08-26-2016, 04:48 AM | #1 |
⇐⇓⇑⇒
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paradise
Posts: 1,627
|
CCQ
What does it mean to chit chat?
to chat or to chit? can one be performed without the other? and if so, to what degree do their interchanges vary? At what point does a conversation become more chit than chat? or more chat than chit? which is more socially accepted? Why do we do either? When does it stop being chitchat and start being spam? when does it stop being spam and start being chit chat? And by asking these questions, am I chatting, chitting or spamming? Is it Chit chat because I'm providing an entry to return discussion? Or is it spam because I'm trying to converse without thought or consideration? am I able to spam so long as it's an earnest attempt at chitting or chatting? and does this thread qualify as spam? this game gets pretty stale when we're only allowed to talk about arrows to music, please allow us to chit or to chat without suppression of our free speech thank you Last edited by Mourningfall; 08-26-2016 at 04:51 AM.. |
08-26-2016, 05:21 AM | #2 |
Forum User
|
Re: CCQ
What you're doing is you're making us proud. I'm proud. You've got the concept down and the right ideas flowing so hopefully an expert comes by and gives these the right answers.
__________________
|
08-26-2016, 08:53 AM | #3 | |
Private Messages, please.
|
Re: CCQ
This is the critical thinking thread we need. What the heck is chitting anyway?
-o24
__________________
Quote:
|
|
08-26-2016, 09:11 AM | #4 | |
longing
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,680
|
Re: CCQ
Quote:
To me this implies chit chat --> Chat that isn't necessarily as significant, and is just random stuff. |
|
08-26-2016, 10:10 AM | #5 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2015
Age: 29
Posts: 20
|
Re: CCQ
this thread is horribly offensive in more ways than I can count
|
08-26-2016, 10:40 AM | #6 |
A car crash mind
Join Date: Aug 2005
Age: 36
Posts: 9,788
|
Re: CCQ
This chat place always confused me. I mean are they talking about 'chit' as in the small sum of money, are we all money launderers here?
Or are you using it in the British sense to bring shame upon a woman? Should we all be talking smack about women behind their backs, is this FFR's attempt at segregation? Or is it used as a misnomer for the way to make a potato sprout. Are we all just seedlings (potatolings?) trying to sprout our wings upwards to the heavens? Remove the chit, remove the confusion. Just make it 'chat', or 'chat zone' for the trendy. |
08-26-2016, 06:47 PM | #7 |
shots FIRED
Global Moderator, User Support, Judge
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 35
Posts: 8,448
|
Re: CCQ
Don't confuse "suppression of free speech" with "trampling all over the general forum rules." Posting threads that promote little substance and meaning is not the same as posting topics that relate to FFR. Frankly, people should stop misconstruing these things as a justification to post topics of super-hollow conversations (and antagonize mods for locking them). Had enough of this sort of self-righteousness.
|
08-26-2016, 06:56 PM | #8 | |
⇐⇓⇑⇒
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paradise
Posts: 1,627
|
Re: CCQ
Apologies, I may have confused the two. Where do we draw the line on substance? if it engages responses and provokes conversation, who's to say what is or isn't spam? oh yeah the mods, nevermind.
Quote:
chit = small chat = talk smalltalk I feel like the veil has been lifted and I see the world with perfect clarity for the first time |
|
08-26-2016, 06:58 PM | #9 |
⇐⇓⇑⇒
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paradise
Posts: 1,627
|
Re: CCQ
I request we rename the small talk subforum to something more appropriate
|
08-26-2016, 08:04 PM | #10 | ||
shots FIRED
Global Moderator, User Support, Judge
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 35
Posts: 8,448
|
Re: CCQ
Quote:
We're not here to define exactly what topics can or cannot be discussed, but at the same time, I feel that many people probably know better in those situations. If you get the feeling that a thread will not likely promote meaningful conversation, or if it feels like there's not much to discuss or has an air of "spamminess", then don't do it. It's something that I think is intuitively pretty obvious and doesn't need to be rigidly outlined. Also, refer to this announcement. Quote:
Last edited by bmah; 08-26-2016 at 09:26 PM.. |
||
08-26-2016, 08:44 PM | #11 |
⇐⇓⇑⇒
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paradise
Posts: 1,627
|
Re: CCQ
Ok boss, but why does chitchat have to promote meaningful conversation? We have a Critical thinking subforum specifically geared towards those who want to put thought and effort into their posts, and we have a garbage bin for those people who don't. Why do we even need a chitchat? why not abolish CC and make TGB public? That way there's a publicly available area for people to talk leisurely without need for structured meaningful conversations. Kills two birds with one stone.
noted. |
08-26-2016, 09:34 PM | #12 |
shots FIRED
Global Moderator, User Support, Judge
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 35
Posts: 8,448
|
Re: CCQ
I'm not "boss", I'm just bmah thanks.
