The purpose of a chat moderator is to moderate chat, not edit. That is the job of the user.

      So, are chat mods not users? It's called earning your keep. Saying it's a bad idea just because you don't want chat shut down is a tad bit ridiculous. Saying that because chat mod involves chat, they should do nothing for the site that hosts the chat is a tad bit ridiculous.

      On top of that, chat has become a burden. This will aleviate some of the burden for a temporary time to get the site cleaned up, and we are asking users to help. Instead of opposing basically because you think we trying to be some Neo-Nazi slave site, why not help out? I rarely see your name in the Recent Changes section.

      Callie, I just said to you, I don't care if chat gets DELETED. I'm saying PICK ONE, and stop constantly complaining. These threads are pointless and they are your way of spreading drama. It doesn't matter who votes for what, EVEN in threads where Opposition was in favor, you still initiated the policy and closed the thread.

      PICK ONE, Legislate, and stop pretending like we even have a say.

      I don't edit. I write. If I see a recently posted pasta that needs repaired, I'll edit it. I WRITE primarily.

      Chat mods are users, they just have responsibilities to the chat. If the chat is a burden, Do what you will. Don't create threads to root out your enemies and cause drama. Because that's what this is about really, you stirring up drama.

      You're so negative.

      Why not look at this thread as a brainstorm? By participating and arguing all you serve to do is spread the bullshit further. Be constructive, regardless of any percieved motives of OP.

      Are you for real?


      Considering the point of this thread was to debate further action, you should expect opposing views, that are no more foolish than yours. I am very constructive. Getting rid of chat won't really solve anything. I don't care if that gets removed either.

      But you're saying that I shouldn't Participate in these PUBLIC THREADS FOR DISCUSSION UNLESS I AGREE.

      niiice.

        Loading editor
    • Perhaps, if bullshit was not meant in the first place, the admin responsible for the thread wouldn't have made it. 


      So either she knew that there would be bullshit and drama ahead, and chose to cause it, or she is rooting out who agrees and who doesn't for further action later.


      The thread will be locked, and they will influence the policy regardless of votes. Because they don't care if anyone thinks against them, they just want to know who to treat kindly like friends and who to treat terribly. They have done this with every thread, and all it does is stir drama and let users like us get fucked.

        Loading editor
    • I originally was going to say "Fuck it," and let the thread die. But I've decided to bring it back.

      I want you to understand this, and understand it well. Not every person with a star is a power-abusing asshole, nor are they slanderous when they argue back.

      I think that if we're going to have it open, we're not having dramatic shit, accusations, or arguments. You wanna debate? It better be civil. None of this shit going on above, or it will be removed, and if extremely severe, no matter who it goes after, you will be blocked.

        Loading editor
    • I wonder if this is the userbase downfall some of us predicted way back in 2012/13. I don't think anything will come of this that's absolute. But whatevs.

      I wonder why mods are so hesitant to edit. It's like they simply don't want to contribute anyplace but chat. I'd understand personal circumstances, but seriously? Have a fucking heart for the main site. You'd do well to lighten everybody's load in the editing experience.

      But I guess some people really are as ornery and stubborn as a donkey.

      ... That said, I wonder if this is hypocritical of me. c:

        Loading editor
    • You realize that not every proposal made by someone is aimed to create drama right? More times than not the creator has good intentions and makes the thread so that you can express your points of view so that they can gain perspective on the issue.

      Sadly many of you seem to perceive the forums as a virtual battleground where you must constantly "defend" your "rights" using nasty and vicious attacks against the creator. It's sad to see how this thread went from a discussion about something a user thought would be helpful into personal attacks and malicious name calling. It's absolutely atrocious.

      I know I wasn't the best at asking for community input before doing something and it was mainly in part to the actions shown in this thread. It goes from an honest proposal to something ugly and horrendous. To think that this is what you call the "right thing to do" or "standing up for what you want" is appalling yet you blame the administrators for the negative attention this site receives.

      Good job on being complete ass holes in a civilized thread. Way to show us huh?

        Loading editor
    • Scorch, way to totally miscontrue what I was saying.

      It's not surprising that the most aggressive person in this thread is one that's not only currently banned from chat but has had several offenses all related to one form of abuse or another.

      But if we can get back to the topic here:

      In the Off Topic forum I created an intro thread to help facilitate the good feels between our community. As you can see when I first commented, I'm apparently unknown to regular chat users, meanwhile almost every regular of the main site knows me in one form or another. 

      The Chat is an extension of the website. It shouldn't be treated as a separate entity. We've established that good has come out of it, but the overall good it's done is negligible when you take into account the current state of the website. The chat is the absolute least of our worries on the list of things that need attention. Even if chat users aren't coming out in droves to edit, they can do a whole hell of a lot of good by just being here and participating. 

        Loading editor
    • Princess Callie wrote:
      I originally was going to say "Fuck it," and let the thread die. But I've decided to bring it back.

      I want you to understand this, and understand it well. Not every person with a star is a power-abusing asshole, nor are they slanderous when they argue back.

      I think that if we're going to have it open, we're not having dramatic shit, accusations, or arguments. You wanna debate? It better be civil. None of this shit going on above, or it will be removed, and if extremely severe, no matter who it goes after, you will be blocked.

      Yes, of course. It would help though, if in your so-called "professionalism" you weren't so direct with me.


      Let's be professional, though. What will disabling chat for two weeks to one month accomplish? 

      As far as I know, It will give

      1. "Give time for things to be fixed" -Which I don't understand

      2. "Will allow users to be less distracted from editing and writing" - Which only tells me that they are lazy and choose to chat it up instead, or just enjoy conversation rather than editing,

      3. "Will allow the implementation of new policy" - Which, the policies, from what I've heard, are pretty...uhm...Well let's just say that:

      I could totally see users needing to reach a certain edit count before becoming a chat moderator. Obviously, they do need to be active with the wiki. But once becoming a chat moderator, they should not be forced to edit regularly because it distracts them from their duty as a chat moderator. 

      I will not indulge on the countless poor personal experiences I have had with "distracted Chat Moderators".

      4. "will allow us to see who edits and who doesn't." - For what purpose?

        Loading editor
    • Noothgrush wrote:
      Scorch, way to totally miscontrue what I was saying.

      It's not surprising that the most aggressive person in this thread is one that's not only currently banned from chat but has had several offenses all related to one form of abuse or another.

      But if we can get back to the topic here:

      In the Off Topic forum I created an intro thread to help facilitate the good feels between our community. As you can see when I first commented, I'm apparently unknown to regular chat users, meanwhile almost every regular of the main site knows me in one form or another. 

      The Chat is an extension of the website. It shouldn't be treated as a separate entity. We've established that good has come out of it, but the overall good it's done is negligible when you take into account the current state of the website. The chat is the absolute least of our worries on the list of things that need attention. Even if chat users aren't coming out in droves to edit, they can do a whole hell of a lot of good by just being here and participating. 

      1. I got banned for one day because I used a slur that was, previously that day, not a bannable offense. I was unaware. TWO: THANK YOU FOR USING MY BAN RECORD AGAINST ME and my logic. I appreciate that, because it shows just how professional you are.


      2: You are absolutely right, ON-TOPIC. It's not a seperate entity, user should be participating in the wiki. The chat really doesn't do any good for the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Note: After getting the powers, it isn't mandatory for Moderators to edit.

      It'd be only mandatory for them to edit to get the powers in the first place.

      That is, if I'm understanding it all right and the policy does pass

        Loading editor
    • Princess Callie wrote:
      Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:
      I have no problem with the shutdown or that higher standards be placed on mod-ship, but I really don't think there's any obligation for a chat mod to be actively editing articles and be a prominent contributor on the wiki. That's not really related to the job, and is there really any risk of this site just disappearing due to lack of people editing articles? I certainly don't foresee one.

