I'm talking about a chat that's actually hosted by the site. Not someone sitting in AIM/Skype/Yahoo and posting "Hey, I'm lonely in here."
If people want to chat, they can, with or without RAFO, wotmania, whatever. If they aren't, that really has nothing to do with RAFO. Proof? wotmania's been down a little over a year; how long has it been since the kind of chat everyone keeps talking about existed? Three years? Five? I suspect it depends on whom you ask; some people think wotmania went to hell after the Great Crash, but some people always think everything was better when it was their own little secret. Providing an onsite RAFO chat room isn't going to turn back the clock any more than preserving one at wotmania did.
All the dynamics that killed wotmania chat, many of the ones that killed wotmania, are still in place, and I think that has more to do with people not using the various chat alternatives. If that's fixed RAFO won't need a chat because it can use Skype, or Vent, or Google talk, or even AIM or FB. We could use an IRC chat like the one Jonielle and Floffe started (remember that? I prefer the Skype interface and ability to call, but there was nothing WRONG with IRC--except that it got even less use than Skype. ) Until that's fixed putting a chat on RAFO is just creating one more place for nothing to happen 90% of the time, punctuated by boredom driven escapades that remind us why RAFO doesn't have a chat.
The problem, not just for chat but for websites, is finding a way to host it, then drawing enough constructive regulars that you don't spend all your time either staring at a blank screen or cleaning up behind someones misbehavior. For a variety of reasons, both wotmania and its chat ceased to do that some years ago, and whether a chat service continued exist was neither here nor there to that. Until that issue's resolved you can create all the chats you want on any site you want and it won't change anything, because all the problems that killed wotmania chat remain. I'm not sure there are any easy answers there, but if people just want to go back to wotmania chat ca. 2005, they don't need a chat, they need a time machine.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Chat
10/10/2010 07:34:44 AM
- 981 Views
I've already had several days like that. Yet people keep insisting RAFO is better without chat. *NM*
10/10/2010 05:29:46 PM
- 347 Views
When chat used to be down for long stretches, everyone would just pile into AIM chat.
10/10/2010 06:54:33 PM
- 616 Views
Which they could easily do with Skype and get voice, yet no one does.
10/10/2010 10:56:55 PM
- 643 Views
The idea of voice chat creeps me out on so many levels *NM*
11/10/2010 12:34:22 AM
- 600 Views
Is that why the Edinburgh gathering pics are always nothing but sign language and dirty gestures? *NM*
11/10/2010 10:36:00 PM
- 336 Views
The group that is popularized as being a part of that is not enticing to long standing wotmaniacs. *NM*
11/10/2010 03:29:57 AM
- 358 Views
Then that, again, seems a problem that coding can't solve.
11/10/2010 07:33:32 AM
- 635 Views
I don't think most want to download another program when they had it so easy before.
11/10/2010 10:39:55 PM
- 655 Views
Honestly, I think the "one time event" is the biggest problem.
12/10/2010 04:20:04 AM
- 652 Views
I disagree. I don't think enough people think it worth the effort to deal with Skype.
12/10/2010 04:28:21 AM
- 563 Views
What effort?
12/10/2010 04:38:42 AM
- 540 Views
Re:
12/10/2010 11:00:56 PM
- 436 Views
Then where are they?
13/10/2010 04:00:46 AM
- 510 Views
You have a faulty memory. Chat was incredibly active as late as 2007.
13/10/2010 04:24:25 AM
- 570 Views
Again, that's people, and not/having Chat won't change that.
13/10/2010 04:45:40 AM
- 574 Views
Incorrect
13/10/2010 04:58:30 AM
- 587 Views
Initially only the person who started it can boot.
13/10/2010 05:12:27 AM
- 651 Views
Re: Initially only the person who started it can boot.
13/10/2010 02:45:50 PM
- 533 Views
Sounds right; don't really know much about The Tavern except that's all in character.
14/10/2010 04:54:06 AM
- 583 Views
What do you mean where are they? There isn't a chat linked to the site.
13/10/2010 10:44:10 PM
- 627 Views
So?
14/10/2010 04:52:37 AM
- 591 Views
I have to admit that I highly doubt I would ever participate if a revived chat were installed
13/10/2010 05:08:38 AM
- 572 Views
Most of the group consists of long-standing Wotmaniacs, so. *NM*
12/10/2010 05:25:39 AM
- 322 Views
I probably didn't phrase that right. Maybe an -er after long and an "in good" before standing.
12/10/2010 11:02:30 PM
- 606 Views
Plenty of people who've been around as long as you, and plenty in good standing. *NM*
13/10/2010 05:36:23 AM
- 306 Views
I see that my comments are being interpeted as a blanket insult to all parties involved...
13/10/2010 11:09:09 PM
- 623 Views
Also "as long as me" doesn't really factor, because I wasn't using myself to set the bar.
13/10/2010 11:26:29 PM
- 634 Views
Also, what qualifies as "good standing"? Who's the judge? *NM*
13/10/2010 05:36:23 AM
- 367 Views
Jonte is right. The judges are numerous. Each with their own motivations and interests. *NM*
13/10/2010 11:10:04 PM
- 298 Views
I'd fuck myself to death with a spike of frozen cat piss before I'd chat with that skype crowd.
13/10/2010 11:42:16 PM
- 632 Views
we are Rafonauts now.
13/10/2010 03:16:32 PM
- 467 Views
Yeah, I know, I came up with the term. Many still consider the "old gang" as "wotmaniacs" though.
13/10/2010 11:01:58 PM
- 649 Views
There's a Chat if you want one.
10/10/2010 11:01:57 PM
- 627 Views
i wouldn't say mutely
10/10/2010 11:40:13 PM
- 588 Views
Well, like I said, talk about something else.
11/10/2010 01:32:15 AM
- 567 Views
do you know how hard it is stopping sports fanatics talking about sports?
11/10/2010 09:59:56 AM
- 614 Views