Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="IIsi 50MHz" data-source="post: 4131540" data-attributes="member: 2986">VersionsSounds 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, ...CrossoverPart 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 ListItem 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.IIsi50MHzChanopirc://irc.otherworlders.org/#dnd3e</blockquote>

Verification