      We need the people reading the articles on this site just as much as the ones editing them, and the most important things for a chat mod are that they are, one, responsible and generally able to handle disruptive behavior (and certainly not cause it), and two, active on the chat so that they actually accomplish this. Nothing to do with being a site editor. If that were their passion, they would apply for a main site staff position.

      I do recall mentioning said argument in the OP. Why should that mean they shouldn't contribute to the site? Just because they don't have a job related to the main site doesn't mean they shouldn't be told they have to earn their keep to get it.

      (A full day of drama later)

      I didn't say they shouldn't contribute. But they certainly shouldn't be required to, because it's completely unrelated to the job. If anything, it would be a distraction from it... and there's really absolutely no reason someone who frequents the site as a reader rather than a contributor can't make a perfectly good chat moderator. It's a matter of maturity, not edit count. Explain to me how the two are related and how being a frequent editor assists one in being a mature and responsible chat moderator, if you will.

      To me it just sounds like the use of an ulterior motive in getting people to edit more. Like passing a law that those training to be firefighters must also know how to work a cash register because the economy is short on grocery clerks.

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote:
      Noothgrush wrote:
      Scorch, way to totally miscontrue what I was saying.

      It's not surprising that the most aggressive person in this thread is one that's not only currently banned from chat but has had several offenses all related to one form of abuse or another.

      But if we can get back to the topic here:

      In the Off Topic forum I created an intro thread to help facilitate the good feels between our community. As you can see when I first commented, I'm apparently unknown to regular chat users, meanwhile almost every regular of the main site knows me in one form or another. 

      The Chat is an extension of the website. It shouldn't be treated as a separate entity. We've established that good has come out of it, but the overall good it's done is negligible when you take into account the current state of the website. The chat is the absolute least of our worries on the list of things that need attention. Even if chat users aren't coming out in droves to edit, they can do a whole hell of a lot of good by just being here and participating. 

      1. I got banned for one day because I used a slur that was, previously that day, not a bannable offense. I was unaware. TWO: THANK YOU FOR USING MY BAN RECORD AGAINST ME and my logic. I appreciate that, because it shows just how professional you are.


      2: You are absolutely right, ON-TOPIC. It's not a seperate entity, user should be participating in the wiki. The chat really doesn't do any good for the wiki.

      You're right, that was a low blow, I apologize. I'm washing my hands of the petty bullshit from here on out. 

      Well, we've established that the chat can and does do good things for the wiki, occasionally. What my whole thing was this entire time is shut down chat for a while and get people back an involved in the whole. Make this place a pleasant and pleasurable place to be for everyone. So that includes A) dissolution of the clique mentality and B) ending this hostile and counterproductive idea of the main site. We're not a bunch of gremlins, we should attempt to fix this apparently negative image that so many have of us. 

      And this has been brought up before. Continue reviewing and editing as normal, but remove the perception of hostility a lot of new users get from early experiences. I think one pretty clear way to judge this would be with blogs. I want to see less blogs involving any of the following:

      "Yup I'm leaving, you guys are dicks"

      "OMG DELETED MY STORY OMGOGJGGHGJ"

      "This place isn't fun"

      Lets make this an enjoyable place to spend time. Shutting down the chat for a short, very temporary span of time, might just help to spur on this community and get things kickstarted in the right direction. And one major amendment that I think needs to be observed: make EVERYONE aware. Make it a point that for a period no shorter than that which the shut down will be we have a bot announce in chat every hour an announcement "chat will be shut down on X day until X day" and have it on the homepage in pretty red letters so that there is no excuse for anybody to not know about it.

      And as for moderators. It makes sense that moderators are required to help out to a set amount on the main site to get the position. Once they're moderators, they're free to do their duties, but once again the site and chat are not separate entities, it doesn't make sense to have a mod that was literally only here for chat. They should be here for the site, chat should be a secondary perk.

        Loading editor
    • Noothgrush wrote: And as for moderators. It makes sense that moderators are required to help out to a set amount on the main site to get the position. Once they're moderators, they're free to do their duties, but once again the site and chat are not separate entities, it doesn't make sense to have a mod that was literally only here for chat. They should be here for the site, chat should be a secondary perk.

      Why? What do we care if they're only here for the chat? What we need is moderators who are responsible and capable of dealing with situations that come up. That's all the job requires and it doesn't really make sense to limit our pool even further than that for no reason.

        Loading editor
    • WhyAmIReadingThis wrote:
      Note: After getting the powers, it isn't mandatory for Moderators to edit.

      It'd be only mandatory for them to edit to get the powers in the first place.

      That is, if I'm understanding it all right and the policy does pass

      That is what I was told and the impression I was under, if so & so is not the case, then that settles *that* issue.

        Loading editor
    • Lil' Miss Rarity wrote:
      You realize that not every proposal made by someone is aimed to create drama right? More times than not the creator has good intentions and makes the thread so that you can express your points of view so that they can gain perspective on the issue.

      Sadly many of you seem to perceive the forums as a virtual battleground where you must constantly "defend" your "rights" using nasty and vicious attacks against the creator. It's sad to see how this thread went from a discussion about something a user thought would be helpful into personal attacks and malicious name calling. It's absolutely atrocious.

      I know I wasn't the best at asking for community input before doing something and it was mainly in part to the actions shown in this thread. It goes from an honest proposal to something ugly and horrendous. To think that this is what you call the "right thing to do" or "standing up for what you want" is appalling yet you blame the administrators for the negative attention this site receives.

      Good job on being complete ass holes in a civilized thread. Way to show us huh?

      It's simple. No one sees this as a new thread, but an extention of yours. All the anger that we had from your thread simply was carried over to this one, as it is the same topic. And just on an added not, we don't blame the administrators for drama, other websites and You do. Yes, you do it all the time. Saying the Admins/mods are shit, so why not start making a productive Demotion thread for some people instead of this, witch only counter-acts your original cause?

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - Some people really do not like to write, some people can't edit, some people like to socialize with people who have common interests. I do write and edit yet I still support chat. If you think removing chat will "help" this website just think. There will always be more people in this world that read then people who write. So if chat does shut down we remember how well it went last time. What makes you think it will change? This wiki has one of the most active chats of any. Why remove something that in the bigger picture probably will cause more trouble then good. And if you mention IRC why would removing chat matter if thats there anyway? Why not leave a more convenient option that more people want?

        Loading editor
    • ShawnHowellsCP wrote:

      Lil' Miss Rarity wrote:
      You realize that not every proposal made by someone is aimed to create drama right? More times than not the creator has good intentions and makes the thread so that you can express your points of view so that they can gain perspective on the issue.

      Sadly many of you seem to perceive the forums as a virtual battleground where you must constantly "defend" your "rights" using nasty and vicious attacks against the creator. It's sad to see how this thread went from a discussion about something a user thought would be helpful into personal attacks and malicious name calling. It's absolutely atrocious.

      I know I wasn't the best at asking for community input before doing something and it was mainly in part to the actions shown in this thread. It goes from an honest proposal to something ugly and horrendous. To think that this is what you call the "right thing to do" or "standing up for what you want" is appalling yet you blame the administrators for the negative attention this site receives.

      Good job on being complete ass holes in a civilized thread. Way to show us huh?

      It's simple. No one sees this as a new thread, but an extention of yours. All the anger that we had from your thread simply was carried over to this one, as it is the same topic. And just on an added not, we don't blame the administrators for drama, other websites and You do. Yes, you do it all the time. Saying the Admins/mods are shit, so why not start making a productive Demotion thread for some people instead of this, witch only counter-acts your original cause?

      See, I would do just that if we were allowed to. Apparently some obscure and unannounced rule prevents us from asking the community. Once my proposal passes I will.

        Loading editor
    • She really got you there. I can confirm that we are not allowed to voice extreme distaste or disgust freely. 


