• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Chat.... Chat?

IIsi 50MHz

First Post
Michael Morris said:
The upgrade involves changing vbulletin from version 3.0.7 to version 3.7. Absolutely none of the old code will work due to key changes in the vbulletin API that were implemented in version 3.5. vbxirc is not an option, it's successor for vb 3.5 was never completed, so it too isn't an option.



This comment, implying the community at #dnd3e would not be willing to move, that none of the moderators would move over, strongly implies that the #dnd3e has a love of D&D in common with ENWorld and absolutely nothing else. I know user crossover is minimal - I've been in there enough times to know the folks that idle in the channel don't use the boards often. I've been told point blank by several users that they don't frequent the site at all when I've went in there to look for testers on dev in the last year.




False. WotC moved to an incredibly buggy proprietary chat system instead of Flashchat which caused the alienation you speak of. This incident is why the ISRP boards were moved from the WotC server to here.



Whatever solution is adopted, it must include full Integration with vbulletin. That means
  1. No one can register a handle in the channel that does not have a corresponding messageboard account.
  2. Anyone banned from the forum is likewise banned in chat, and vice versa
  3. Chat must be usable from a web page. I don't care how many IRC client programs it allows, it must have a web portal.

If IRC can deliver this I'm all ears. If it cannot then it is off the table as far as I'm concerned.

Versions
Sounds like good reasoning for dropping vbxirc. Also shows that something IS broken: If upgrading vbulleting is neccessary (probably is, given that upgrades are generally release for good reasons), and doing that breaks compatibility with the old vbulletin, and that breaks the current vbxirc, ...

Crossover
Part of why there's little crossover is that the user experience is so different. Just a few minutes ago, as I intended to reply to your list of specs at the end of your post, I was unable to access EN World for several minutes. My connections elsewhere succeeded, and my IRC connection remained up. IRC disruptions are fare less frequent for me, and usually a matter of few seconds spanned by the auto-reconnect. When I have longer IRC problems, it's almost always on my end: puter crashed so scandisk is running during reboot, power failure, weather between me and the satellite, etc.

Part of the experience difference is because IRC clients generally keep a live connection with clear indications of disconnect, while boards are "connectionless": the boards user has no way to know when a disruption or heavy influx of other users' requests occurs until trying to get the next bit of information, clicking the next link, trying to post, et cet era.

Chat offers a more intimate exchange and potential for more rapid response during a discussion. That is, a discussion takes place in near real time, rather than "post and wait anything from a minute to infinity". On web boards, you have no indication of when another user has stopped taking part unless the user says so before leaving. So, web boards (for me) are more like snail mail than conversations: you never know when or if it will continue. With a chat conversation, you can generally tell when a user lose connection or chooses to leave. You get a more intimate feel in /part/ because of the added info derived from timing of responses. If someone stops responding within the usual rate for a live conversation, it's more immediately meaningful than if people stop posting to a board where anything from a few minutes to a few days is considered normal response time.

Spec List
Item one in your list tells me that you have already decided to elminate IRC. It tells me that you are against allowing introduction to the community via IRC, and that what you require is contrary to the atmosphere of IRC. This limitation would mean that people would be prohibited from happening up us via IRC and that existing users would most likely be required to already be using their "official EN World userID" as their nickname to even enter.

It is not abnormal on IRC for people to adopt different nicknames for different purposes or different times. "Michael_Morris" might become "Morris_Away". A user might sign on to take part in an IRC RPG session, using the name of the user's character as a nickname; this user would be unable to access the chat room before switching to the official ID?

I am opposed to the kind of restriction entailed by your first item. I feel unnecessarily makes the community more closed and is contrary to growth.

Item two on your list makes a great deal of sense. I would like to see a way to easily or automagically synchronise the bans between the two. It's been a pain to try to keep track. OTOH, we have had instances of people who are well-behaved in one of the two, banned in the other. For these few people, the one-side ban has been an opportunity to repair themselves. I'd still default to synchronised bans, though.

Item three is also a good thing. Having web-based access as an OPTION is a Good Thing, for people who don't want to install anything, people who aren't sure what they're doing, and for people who are temporarily unable to use their IRC client (vacationing, lunch break at work or other place that doesn't allow installs, or main puter getting worked on).


If you are indeed already decided, and if you are indeed deliberately framing your requirements to eliminate IRC, then I fear this discussion is pointless. I shall take your responses within it to indicate that there is still some openness to disposal of your first spec requirement.

IIsi50MHz
Chanop
irc://irc.otherworlders.org/#dnd3e
 

log in or register to remove this ad

thatdarncat

Overlord of Chat
Morrus and Mark: The usage of chat or boards has ALWAYS been an issue. Some people prefer one over the other, simple as that.

And I would guess that a far higher precentage of chatroom users visit the boards than boards users visit the chatroom.

Mark: Idling is always going to be a part of any chatroom. It's tradition! :) It's the equivilant of leaving your browser open on the index page of the forums then refreshing to see what was posted while you were away from the keyboard.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Michael Morris said:
This comment, implying the community at #dnd3e would not be willing to move, that none of the moderators would move over, strongly implies that the #dnd3e has a love of D&D in common with ENWorld and absolutely nothing else.

I'm not sure that's what is implied. Users, in general, resist change. Unless they see the change as offering them extra features or other value they don't currently have, they don't generally feel change is justified.

Specifically, in this case, I would expect the individual users to be losing functionality. Moving away from IRC would mean that I could not use my Gaim client (which I'm using to access googlechat, AIM, and MIT's internal chat network) to poke my head in the chatroom (which I admittedly only do occasionally, when work is slow).