Chit Chat simply refers to the topics discussed in this forum (general topics); it doesn't imply that threads should be almost structureless. I'd say that the CT forum is certainly a step above this forum in regards to formality, and TGB is a step more casual than here. I can't really comment on whether TGB should be public or not, but it's something that you can discuss. I have a feeling the people of TGB probably wouldn't like that forum becoming public, but I can't speak for them. |
08-26-2016, 10:48 PM | #13 | ||
A car crash mind
Join Date: Aug 2005
Age: 36
Posts: 9,788
|
Re: CCQ
Quote:
We have subsections for birthdays where people just say 'happy birthday' over and over again, with little substance or meaning. How can you justify that as acceptable then turn around and say that people need to avoid topics of 'super-hollow conversations'? Just let people talk and have fun. It's not a big community, it's not something that needs rigidly scrutinised, we're not going to have any effect on the greater world view. So long as it's not racist, sexist, inflammatory, etc etc. then it should be acceptable. Quote:
At work, we'll talk about everything and anything and some of the best conversations I've had have stemmed from a beginning that seemed pointless. It's how conversation works. Yes, you are: administrator noun 1. a person responsible for carrying out the administration of a business or organization. synonyms: manager, director, managing director, executive, chief executive, controller, chair, chairperson, chairman, chairwoman, head, boss, chief, principal, official, leader, governor, premier, president, superintendent, supervisor, employer, proprietor; More Last edited by TheRapingDragon; 08-26-2016 at 10:49 PM.. |
||
08-27-2016, 12:39 AM | #14 | ||||
shots FIRED
Global Moderator, User Support, Judge
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 35
Posts: 8,448
|
Re: CCQ
Quote:
In response to this: Quote:
I'm saying that the Chit Chat forum is for discussing a wide variety of topics, not just FFR-related stuff. The OP is arguing for threads of little substance for discussion to be allowed; in doing so, he refers to his point that the game "gets pretty stale when we're only allowed to talk about arrows" but this is completely untrue for Chit Chat. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
08-27-2016, 01:20 AM | #15 |
⇐⇓⇑⇒
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paradise
Posts: 1,627
|
Re: CCQ
Straying from the topic, we don't see you as a big meanie, just a mature individual in a position of higher power.
OP does argue for freedom to post threads of little significance, when more accurately it should be arguing for the freedom converse with our peers without fear of moderation. I'm reminded of Travis Flesher of all people. Kid just wanted to know how trains work, made a CT thread, I gave him the answer. within seconds: thread deleted; user banned. I know this wasn't your doing bmah so don't assume I'm attacking anything for reflecting on the past. I just feel the situation couldve been handled better. Could've been moved to CC and given a chance to grow into something worth locking. just a little example of power abuse and why there's a level of cynicism towards mods. Last edited by Mourningfall; 08-27-2016 at 01:24 AM.. |
08-27-2016, 01:55 AM | #16 | |
shots FIRED
Global Moderator, User Support, Judge
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 35
Posts: 8,448
|
Re: CCQ
Quote:
Which brings me to another point: on the occasion that people make troll threads (just for kicks or whatever other reason), it can possibly reduce the trust amongst everyone else. Suddenly it becomes difficult to differentiate an inocuous thread and a thread where the boy cries wolf. Almost like a "made you look" sort of situation, you know what I mean? Then all sorts of things can go wrong when a non-troll thread is deleted, or misunderstandings can occur if a real troll thread is deleted and other users aren't aware of the poster's history. It honestly makes moderation that much harder, because mods are still held to the same standards when false threads litter the forum like a mine field, and anyone would have a difficult time picking out the real thing or trying to explain the situation to other people. :/ Whatever happened in that thread you mentioned I'm not sure, but it could've easily fallen into the situation I explained above. But yeah, it was probably better to let that thread continue and let observations happen for a while longer before a decision could be made. (Usually though, it's not too hard to tell if someone's dicking around.) Last edited by bmah; 08-27-2016 at 01:58 AM.. |
|
08-27-2016, 02:15 AM | #17 |
⇐⇓⇑⇒
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paradise
Posts: 1,627
|
Re: CCQ
Yeah I feel ya. I'm beginning to see why there's not more lenience towards low quality threads, too.