      I can confirm that you can't even express said distaste off-site.


      Let alone ask the users what they think. The admins aren't going to demote themselves based on what the people think, and these threads mean NOTHING, Shawn. 


      I can guarantee regardless of what the vote is, the policy will be implemented and we will miss chat for a month. Not that I even care about the chat, really.

        Loading editor
    • Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:
      Noothgrush wrote: And as for moderators. It makes sense that moderators are required to help out to a set amount on the main site to get the position. Once they're moderators, they're free to do their duties, but once again the site and chat are not separate entities, it doesn't make sense to have a mod that was literally only here for chat. They should be here for the site, chat should be a secondary perk.
      Why? What do we care if they're only here for the chat? What we need is moderators who are responsible and capable of dealing with situations that come up. That's all the job requires and it doesn't really make sense to limit our pool even further than that for no reason.

      Because, once again, chat is an extension of CP Wiki. People should be required to contribute to the site, the system now is that nobody has to contribute. All you have to do is be active in chat, you can contribute absolutely dick to the community and still be made a mod, theoretically. Plus, I think we could look at their activity prior as a sort of test run for responsibility and capability. Just like we have to test rollbackers, etc. We carefully look at their history, their responsibility and, honestly, how smart and capable they really are. Like "Hey, this guy's editing is good, his reviewing is good, he's responsible and look he's not a fucking dickhead. Plus he's active on chat."

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote:
      I can guarantee regardless of what the vote is, the policy will be implemented and we will miss chat for a month. Not that I even care about the chat, really.

      I have a bit more faith than that.

      Also, has anybody tallied up the vote?

        Loading editor
    • 23 Support
      12 Oppose

      Some Neutrals

      That's the actual vote tally, error margin on 1 to three votes on Support or Oppose

        Loading editor
    • OH MAN HOW UNFAIR THAT THIS IS PASSING CLEARLY ITS THE ADMIN JUST DOING THEIR DO CUZ ABUSE OF POWER OR SOMESUCH.

      Stop trying to make this place out as some totalitarian system. I'd love to hear about why you can't express disgust or distate on or off site, though.

        Loading editor
    • Noothgrush wrote:
      OH MAN HOW UNFAIR THAT THIS IS PASSING CLEARLY ITS THE ADMIN JUST DOING THEIR DO CUZ ABUSE OF POWER OR SOMESUCH.

      Stop trying to make this place out as some totalitarian system. I'd love to hear about why you can't express disgust or distate on or off site, though.

      You can talk shit all you want off-site, provided it stays off-site.

      As far as disgust or distaste, if it's for the proposal, fine. If it's against someone else, not so much.

        Loading editor
    • Noothgrush wrote:
      OH MAN HOW UNFAIR THAT THIS IS PASSING CLEARLY ITS THE ADMIN JUST DOING THEIR DO CUZ ABUSE OF POWER OR SOMESUCH.

      Stop trying to make this place out as some totalitarian system. I'd love to hear about why you can't express disgust or distate on or off site, though.

      Again, you're professional. I didn't say a word. Nor do those views that you just expressed anyone's but yours.


      Two: because the admins can't deal with opposition. It didn't matter if it was a public or private chat on a website. They also, if let's say a user who is on this site is harassing or arguing with another user of this site, but they are arguing on a different site, say Facebook, the administrators will take action on this site.

        Loading editor
    • Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:
      Noothgrush wrote: And as for moderators. It makes sense that moderators are required to help out to a set amount on the main site to get the position. Once they're moderators, they're free to do their duties, but once again the site and chat are not separate entities, it doesn't make sense to have a mod that was literally only here for chat. They should be here for the site, chat should be a secondary perk.
      Why? What do we care if they're only here for the chat? What we need is moderators who are responsible and capable of dealing with situations that come up. That's all the job requires and it doesn't really make sense to limit our pool even further than that for no reason.

      If I could, I'd make it so you'd have to help something with the site to enter chat, but it does have productive times with new users who are just trying to get the hang of things. It's rare, but it happens.

      But yes, a mod should be required to have something done on the site. But I'll put it a different way: We're training a firefighter with cash registers because of a grocery-clerk shortage. We're telling the firefighter "If you want to be a firefighter, you have to make a contribution to the community."

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote:
      Noothgrush wrote:
      OH MAN HOW UNFAIR THAT THIS IS PASSING CLEARLY ITS THE ADMIN JUST DOING THEIR DO CUZ ABUSE OF POWER OR SOMESUCH.

      Stop trying to make this place out as some totalitarian system. I'd love to hear about why you can't express disgust or distate on or off site, though.

      Again, you're professional. I didn't say a word. Nor do those views that you just expressed anyone's but yours.


      Two: because the admins can't deal with opposition. It didn't matter if it was a public or private chat on a website. They also, if let's say a user who is on this site is harassing or arguing with another user of this site, but they are arguing on a different site, say Facebook, the administrators will take action on this site.

      When it starts to get here, that's when action is taken.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - I'm not too crazy about the chat on this wiki, so why not? It'd be interesting to see a rise in activity on the actual pages.

        Loading editor
    • oppose

      yeah chats fun

      yeah its like the onyl place semi=active around midnight

      and I dont read much pasta anyways :P

        Loading editor
    • Ok, lemme just ask something here.

      Is chat a part of the site or not?

      2 points that I have seen repeated over and over are:

      1) People and moderators who don't edit and use the chat are not contributing to the site.

      2)  Chat is not seperate from the main site, and is a part of it.

      Now, from what I can see, those two points cancel each other out, because by the second point's reasoning, people who use chat, which is a part of the main site, are contributing. And moderators, by that same reasoning are contributing to the main site too by doing their jobs.

      So, in that case, could I ask that you guys stick to one of these points and use it?

        Loading editor
    • This thread was so much better when it was closed.

        Loading editor
    • Princess Callie wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      Noothgrush wrote:
      OH MAN HOW UNFAIR THAT THIS IS PASSING CLEARLY ITS THE ADMIN JUST DOING THEIR DO CUZ ABUSE OF POWER OR SOMESUCH.

      Stop trying to make this place out as some totalitarian system. I'd love to hear about why you can't express disgust or distate on or off site, though.

      Again, you're professional. I didn't say a word. Nor do those views that you just expressed anyone's but yours.


      Two: because the admins can't deal with opposition. It didn't matter if it was a public or private chat on a website. They also, if let's say a user who is on this site is harassing or arguing with another user of this site, but they are arguing on a different site, say Facebook, the administrators will take action on this site.

      When it starts to get here, that's when action is taken.

      What action exactly in what context? Are you referring to what I was referring to in my subject matter or are you referring to the, somewhat rude and rather ignorant comment he made?


      Willow's got a point on a technical level, if I may add. I suppose, in context, we should say "Contribute to the mess that is This Wiki".

        Loading editor
    • Mystreve wrote:
      This thread was so much better when it was closed.

      Yep.

        Loading editor
    • WiIlow wrote:
      Ok, lemme just ask something here.

      Is chat a part of the site or not?

      2 points that I have seen repeated over and over are:

      1) People and moderators who don't edit and use the chat are not contributing to the site.

      2)  Chat is not seperate from the main site, and is a part of it.

      Now, from what I can see, those two points cancel each other out, because by the second point's reasoning, people who use chat, which is a part of the main site, are contributing. And moderators, by that same reasoning are contributing to the main site too by doing their jobs.

      So, in that case, could I ask that you guys stick to one of these points and use it?

      They're both true. Think of it like this: Every city has some kind of recreational area. A park, a museum, whatever. Often, funded by the local government. Now, people are going to use it, obviously, but how does the place itself contribute to the city? It doesn't. All it does is provide a social gathering place when there's a different rec area not too far away, which is where voting is held, proposals are made, etc. In our case, it's the chat and the forum. The forum can act as a social function as well. 