Whatever solution is adopted, it must include full Integration with vbulletin. That means
  1. No one can register a handle in the channel that does not have a corresponding messageboard account.
  2. Anyone banned from the forum is likewise banned in chat, and vice versa
  3. Chat must be usable from a web page. I don't care how many IRC client programs it allows, it must have a web portal.

Hm. Could you give us a bit of insight into why those are your requirements? I can see how the first is required for the second, but I don't recall hearing the mods in the respective areas claiming that the second is something they need to have. I fully agree with the third - if it is an EN World feature, it must be accessible from EN World.
 

Mark

CreativeMountainGames.com
thatdarncat said:
Morrus and Mark: The usage of chat or boards has ALWAYS been an issue. Some people prefer one over the other, simple as that.

And I would guess that a far higher precentage of chatroom users visit the boards than boards users visit the chatroom.

Mark: Idling is always going to be a part of any chatroom. It's tradition! :) It's the equivilant of leaving your browser open on the index page of the forums then refreshing to see what was posted while you were away from the keyboard.

I see. Thanks.

Out of curiosity, how many regular users of the IRC channel from EN World would you estimate you have in there over the course of a month, perhaps averaged just over the last year or so?
 

ToreadorVampire

First Post
Mark said:
Out of curiosity, how many regular users of the IRC channel from EN World would you estimate you have in there over the course of a month, perhaps averaged just over the last year or so?

As crazy as it sounds, that information is readily available!

xmanii generates weekly chat stats, and also did some annual chatstats for 2007. So ...

http://calandyr.com/dnd/dnd3e.2007.html is the 2007 period, and weekly stats are all indexed on http://www.calandyr.com/dnd/mircstats.html

So ... erm, see for yourself!
 


Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
It seems to me the compromise is to find a decent web-based chat interface for the IRC channel (I appreciate that there are people out there who don't like to use a browser; however there are a LOT more out there who don't want to install and learn to use an IRC client).

Secondly, dnd3e definitely is a dated name for the channel; enworld would probably be better.

One of the problems I had with IRC is that I had to continually re-register my name and be "made" owner of the channel again and so forth, that I kinda gave up. I don't even know who's technically "owner" of the channel now. But I hve nothing against IRC in principle, as long as there's a very simple interface for people to use.
 

thatdarncat

Overlord of Chat
Morrus said:
It seems to me the compromise is to find a decent web-based chat interface for the IRC channel (I appreciate that there are people out there who don't like to use a browser; however there are a LOT more out there who don't want to install and learn to use an IRC client).

Secondly, dnd3e definitely is a dated name for the channel; enworld would probably be better.

One of the problems I had with IRC is that I had to continually re-register my name and be "made" owner of the channel again and so forth, that I kinda gave up. I don't even know who's technically "owner" of the channel now. But I hve nothing against IRC in principle, as long as there's a very simple interface for people to use.

The mibbit client that Tore linked to seems stable. A couple of minor bugs, but nothing major. I used it all day yesterday.

Registration of a nickname lasts 21 days - meaning if you haven't logged in for 22 days you will need to reregister your nickname. That's standard for any network I'm familiar with. Xmanii currently has channel ownership as he's taken over running the channel.
 

ToreadorVampire

First Post
Edit: I have noticed that my pimp-to-information ratio is rather high in this post, fair warning!

Morrus said:
It seems to me the compromise is to find a decent web-based chat interface for the IRC channel (I appreciate that there are people out there who don't like to use a browser; however there are a LOT more out there who don't want to install and learn to use an IRC client).

I think that's the concensus, and allow me to pimp www.mibbit.com again as that interface, it's seriously cool as web-based IRC interfaces go.

Secondly, dnd3e definitely is a dated name for the channel; enworld would probably be better.

Indeedy, it's nothing for us network admins to add a few lines to our configs that redirect #dnd3e to #enworld, effectively merging the channels under a new name.

One of the problems I had with IRC is that I had to continually re-register my name and be "made" owner of the channel again and so forth, that I kinda gave up.

Well, with my otherworlders.org network admin's hat firmly on ... let me point you to http://www.otherworlders.org/forums/index.php?topic=222.0 - a Community Supporter Membership at Otherworlders.org is only $15.00 US per year (kiddie's money considering the £ <=> $ exchange rate) - and means that the channel will never expire (nor will the channel ownership expire), and you get two registered nicknames (say, Morrus and Michael_Morris) that also will not expire.

I don't even know who's technically "owner" of the channel now. But I hve nothing against IRC in principle, as long as there's a very simple interface for people to use.

FYI xmanii has ownership of both #dnd3e and the lesser-used #dnd4e at the moment and leads their management/chanop teams. I have registered #enworld (so nobody else can squat on the channel name) but I'm not interested in being involved in the IRC channel's management at all, so if you'd like the #enworld channel name, I'll transfer ownership to yourself (or whoever you delegate to) once you're ready.
 

Mithran

First Post
Well now, never thought I'd be speaking up on something like this, but here it is. I'll admit, I joined EN World mostly for the pbp games, and I never have been particularly active elsewhere. I don't know that I'd call my self active on #dnd3e due to busy schedule, but I do look in every day and have a little chat fun.

Anyway, on to outlining where I think the two communities help each other. I was introduced to #dnd3e, and the rest of what is now Otherworlders.org by the EN World web client. My activity has dropped off on EN World due to various factors, but #dnd3e has kept me me somewhat in touch. We discuss EN World threads from time to time, and I've read many a thread linked in the channel that I never would have, even in my active days. Every now and then, such as now, I'm even motivated to post.

So there you have it. I'm hardly a shining beacon of interesting posting for the forum at the moment, but I'm far more involved in the community than I otherwise would be. Don't take away the passage of users back and forth that allows people to find their personal favored medium while still holding ties with the other.
 

Remove ads

Top