separate webmastery from chatmastery. Create our very own Pento (I am sure I saw some spare parts lying about). Someone who really wants a chat. Say, Danu 
... not to mean any offense to Danu, but whoever was in charge of chat would have to be someone Ben trusted absolutely, because it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility that there could someday be legal issues surrounding something happening related to chat, and also it would have to be someone able to exercise full authority without people feeling the need to go over his or her head to Ben if they didn't like the solution. And given how many people went over the chat admins' heads to Mike on wotmania ...
That is why I said a Pento, not a chat admin. There were more than one admin. And yes, I suppose it would have to be someone Ben was willing to trust. Although I am sure a disclaimer could solve a potential legal problem. There could be admins under this particular person, but that person, not Ben, would deal with the (possible) bitching.
And maybe it's just me, but the idea of an unmoderated, enter-at-your-own-risk chat seems awfully skeevy for a site like RAFO. It sounds like the kind of chat room that would be used by perverts to hit on schoolkids. That sounds awful of me to say, and I don't mean to imply that we have a bunch of perverts around here, but really we should be decent enough human beings to not need a hands-off chat just to avoid the headache of over-moderation and constant arguments and appeals. However, we haven't proven that we are. We haven't proven at all that we can, as a community, behave like civilized human beings in a chat environment.
I would like to believe we are able to act sensibly, but you are probably right.
You might say, give us a chance to prove it then. If I were Ben, I would say, wotmania was that chance. Now we're dealing with my volunteer development time and my money. So too bad.
What it comes down to is that there are no indications that a chat wouldn't be abused by the very same people who abused it before, and no indications that the exact same issues wouldn't crop up once again. I understand that there are people who have never been involved in chat conflicts and want to have a feature like that for their own perfectly harmless enjoyment. But it does cost money, both in development time and in bandwidth, and you know without a doubt that there are certain members who would be right back in there doing the same things as before. Is that worth the effort and potential trouble? Will the few people who might come back for a chat feature be people who purchase premies to offset the cost?
I think it would help the site grow. I was not a frequent chat user either, but I enjoyed the stuff that spilt out of chat and on to the boards. Except the Amy/Urza stuff, which was just boring (and nothing is worse than boring drama).
Unless Ben were willing to either A) ban people from chat permanently based on IP address for any involvement in chat conflict and drama on either side of an argument, no mercy and no appeal; or B) completely ignore everything that happens in chat and keep any mention of it off the boards ... it seems to me that it wouldn't be worth the trouble.
I don't think any mention of it on the boards would have to be dealt with. More posts is good. Even some drama posts. In fact, the boards may be a good place to actually resolve the drama. I was always surprised at how quickly posts discussing what was happening in chat were deleted at wotmania. It seemed counterproductive.
Ultimately it's no skin off my teeth either way. I was a very, very infrequent chat user. But the conflict that spilled over to the boards was aggravating, and it seems that the constant bickering played a big role in Mike withdrawing from the community and ultimately shutting the site down. Could you really blame Ben if he didn't want anything to do with that?
That is why I suggested a new Pento. Where is Pento, anyway? Could we clone him and brainwash him to be interested?
*MySmiley*
structured procrastinator
structured procrastinator
Hey Ben? Um...I hate being a pain in the ass but
- 30/10/2011 10:15:28 PM
1261 Views
Lets be honest
- 30/10/2011 10:31:01 PM
839 Views
Then don't moderate the chatroom.
- 31/10/2011 12:12:05 AM
803 Views
That last is probably a bad environment in which to create a chat. 
- 31/10/2011 10:37:59 PM
756 Views
- 31/10/2011 10:37:59 PM
756 Views
Re: Lets be honest
- 31/10/2011 06:04:03 AM
969 Views
Re: Lets be honest
- 31/10/2011 07:16:03 AM
800 Views
The way I see it ...
- 31/10/2011 03:09:37 AM
812 Views
Solution
- 31/10/2011 12:57:54 PM
819 Views
The trouble is ...
- 31/10/2011 02:36:53 PM
788 Views
Re: The trouble is ...
- 31/10/2011 02:44:15 PM
753 Views
I disagree strongly; that segregated power was part of the problem with wotmania chat.
- 31/10/2011 10:51:33 PM
751 Views
There is the Invite Only chat. Very restrictive.
- 01/11/2011 01:26:58 AM
774 Views
I didn't want to be in your racist chat anyway. *NM*
- 01/11/2011 02:52:54 AM
363 Views
*NM*
There was that one time though...
- 01/11/2011 12:21:08 PM
706 Views
You paint a very rockin' picture... even if Minnesotans are just slightly warmer Canadians. *NM*
- 01/11/2011 11:37:58 PM
365 Views
*NM*
Danu - there is always AIM chat. Everyone knows how to get there. They just don't.
- 01/11/2011 01:14:37 PM
790 Views