      But to say that because something is on the main site and a part of it, automatically means everyone contributes isn't true. That's like saying that because you're in a bar you're drinking beer.

        Loading editor
    • So about the totalitariansm and removal of threads just because admins don't like them: http://creepypasta.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276540


      "Meaningless chat stuff"? So it's not a concern? Really, you guys are unprofessional. You're way too personal, and you abuse your power knowing that you are wrong just because you don't want to put up with people telling you that you are.

      "Great. Let's beat the dead horse some more, why don't we?  Sorry, but I'm closing this thread - A word is not worth its own thread. And this has been driven into the ground 15 times too many." Selfish and Lazy.  


      Because, Callie, Chat issues shouldn't be brought up on the main wiki, just like this one?

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote:
      So about the totalitariansm and removal of threads just because admins don't like them: http://creepypasta.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276540


      "Meaningless chat stuff"? So it's not a concern? Really, you guys are unprofessional. You're way too personal, and you abuse your power knowing that you are wrong just because you don't want to put up with people telling you that you are.

      "Great. Let's beat the dead horse some more, why don't we?  Sorry, but I'm closing this thread - A word is not worth its own thread. And this has been driven into the ground 15 times too many." Selfish and Lazy.  

      You want to know something. I could of swore I said no more accusations of power abuse. LOLSKELETONS himself stated stuff like that does not go on the main site. Stuff like this is different.

        Loading editor
    • This is a chat issue, though. Why is going on the main site, only stirring up drama? Why are you not just getting rid of the chat?


      Obviously, bringing these issues to main wiki, proposing them OVER and OVER again only brings drama. How is this any more of an issue than that?

      All it is a proposal and vote.


      Everytime it gets proposed, though, you guys close it before there's a full vote. You never let there get to be a full vote. You ALWAYS shut it down.

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote:
      This is a chat issue, though. Why is going on the main site, only stirring up drama? Why are you not just getting rid of the chat?

      Because people would protest if we do.

      It's a lose-lose situation. We don't make a thread to discuss, people rage. We make a thread to discuss, people rage.

      That's how things work around here

        Loading editor
    • WhyAmIReadingThis wrote:
      Scorch933 wrote:
      This is a chat issue, though. Why is going on the main site, only stirring up drama? Why are you not just getting rid of the chat?

      Because people would protest if we do.

      It's a lose-lose situation. We don't make a thread to discuss, people rage. We make a thread to discuss, people rage.

      That's how things work around here

      People are obviously going to protest anyway. They are. But you're going to implement the policy anyway. People rage, but why prolong the inevitable choice you will make, thus causing more drama and rage?


      And why, oh why God, is she an administrator?

        Loading editor
    • Princess Callie wrote:
      Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:
      Noothgrush wrote: And as for moderators. It makes sense that moderators are required to help out to a set amount on the main site to get the position. Once they're moderators, they're free to do their duties, but once again the site and chat are not separate entities, it doesn't make sense to have a mod that was literally only here for chat. They should be here for the site, chat should be a secondary perk.
      Why? What do we care if they're only here for the chat? What we need is moderators who are responsible and capable of dealing with situations that come up. That's all the job requires and it doesn't really make sense to limit our pool even further than that for no reason.
      If I could, I'd make it so you'd have to help something with the site to enter chat, but it does have productive times with new users who are just trying to get the hang of things. It's rare, but it happens.

      But yes, a mod should be required to have something done on the site. But I'll put it a different way: We're training a firefighter with cash registers because of a grocery-clerk shortage. We're telling the firefighter "If you want to be a firefighter, you have to make a contribution to the community."

      ...implying that firefighters do not contribute to the community?

      The chat is arguably a part of the site. But the responsibilities of a chat moderator are not the same as the responsibilities of a beaurocrat or administrator. They're two totally different job descriptions with totally different requirements.

      Right now our problem is irresponsible chat mods who stir up problems. You suggest they be required to contribute to the site.

      Result: Now we have irresponsible chat mods who stir up problems. But at least they're editing articles!

      What I'm saying is that we're not addressing the issue at hand. In order for someone to be a chat mod, they would have to have been active in the chat for some time. That means there will be absolutely no shortage of feedback or information on whether they are responsible, fair, and willing to address problem situations. Editing is not related to this or to the job of being a chat mod. Or are you suggesting that admins, beaurocrats, etc. be required to spend a certain amount of time on the chat each week in order to contribute, regardless of the fact that that's not their field of obligation?

      And if you are, then we might as well make admins and chat mods one and the same because it's all the same site.

        Loading editor
    • This site doesn't really need a chat at all.

      There's a reason why there is a Forum page for a reason.

        Loading editor
    • Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:
      Noothgrush wrote: And as for moderators. It makes sense that moderators are required to help out to a set amount on the main site to get the position. Once they're moderators, they're free to do their duties, but once again the site and chat are not separate entities, it doesn't make sense to have a mod that was literally only here for chat. They should be here for the site, chat should be a secondary perk.
      Why? What do we care if they're only here for the chat? What we need is moderators who are responsible and capable of dealing with situations that come up. That's all the job requires and it doesn't really make sense to limit our pool even further than that for no reason.
      If I could, I'd make it so you'd have to help something with the site to enter chat, but it does have productive times with new users who are just trying to get the hang of things. It's rare, but it happens.

      But yes, a mod should be required to have something done on the site. But I'll put it a different way: We're training a firefighter with cash registers because of a grocery-clerk shortage. We're telling the firefighter "If you want to be a firefighter, you have to make a contribution to the community."

      ...implying that firefighters do not contribute to the community?

      The chat is arguably a part of the site. But the responsibilities of a chat moderator are not the same as the responsibilities of a beaurocrat or administrator. They're two totally different job descriptions with totally different requirements.

      Right now our problem is irresponsible chat mods who stir up problems. You suggest they be required to contribute to the site.

      Result: Now we have irresponsible chat mods who stir up problems. But at least they're editing articles!

      What I'm saying is that we're not addressing the issue at hand. In order for someone to be a chat mod, they would have to have been active in the chat for some time. That means there will be absolutely no shortage of feedback or information on whether they are responsible, fair, and willing to address problem situations. Editing is not related to this or to the job of being a chat mod. Or are you suggesting that admins, beaurocrats, etc. be required to spend a certain amount of time on the chat each week in order to contribute, regardless of the fact that that's not their field of obligation?

      And if you are, then we might as well make admins and chat mods one and the same because it's all the same site.

      So we should just let users sit there in chat for a few days until an admin temps them and lets them on a trial run? That's it? Because that's what your saying.

      And editing can be, in fact, related to a mod. If a user comes wondering how to edit, a mod with editing experience can help. There aren't always admins in chat. That's only one example.

        Loading editor
    • Princess Callie wrote:
      Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:
      Noothgrush wrote: And as for moderators. It makes sense that moderators are required to help out to a set amount on the main site to get the position. Once they're moderators, they're free to do their duties, but once again the site and chat are not separate entities, it doesn't make sense to have a mod that was literally only here for chat. They should be here for the site, chat should be a secondary perk.
      Why? What do we care if they're only here for the chat? What we need is moderators who are responsible and capable of dealing with situations that come up. That's all the job requires and it doesn't really make sense to limit our pool even further than that for no reason.
      If I could, I'd make it so you'd have to help something with the site to enter chat, but it does have productive times with new users who are just trying to get the hang of things. It's rare, but it happens.

      But yes, a mod should be required to have something done on the site. But I'll put it a different way: We're training a firefighter with cash registers because of a grocery-clerk shortage. We're telling the firefighter "If you want to be a firefighter, you have to make a contribution to the community."

      ...implying that firefighters do not contribute to the community?