If I were an admin (or a mod), I'd want this shit on my resume, and I'd want it to look respectable to my employer. having "Latest forum posts" on the homepage and having 80% of those being low quality, no quality discussions would probably not look good on your abilities to moderate or administrate. So there's that. There's also solid arguments for convenience and tidiness, but they're pre self exanatory. TRD raises a good point about the birthday subforum though, pretty redundant when we have a comment section on our profiles and a very visible "Today's Birthdays" at the bottom of the index, if any subforum were to be abolished, I'd probably pick that over the small talk subforum |
08-27-2016, 02:22 AM | #18 |
shots FIRED
Global Moderator, User Support, Judge
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 35
Posts: 8,448
|
Re: CCQ
I'll be really honest about this: I feel that I was voted as best mod/admin in the past probably because I moderated quite little in the past, and people liked that lack of interference. But there comes a time when it turns into a situation where people are just taking advantage of you and you are effectively a likable but ineffective mod. So now when I actually attempt to put my foot down, this stuff happens. Admittedly this wasn't all that surprising, but I'd appreciate if others could see my point of view. Really though, thanks for the understanding, Mourn.
|
08-27-2016, 11:15 AM | #19 |
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: CCQ
To the point that chitchat ought to be for literally whatever, because there are subforums for more structured discussion: Chit-chat as a forum is just a catchall for legitimate threads that don't belong anywhere else.
Discussing stuff in the news in a Not-CT way, general talking about stuff like the "I bought a car" thread and whatnot. Heck, "post pictures of cats" and "post pictures of dogs" are both threads that were left running with no issues. Posting a thread called "yo" with the first post "sup" is not a thread, it's not a discussion. There's a place for random thoughts. It's called "Random Thoughts" on your profile. You can have random conversations with other people back and forth on profile walls. Threads in chit-chat don't need to be about a particular subject, but they need to be about -something- and that's basically all that is asked for. Believe me, there's discussion happening about where that thin line is between "We only want good content" and "We want any content because activity is very important" and I don't think anybody is actually moderating with too heavy a hand, or without any forethought. |
08-27-2016, 11:57 AM | #20 |
Snivy! Dohoho!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 33
Posts: 6,161
|
Re: CCQ
I feel this thread was made directly because of what happened that night when some of us on FFR decided to be silly. The topic about what makes "chit-chat" isn't going to solve the problem that I'm assuming this thread is trying to address.
"Here we go!" I've already talked to one of ya mods about it and I did not disapprove what you did! I just don't agree with in which you went about it. Very much you should mod threads if they have super low content if they're not in TGB, IE: My thread you folks deleted in that bunch. However, the thing you guys decided to ultimately do is lock and delete ALL the threads that were in mockery of one of the other. The other threads had different content within them. It might've NOT been the best content, or rather the most engaging and or absurd content of things that will never happen and are there to incite some jokes, but still content. So then the next question is "If there's multiple threads being made in a short time spam, should I stop the technically correct threads as I'm modding the super low content ones?" Well... that just means you need to amend the rules to disallow a sudden influx of threads if you mods truly feel that FFR should not deal with threads that are trying to make some laughs and have everyone join the fun. PS: I'm totally in support for having TGB visible again and without the silly keycard crud. Never understood why it was done in the first place. PPS: Nevermind, just remembered why as I thought back further. It was because of that shitty Garbage Bin meta where you had to go through rites of passage or something. It was incredibly dumb and I remember some users actually getting site wide banned because of it. It's like ?????? PPPS: They don't do that anymore, so it's safe.
__________________
Last edited by Charu; 08-27-2016 at 12:08 PM.. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|