      The chat is arguably a part of the site. But the responsibilities of a chat moderator are not the same as the responsibilities of a beaurocrat or administrator. They're two totally different job descriptions with totally different requirements.

      Right now our problem is irresponsible chat mods who stir up problems. You suggest they be required to contribute to the site.

      Result: Now we have irresponsible chat mods who stir up problems. But at least they're editing articles!

      What I'm saying is that we're not addressing the issue at hand. In order for someone to be a chat mod, they would have to have been active in the chat for some time. That means there will be absolutely no shortage of feedback or information on whether they are responsible, fair, and willing to address problem situations. Editing is not related to this or to the job of being a chat mod. Or are you suggesting that admins, beaurocrats, etc. be required to spend a certain amount of time on the chat each week in order to contribute, regardless of the fact that that's not their field of obligation?

      And if you are, then we might as well make admins and chat mods one and the same because it's all the same site.

      So we should just let users sit there in chat for a few days until an admin temps them and lets them on a trial run? That's it? Because that's what your saying.

      And editing can be, in fact, related to a mod. If a user comes wondering how to edit, a mod with editing experience can help. There aren't always admins in chat. That's only one example.

      We should let users who have actively participated in the chat for several weeks if not months and who have repeatedly demonstrated good judgement and maturity be chat moderators. That's exactly what I'm saying.

      If a user comes wondering how to edit, there are how many dozen pages on this site dedicated to that precise question? Both in the rules, in blogs, in the forum, and about everywhere else on the site. A user doesn't have to be an admin to know about editing, but it's not something that's required for the job, either.

      That said, it would be good for chat moderators to have some KNOWLEDGE of the site so that they can direct questions to their appropriate answers. But that's not mutually inclusive with being an active editor.

        Loading editor
    • Scorch933 wrote:
      Noothgrush wrote:
      OH MAN HOW UNFAIR THAT THIS IS PASSING CLEARLY ITS THE ADMIN JUST DOING THEIR DO CUZ ABUSE OF POWER OR SOMESUCH.

      Stop trying to make this place out as some totalitarian system. I'd love to hear about why you can't express disgust or distate on or off site, though.

      Again, you're professional. I didn't say a word. Nor do those views that you just expressed anyone's but yours.


      Two: because the admins can't deal with opposition. It didn't matter if it was a public or private chat on a website. They also, if let's say a user who is on this site is harassing or arguing with another user of this site, but they are arguing on a different site, say Facebook, the administrators will take action on this site.

      Facetious

      Fa-SEE-shush

      Adj. Treating serious issues with deliberately innapropriate humor.

      Synonyms: flippant, ironic, sardonic, joky, teasing.

        Loading editor
    • I agree that the cunt thing needs to be observed. It's been brought up so many times it gives me a headache, it's time we actually allowed a full vote once and for all in a civil thread, and just take care of it already. I understand why the thread was closed, but I don't think that's really an appropriate move. Just get it done and over with. Give the thread 3 days to get everybody's say, then tally the votes.

      The firefighter example wasn't really a very good one. 

      It's a bit more like a politician. Before a mayor gets into office they have to demonstrate that they're capable of holding the power, that they've actively been a contributive member of the community at large and would continue to stay a benefit to the community. An "active editor" is a bit of a erroneous description of it, it's not even that we're asking to them be an active editor, we're requiring they hit the bare fucking minimum to A) gain knowledge of the website B) show that they're capable and C) make an actual contribution to the website as a whole, even if it's just a small one. 

        Loading editor
    • Noothgrush wrote:
      I agree that the cunt thing needs to be observed. It's been brought up so many times it gives me a headache, it's time we actually allowed a full vote once and for all in a civil thread, and just take care of it already. I understand why the thread was closed, but I don't think that's really an appropriate move. Just get it done and over with. Give the thread 3 days to get everybody's say, then tally the votes.

      Unless I remember wrong, the first thread about the matter had this settled

        Loading editor
    • I just wanted to point this out: http://creepypasta.wikia.com/wiki/User:Lady-warrior

      If you're too lazy to click, I'll just quote it

      I've been on the chat a few times, seeing as I'm new and I wanted to meet new people. While it seemed welcoming the first night I was on it seems to have become somewhat hostile. Plus it's hard to talk to anyone there and most seem to be completely obsessed with talking about family unfriendly things like masterbation, seme, vaginas and sex in general. Ths makes me feel uncomfortable and unwelcome... aside from the fact that no one seems to want to say anything to me unless they're being rude.

      I'm not going to go on the chat too much due to this. I usually leave the chat feeling dirty because of the sex talk or just annoyed. I'm not saying people should stop saying these things but a little descetion would help... I mean do we all need to know how or when you jerked off to something?

      I just wanted this person's thoughts to be heard because nobody looks at blogs.

        Loading editor
    • ImGonnaBeThatGuy wrote:
      I just wanted to point this out: http://creepypasta.wikia.com/wiki/User:Lady-warrior

      If you're too lazy to click, I'll just quote it


      I've been on the chat a few times, seeing as I'm new and I wanted to meet new people. While it seemed welcoming the first night I was on it seems to have become somewhat hostile. Plus it's hard to talk to anyone there and most seem to be completely obsessed with talking about family unfriendly things like masterbation, seme, vaginas and sex in general. Ths makes me feel uncomfortable and unwelcome... aside from the fact that no one seems to want to say anything to me unless they're being rude.

      I'm not going to go on the chat too much due to this. I usually leave the chat feeling dirty because of the sex talk or just annoyed. I'm not saying people should stop saying these things but a little descetion would help... I mean do we all need to know how or when you jerked off to something?

      I just wanted this person's thoughts to be heard because nobody looks at blogs.

      I did see this as well. This is exactly what I was talking about when I was talking about cliques and community. This is the kinda shit we need to stop.

      WAIRT, it's been so long it's hard to remember, I was thinking that the thread just got closed. But since it keeps getting brought up over and over again it might be good to throw down another vote just to squash it. And if it gets brought up again, just link them to the archived thread in which the issue was taken care of.

        Loading editor
    • Noothgrush wrote:
      I agree that the cunt thing needs to be observed. It's been brought up so many times it gives me a headache, it's time we actually allowed a full vote once and for all in a civil thread, and just take care of it already. I understand why the thread was closed, but I don't think that's really an appropriate move. Just get it done and over with. Give the thread 3 days to get everybody's say, then tally the votes.

      Agreed. Sort of. As asinine as these threads are, it's clear that closing them down isn't going to just make them go away. My main issue with chat-related discussions in general is that they never seem to go anywhere and frequently devolve into pointless drama.

      Princess Callie wrote:
      LOLSKELETONS himself stated stuff like that does not go on the main site. Stuff like this is different.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but the most I recall doing was expressing my exasperation over all the stupid chat threads cropping up in the forum activity. Locking threads is usually not a good way of dealing with long-term issues, hence why I don't usually do it.

        Loading editor
    • ImGonnaBeThatGuy wrote:
      I just wanted to point this out: http://creepypasta.wikia.com/wiki/User:Lady-warrior

      If you're too lazy to click, I'll just quote it


      I've been on the chat a few times, seeing as I'm new and I wanted to meet new people. While it seemed welcoming the first night I was on it seems to have become somewhat hostile. Plus it's hard to talk to anyone there and most seem to be completely obsessed with talking about family unfriendly things like masterbation, seme, vaginas and sex in general. Ths makes me feel uncomfortable and unwelcome... aside from the fact that no one seems to want to say anything to me unless they're being rude.

      I'm not going to go on the chat too much due to this. I usually leave the chat feeling dirty because of the sex talk or just annoyed. I'm not saying people should stop saying these things but a little descetion would help... I mean do we all need to know how or when you jerked off to something?

      I just wanted this person's thoughts to be heard because nobody looks at blogs.

      I have to admit, although there is a hell of a lot of stuff on this thread I sure as hell don't agree with, this, I do.

      We may allow swearing and some adult themes, but some in chat, when given an inch on this subject, end up taking a damn mile. 

        Loading editor
    • And the worst part is that some people still have to gall to say that the sexual talk isn't overboard

        Loading editor
    • When we are starting to get blog posts like that, it is clear that it is WAY overboard.

        Loading editor
    • WiIlow wrote:
      When we are starting to get blog posts like that, it is clear that it is WAY overboard.

      Well there's two points we can bring up from this. A) Have a disclaimer for sexual/offensive content on chat B) Try and compromise with some users to make the sex talk less frequent. To be honest, when you're going to a site full of gore, blood, and general discomfort... you probably shouldn't be complaining about a little bit of sexual content. It IS pretty bad, but maybe if we try and work with people to try and solve the problem.

        Loading editor
    • Also just wanted to add that chat should try as much as possible to be SELF CONTAINED. And I do agree with most people on the fact that we should try and focus on the site as much as possible. Again, if we tried to organize chat users into some sort of task force do certain things on the site, we'd get stuff done.

        Loading editor
    • The sexual talk should have had a limit applied to it LONG AGO, sure I make those overboard sexual jokes every now and then, but it's to send a message of how annoying and stupid the sex talk, let me bring up something, almost every other message is usually followed by a stupid, immature sexual joke, it gets anoying and it's just straight up stupid

        Loading editor
    • The Damn Batman wrote:
      WiIlow wrote:
      When we are starting to get blog posts like that, it is clear that it is WAY overboard.
      Well there's two points we can bring up from this.

      A) Have a disclaimer for sexual/offensive content on chat B) Try and compromise with some users to make the sex talk less frequent. To be honest, when you're going to a site full of gore, blood, and general discomfort... you probably shouldn't be complaining about a little bit of sexual content. It IS pretty bad, but maybe if we try and work with people to try and solve the problem.

      There's a big difference between site content and the general environment in chat. The whole point of the blog was that the sex talk was unwelcoming. 

        Loading editor
    • You know, I'm wondering why people want to vote. Here's the flaw in that: If 99% of people don't know what they're talking about, then the remaining 1% will get drowned out, and hurt the site as a whole. Why don't we just go based on reasoning, and intelligence, instead of using something like voting, especially when people are biased, but we cannot do anything about it?

        Loading editor
    • Forestfleet wrote:
      You know, I'm wondering why people want to vote. Here's the flaw in that: If 99% of people don't know what they're talking about, then the remaining 1% will get drowned out, and hurt the site as a whole. Why don't we just go based on reasoning, and intelligence, instead of using something like voting, especially when people are biased, but we cannot do anything about it?

      Democracy in a nutshell.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - I think it's an excellent idea. It will help the site a lot.

        Loading editor
    • Neutral Neutral - What.

        Loading editor
    • The Last Paladin wrote:
      The sexual talk should have had a limit applied to it LONG AGO, sure I make those overboard sexual jokes every now and then, but it's to send a message of how annoying and stupid the sex talk, let me bring up something, almost every other message is usually followed by a stupid, immature sexual joke, it gets anoying and it's just straight up stupid

      Dat innuendo


        Loading editor
    • The Last Paladin wrote: Sure I make those overboard sexual jokes every now and then, but it's to send a message of how annoying and stupid the sex talk

      What a way to send a message, lol.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose -  Honestly I still oppose this.  We could take care of all of this without shutting down chat.  I see it as unnecessary.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - In my opinion, this isn't gonna change everything for the CP Chat. Remember the last shutdown? Well, after that, the old CPWC days were back.

        Loading editor
    • When are we gonna close this thread? It's not that it's not important

        Loading editor
    • Crickshaw wrote:
      When are we gonna close this thread? It's not that it's not important

      Thursday. The votes will be tallied and the thread closed.

        Loading editor
    • A lot of the arguments I'm seeing are "Remember what happened last time?"

      Yes, I do. Last time there was no community consensus to have chat shut down. This time around, if this thread passes, which it probably will or probably won't, I expect no shitstorms. This time around, you were asked. So therefore, such an argument is invalid.

        Loading editor
    • Princess Callie wrote:
      A lot of the arguments I'm seeing are "Remember what happened last time?"

      Yes, I do. Last time there was no community consensus to have chat shut down. This time around, if this thread passes, which it probably will or probably won't, I expect no shitstorms. This time around, you were asked. So therefore, such an argument is invalid.

      Whether you want a shitstorm or not is invalid. You shut down the chat, or not, you will get bitchy people anyway. There is no way to avoid it.

        Loading editor
    • Defrether wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      A lot of the arguments I'm seeing are "Remember what happened last time?"

      Yes, I do. Last time there was no community consensus to have chat shut down. This time around, if this thread passes, which it probably will or probably won't, I expect no shitstorms. This time around, you were asked. So therefore, such an argument is invalid.

      Whether you want a shitstorm or not is invalid. You shut down the chat, or not, you will get bitchy people anyway. There is no way to avoid it.

      True, but at least this way any complaints can quickly be fought with a link and saying "hey, see this? This vote shows, decision was made by the community fair and square"

        Loading editor
    • Noothgrush wrote:
      Defrether wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      A lot of the arguments I'm seeing are "Remember what happened last time?"

      Yes, I do. Last time there was no community consensus to have chat shut down. This time around, if this thread passes, which it probably will or probably won't, I expect no shitstorms. This time around, you were asked. So therefore, such an argument is invalid.

      Whether you want a shitstorm or not is invalid. You shut down the chat, or not, you will get bitchy people anyway. There is no way to avoid it.
      True, but at least this way any complaints can quickly be fought with a link and saying "hey, see this? This vote shows, decision was made by the community fair and square"

      There's going to be those people who'll be like: "I didn't notice it/vote for it! This is dumb!"

        Loading editor
    • The Damn Batman wrote:
      Noothgrush wrote:
      Defrether wrote:
      Princess Callie wrote:
      A lot of the arguments I'm seeing are "Remember what happened last time?"

      Yes, I do. Last time there was no community consensus to have chat shut down. This time around, if this thread passes, which it probably will or probably won't, I expect no shitstorms. This time around, you were asked. So therefore, such an argument is invalid.

      Whether you want a shitstorm or not is invalid. You shut down the chat, or not, you will get bitchy people anyway. There is no way to avoid it.
      True, but at least this way any complaints can quickly be fought with a link and saying "hey, see this? This vote shows, decision was made by the community fair and square"
      There's going to be those people who'll be like: "I didn't notice it/vote for it! This is dumb!"

      This thread was highlighted when it first went up. There's no excuse not to have seen it.

      So it's still basically inexcusable to throw a fit.

        Loading editor
    • So, you want to shut down chat for about a week or so to get those people more active into the main site. 

      So the chat here is indeed popular and yes, I do tend to stay in chat most of the day. In reality however, I see about maybe ten to twelve new people come into chat and such.

      Chat tends to keep an average of 10-25 people on a good day. However, most of the people in chat have been here for several months and etc. And of those 10-12 new people, I see them ask questions like "Got any scary creepypastas?" or "Can you help me with a story?".

      These questions are usually answered by the chat mods and even some of the users as well.

      When I see new people, I try to welcome them along with everyone else. It's not my job to do that because I'm not a mod and don't plan to be one for quite sometime I just feel the need to do that. 

      If you think chat is damaging the site in itself, it's really only damaging the twenty or so people that go on this site for the chat itself. I still see hundreds and hundreds of new stories pass through each day. 

      If you think shutting down chat for a week will boost editing and use of the forums well to be honeset, no not at all. 

      If you haven't noticed, this site is pretty damn popular I mean REALLY popular. I don't understand why you think this site needs more activity.I do both of my fair share of editing on this site and spend a good deal in chat. If you think forums are a good substitute for chat, yeah no...

      What I am trying to say is, shutting down chat would really be pointless. You people complain and complain about the drama in chat but, that's only affecting maybe 40-50 people. If chat was that bad, there wouldn't be anyone in there but Ta-dah! People are still in there. 

      I honestly wouldn't lose sleep if chat was shut down for a week but, just because I can live with it, doesn't make it right. To me, it seems like shutting down chat just for the sole purpose of getting users to edit more is getting a bit old. You people say this site has gone to shit because of chat well, it's still one of the busiest wikis I have ever seen. 

      All said and done, I think this is a waste of time and fucking energy. If you really want more people to edit, give them a good reason to edit. People edit because they like to edit not because "Oh, since they don't have chat, they will HAVE to edit now mwahaha!". No, it doesn't work like that. 

      Oppose Oppose -

        Loading editor
    • CreepyMorefedora wrote:

      If you think chat is damaging the site in itself, it's really only damaging the twenty or so people that go on this site for the chat itself. I still see hundreds and hundreds of new stories pass through each day. 

      If you think shutting down chat for a week will boost editing and use of the forums well to be honeset, no not at all. 

      If you haven't noticed, this site is pretty damn popular I mean REALLY popular. I don't understand why you think this site needs more activity.I do both of my fair share of editing on this site and spend a good deal in chat. If you think forums are a good substitute for chat, yeah no...

      Ok broski, listen up a bit. Chat isn't damaging just people. Its forcing the admins to spend time with matters that they should not be concerned with (which is keeping chat under control).

      I don't know if you pay attention to the big number saying how many pastas are on the wiki, but if anything, its going down. That's because we have a barrage of bad creepypastas that the admins have to deal with. From your contributions, I see that you have 230 edits. Did you know that only 10 of those edits are on creepypastas? This means that out of 12000, all you have helped with is 10 of them. Imagine how much each admin has to deal with per day. I would think they get 10 creepypastas done in an hour.

      Again, this is less about getting users to edit, and more about getting site policies updated. Users focusing back into editing is just a positive externality we encourage. We also know that people in chat know how to edit. If they were to help out, they would exert a tremendous impact on good editing and get the main site on its feet.

      Also yes. We ALL know that you can't force people to edit. That was part of the explanation on the very top.

      CreepyMorefedora wrote:

      What I am trying to say is, shutting down chat would really be pointless. You people complain and complain about the drama in chat but, that's only affecting maybe 40-50 people. If chat was that bad, there wouldn't be anyone in there but Ta-dah! People are still in there. 

      Eh. I figure its kind of like people that get arrested a second time after they get out of jail. Why would they do something bad after they get out of jail? Because they live that way. Why would someone come back to a deleterious chat? Because they like that lifestyle. Also, just saying, 40-50 people are the ones on chat right now. There are countless people you don't see that have left because of chat drama. Many a time I've seen it. Anyways, this is not for the shutdown of drama, but more to organize the wiki.

      CreepyMorefedora wrote:

      You people say this site has gone to shit because of chat well, it's still one of the busiest wikis I have ever seen. 

      Trust me man, If you pay attention to the newsfeed, you will see that its mostly admins that edit. Yeah, its a busy website, but only because there are busy admins. I am cognizant that there are numerous sources of edits, but understand that this is a community project. 5 admins are not a community.

      CreepyMorefedora wrote:

      All said and done, I think this is a waste of time and fucking energy. If you really want more people to edit, give them a good reason to edit. People edit because they like to edit not because "Oh, since they don't have chat, they will HAVE to edit now mwahaha!". No, it doesn't work like that. 

      Again, not the main argument. We want the site as a whole to be better, but we need a certain peace of mind that chat isn't there to make more turbulent kerfuffles. Again, this is temporary. It won't kill anyone.

        Loading editor
    • I once was in chat, neede help for my story, but nobody helped.Is chat worthwile

      support

      WTF HOW DO YOU DO THE SUPPORT SYMBOL

        Loading editor
    • Mortal kiss wrote:
      I once was in chat, neede help for my story, but nobody helped.Is chat worthwile

      support

      WTF HOW DO YOU DO THE SUPPORT SYMBOL

      Two "{"s on each side.

      "{Support}" except with two brackets.

        Loading editor
    • Pramirez351 wrote: Also yes. We ALL know that you can't force people to edit. That was part of the explanation on the very top.

      (I don't think you do, because that's exactly what's being attempted here.)

        Loading editor
    • As I have said over and over:

      If you don't want to edit, then don't edit!

        Loading editor
    • Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:
      Pramirez351 wrote: Also yes. We ALL know that you can't force people to edit. That was part of the explanation on the very top.
      (I don't think you do, because that's exactly what's being attempted here.)

      OK, Xel. Drop it. You keep saying that, but nearly every active support in this thread keeps telling you that's not our main concern. If anything it's a bonus. 

      That is NOT what's being attempted, the whole point isn't specifically to force people to edit. Obviously that's asinine. The main concern is getting people to actually participate in the community, namely our main site needs a huge fucking overhaul. We can't get that done with chat occupying everybody's time and attention.

        Loading editor
    • > have at least 150 edits with 125 edits on articles.

      Now that's just stupid, they only moderate chat and not anything on the main site. Or if they're needed for a reason which I don't get, just make them 50 total edits o' sumthin.

        Loading editor
    • SOMEGUY123 wrote: > have at least 150 edits with 125 edits on articles.

      Now that's just stupid, they only moderate chat and not anything on the main site. Or if they're needed for a reason which I don't get, just make them 50 total edits o' sumthin.

      It's true, though. I do know that once they get the requirements of edits, they'll just stop editing and hang out at the chat and do their job. Sure, it does help out with the site, but what happens afterwards? They'll just stop editing. There is a downside with 50 edits overall, though. If you edit a lot, comment on blogs and help out in forums and such, it'll be a day to two days work. Then they'll stop, and just hang out in the chat.

        Loading editor
    • Pramirez351 wrote:
      CreepyMorefedora wrote:

      If you think chat is damaging the site in itself, it's really only damaging the twenty or so people that go on this site for the chat itself. I still see hundreds and hundreds of new stories pass through each day. 

      If you think shutting down chat for a week will boost editing and use of the forums well to be honeset, no not at all. 

      If you haven't noticed, this site is pretty damn popular I mean REALLY popular. I don't understand why you think this site needs more activity.I do both of my fair share of editing on this site and spend a good deal in chat. If you think forums are a good substitute for chat, yeah no...

      Ok broski, listen up a bit. Chat isn't damaging just people. Its forcing the admins to spend time with matters that they should not be concerned with (which is keeping chat under control).

      I don't know if you pay attention to the big number saying how many pastas are on the wiki, but if anything, its going down. That's because we have a barrage of bad creepypastas that the admins have to deal with. From your contributions, I see that you have 230 edits. Did you know that only 10 of those edits are on creepypastas? This means that out of 12000, all you have helped with is 10 of them. Imagine how much each admin has to deal with per day. I would think they get 10 creepypastas done in an hour.

      Again, this is less about getting users to edit, and more about getting site policies updated. Users focusing back into editing is just a positive externality we encourage. We also know that people in chat know how to edit. If they were to help out, they would exert a tremendous impact on good editing and get the main site on its feet.

      Also yes. We ALL know that you can't force people to edit. That was part of the explanation on the very top.


      CreepyMorefedora wrote:

      What I am trying to say is, shutting down chat would really be pointless. You people complain and complain about the drama in chat but, that's only affecting maybe 40-50 people. If chat was that bad, there wouldn't be anyone in there but Ta-dah! People are still in there. 

      Eh. I figure its kind of like people that get arrested a second time after they get out of jail. Why would they do something bad after they get out of jail? Because they live that way. Why would someone come back to a deleterious chat? Because they like that lifestyle. Also, just saying, 40-50 people are the ones on chat right now. There are countless people you don't see that have left because of chat drama. Many a time I've seen it. Anyways, this is not for the shutdown of drama, but more to organize the wiki.


      CreepyMorefedora wrote:

      You people say this site has gone to shit because of chat well, it's still one of the busiest wikis I have ever seen. 

      Trust me man, If you pay attention to the newsfeed, you will see that its mostly admins that edit. Yeah, its a busy website, but only because there are busy admins. I am cognizant that there are numerous sources of edits, but understand that this is a community project. 5 admins are not a community.


      CreepyMorefedora wrote:

      All said and done, I think this is a waste of time and fucking energy. If you really want more people to edit, give them a good reason to edit. People edit because they like to edit not because "Oh, since they don't have chat, they will HAVE to edit now mwahaha!". No, it doesn't work like that. 

      Again, not the main argument. We want the site as a whole to be better, but we need a certain peace of mind that chat isn't there to make more turbulent kerfuffles. Again, this is temporary. It won't kill anyone.

      Okay, with your begining rebuttal, you say that chat is forcing admin activity when they should eitherwise be out editing on the site. I believe that is their decision, if they don't have any trust in their chat mods, then don't blame chat itself if their taking their oh so precious time off of the site. We have chat mods for a reason so, I guess that's pointless now since you seem to say that chat cannot be controlled by the mods then, that's an entirely different argument which is entirely irrelevent to the following subject at hand. It is not an admins job to monitor chat and it shouldn't be that's why we have mods. 

      I don't know if you haven't noticed this as well but, what kind of wiki is this? Yes, it is a creepypasta wiki and it also happens to be near the end of March coming in to April trust me, once it comes time near September through November, this site will be incredibly busy. 

      So, having a barrage of bad creepypastas are soley because of chat? No, that's just having a barrage of bad creepypastas the end. 

      I don't know how you came up with only 10 edits towards Creepypastas hmm that seems a bit odd. Just by looking at my badges, I have at least over 50 edits towards Creepypastas/articles which means, I have over 10. Most of my "edits" (which is actually 10 not 229) come from commenting on pastas and/or blogs. I rarely ever use the forums but, I think I've commented there about 7 or 10 times. 

      I comment on pastas because I want to do something that will actually HELP the author. I provide constructive critisim, I applaud them for having great potential for pastas, and I encourage them to continue writing. I find that far more productive than "Didn't meet our Quality Standards". Even for trollpastas, I also do my part. I mark it as "Delete Now" and an admin usually deletes about 2 min. later. So, you're whole argument on how "Admins are always bombarrded by bad pastas" is a bit exaggerated because, the users do help the admins out. Yet again, NOT a chat issue. 

      You seem to be stating that this argument is not about getting users to edit however, that entire paragraph you stated before, is invalid then because that whole entire paragraph was about how much admins have to edit. How is that chats fault? The only argument you made is that "Admins are having to spend time on chat".

      If this whole thing is for "Site policy updates" then why must you shut down chat then? Again, if your only argument is going to be "Admins are having to spend time on chat", then this whole thing is a bunch or horse shit. 

      If people have left because of chat drama, then that's because of chat drama not because the admins supposedly "Can't get anything done because chat just takes all of their fucking time". So that whole jail analogy, was just a waste of energy.

      Okay, if the newsfeed is just cluttered with admins editing, then why do you have to shut down chat if admins are editing then? Chat has absolutely nothing to do with this entire argument. It's just people trying to find a good enough excuse to shut down chat. It doesn't matter if it's temporary; and just because it is, it doesn't make it right.  

        Loading editor
    • Noothgrush wrote:
      Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:
      Pramirez351 wrote: Also yes. We ALL know that you can't force people to edit. That was part of the explanation on the very top.
      (I don't think you do, because that's exactly what's being attempted here.)
      OK, Xel. Drop it. You keep saying that, but nearly every active support in this thread keeps telling you that's not our main concern. If anything it's a bonus. 

      That is NOT what's being attempted, the whole point isn't specifically to force people to edit. Obviously that's asinine. The main concern is getting people to actually participate in the community, namely our main site needs a huge fucking overhaul. We can't get that done with chat occupying everybody's time and attention.

      I keep saying it because it's absolutely true. And I get that the whole point isn't to force people to edit. That's a complementary goal you're trying to meet, and it's still completely and totally unrelated to the chat mod position. Chat doesn't occupy everybody's time and attention. I've never even BEEN on the chat. Not one time. From word in this thread, there are maybe 20 people on there at a given moment. The chat is already a secondary element of the site. There's no threat of it taking over and usurping attention from the main site, so cool down there.

      And if you're going to argue about what the people in the thread think, maybe you should make note of the post just below yours. Four kudos.

      The one below THAT makes an equally valid point. People are going to be editing just to meet that requirement and then never edit again. THAT is only going to encourage people to inflate their edit count... once again, for something that is ABSOLUTELY UNRELATED TO THE JOB BEING ADDRESSED.

        Loading editor
    • Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:
      Noothgrush wrote:
      Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:
      Pramirez351 wrote: Also yes. We ALL know that you can't force people to edit. That was part of the explanation on the very top.
      (I don't think you do, because that's exactly what's being attempted here.)
      OK, Xel. Drop it. You keep saying that, but nearly every active support in this thread keeps telling you that's not our main concern. If anything it's a bonus. 

      That is NOT what's being attempted, the whole point isn't specifically to force people to edit. Obviously that's asinine. The main concern is getting people to actually participate in the community, namely our main site needs a huge fucking overhaul. We can't get that done with chat occupying everybody's time and attention.

      I keep saying it because it's absolutely true. And I get that the whole point isn't to force people to edit. That's a complementary goal you're trying to meet, and it's still completely and totally unrelated to the chat mod position. Chat doesn't occupy everybody's time and attention. I've never even BEEN on the chat. Not one time. From word in this thread, there are maybe 20 people on there at a given moment. The chat is already a secondary element of the site. There's no threat of it taking over and usurping attention from the main site, so cool down there.

      And if you're going to argue about what the people in the thread think, maybe you should make note of the post just below yours. Four kudos.

      The one below THAT makes an equally valid point. People are going to be editing just to meet that requirement and then never edit again. THAT is only going to encourage people to inflate their edit count... once again, for something that is ABSOLUTELY UNRELATED TO THE JOB BEING ADDRESSED.

      Chat's issues, drama, rules, etc. etc. are constantly overflowing onto the main site. The chat moderators are doing their jobs in chat but that still doesn't stop all this distracting bullshit from happening. All the time. Constant blog posts, constant forum posts, proposals for this and that. All regarding chat. If they can absolutely keep it off the main site, then fine. I don't care. But the fact is, admin are having to spend time observing the goings-on in chat. 

      I only supported the base edit count as a way to encourage more of a community feeling. That way it's not immediately to the chat. My thought was that if we set a base edit count, which can be inflated with comments, forum posts, etc. it will get new users to consider the main site as an area that they can also communicate, gain friends, etc. A lot of the arguments in this thread have been because chat is great for socializing. The chat is its own little community, we need to build up the main community. 

      I like this place a lot, I love the forums, I love blogs, all that. Chat can be really overwhelming and for a lot of new users and users such as myself who don't use chat a whole lot it can be a bit difficult to break into that community. 

      Also, both of those do bring up good points but they're also opposing comments. Specifically, I was talking about people supporting this. I said "active support". Nearly every supporter of this has outright claimed that bolstering edits by shutting down chat A) wouldn't work, we can't force anybody to do anything and B) it would at most be an added bonus. The main concern that I have is building up the main site's community base, less of a feeling of outright hostility all the time. More welcoming to users. 

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.