Wikia has a feature that allows instantaneous chat. Until now I've been firmly against enabling it, because we've got enough unconstructive socialising and commenting on this wiki as it is. However, a new user named FreeSmudger recently commented on a blog saying that this site feels more like a blogging site than a wiki (a sad fact that I can only agree with) and recommended a chat feature as a way to direct people away from blogs. Genius! Here, in our laps, is a solution. But turning on the chat feature without dealing with blogs at the same time is just going to make things worse. Therefore I open it up to community discussion: would people like a chat feature to be enabled, with the proviso that there are to be no new non-Sonic blogs from now on? I vote yay. Who's with me? -- Supermorff 12:04, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
I say yay, and I'm glad that you agree with me. But if things get too out of hand we'll have no choice but to remove it Charlie 12:12, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
Yay. I've noticed that some conversations on blog posts never relate to the blog itself, so those conversations should be discussed in a "chat box". I'll have to give myself a 12:59, September 2, 2011 (UTC)Sacorguy79
Yay. Now the flood of Off-topic blogs can cease. But I have a few questions;
What will happen if a user were to post an off-topic blog? Will it be subject to deletion or what? :
Will there be any exceptions to this rule? Such Sonic Sprite Comics are allowed or something? (I've stopped mine, this is for other still-running series)
Will the same apply for off-topic comments?
What will count as "Sonic"? Would news regarding IRL Sonic be considered on-topic, or are the blogs limited to the wiki in general? 13:02, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion Admiral (if you don't mind, if you do, delete this post of mine):
This issue came up earlier where SlugDrones suggested that blogs should be Sonic-based only, and received a load of critical comments (A few Administrators disagreed with the suggestion as well). But in my opinion, I think a few non-Sonic related blog posts would be fine, just as long as there isn't an overhaul of them.
Sonic Sprite Comics should still be allowed for this wiki, because we have allowed users to edit user pages or blogs to show off their Sonic fan fiction, and sprite comics are also a type of fan fiction.
I did have an idea for this, but maybe it's a bit too strict.
I think that blogs regarding SEGA, fan-fiction, some off-topic (such as Disco's "What's your Desktop" blog) should be permitted for the wiki, while most off-topic and other stuff should be discussed in the chat box.
I'll have to give myself a 13:15, September 2, 2011 (UTC)Sacorguy79
My personal feeling is that we should initially allow discussions about Sonic fandom, so sprite comics would be okay as long as they include Sonic sprites. We should allow blogs about Sonic, Sega, fandom (but not actual pieces of fanfiction) and the wiki (this wiki specifically, or Wikia or wikis in general). I think anything else would be off-topic and could be deleted (although I see no reason to punish users beyond deletion of the blog, because it's hardly a high crime). I'm not sure about off-topic comments. Which way do people lean on that, and why? -- Supermorff 13:45, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
I vote yay. I have always wanted this to happen, didn't know Supermorff would think of it as "genius", I thought he would think I am crazy if I ever told him. As for the non-Sonic blogs not being allowed, I came up with that but users were negative about my opinion. And especially, to such an extent that Kagi bursted in anger against the rule on my blog and my talk page (how ill-mannered, he should know better than to rub it on my face twice) whatever, he is forgiven. But I am still bringing this up: Blogs can only be Sonic related whereas the chat can be non-Sonic related if wished, or perhaps the other way round. If you think this is insane then please say it nicely.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 13:58, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
I strongly agree with 58, and if I may, I would like to convey one of my own worries as well. For those of us who have been to chatrooms (and/or SFW) know that there will always be a user, or a group of them who will definetly try to start verbally assaulting other users on the chat. We should prepare for this before opening the chat. I suggest that we have an admin/beaurecrat watching the chat (not participating in it) and if something happens, take action. I'm not saying we should have one person watching it 24/7, but maybe we could assign each admin to watch over the chat for a few hours at a time. I'm a little doubtful that this plan would work, because not all of us are here everyday, but for those of us who have a frequent use of the computer, I think we could work out a schedule for a certain number of admins. Say, 3 hrs. each. Feel free to agree/disagree. -- Shelly the Hedgehog I'm not a monkey! 21:02, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
I'll be happy to volunteer as a Mod for the chatbox. 21:30, September 2, 2011 (UTC) BTW, Admins can make non-admins in to chat mods to help. If you do make a chat could you make me one since it was my idea? But like I said before if too many bad things happen in it, we should just shut it down Charlie 21:14, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
LEVI: You're an admin so your automatically a chat mod. Charlie 21:36, September 2, 2011 (UTC) I vote for the chat, and the ability for admins to delete any non-Sonic related blogs. I fully agree with Supermorff about the conditions. I would like to say, though, that the chat mod timing might need to be shorter. I know that I can only go about two hours at a time staring at a computer screen, and if an emergency arises, it may be in the best interests for the chat if the times were shorter than 3 hour blocks.
Werekitty119 04:52, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Supermorff, Genesjs and I come around here everyday. I think we can handle this. I am not sure about 3 hours though, I do other things on the internet besides SNN. And I am working on a project outside SNN.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 06:14, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
We need it! It will give the wiki a better look rather than having only, "this user commented this blog 12 seconds ago".... and as for the unrelated blogs, chat is the perfect place -- User:DiscoDuck
I say yay. I would really like to chat with some people here than just blogging. -- Cloudthehedgehog12sez Ello Gov'ner! Happy 2011! 15:34, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Not much for the idea. The wiki already has some crazy people on it, and adding a chat box will make those crazy people say even crazier things, causing a riot, and eventually a ban. I don't think it's safe. It's easy and a great feature, but, at least for this wiki, I don't believe it's safe. Many of our users might get banned if it goes too far lol. I don't think it's a bad idea. But I don't think it's a good idea either. The idea of shortening the chat time with huge crowds, though, isn't a bad idea... --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(Recent finds and updates.) 15:41, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Okay... I think we all know Jet50 and Neo/Jakethedude being some of the crazy ones. I really didn't want to say that. Even though they know they're considered some of the crazy or obnoxious ones... --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(Recent finds and updates.) 15:51, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
As far as 'Sonic the Hedgehog's blogs, Chromia the Autobot's blogs, SalaComander's blog and some of Rainbowroad's blogs... Chat is needed - User:DiscoDuck
What about my blogs? Are you talking about my unrelated ones that I post practically every week or week and a half? I mostly post Sonic (and recently some blogs with Mario in them too) blogs. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(Recent finds and updates.) 16:00, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to feel bad about it, Rainbow. It is completely normal to think like that. You've helped me, now I will keep these two names in mind while we're discussing.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 16:03, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Just throwing in my 2 cents, I think the chat thing is a good idea. It would make communicating much more stream lined, especially for Chrome users.CariconCommander 16:09, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
I am a Chrome user. How is it easier, exactly? I never found any problem.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 16:10, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
There's this glitch where comments don't appear on blogs. That seems to not be the case with the chat feature, which is why I believe it is superior.CariconCommander 16:14, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
We need this we can stop spamming blogs about random Non-Sonic stuff. -- Cloudthehedgehog12sez Ello Gov'ner! Happy 2011!
Ah yes, that happens to me but I wasn't aware that only was with Chrome.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 16:19, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, so now you guys are with me about this non-Sonic related blogs not being allowed rule? Heh, just kidding. Though it's true, I did not pass the rule but now you guys want it to pass? Okay then!--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 16:21, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Can I just be admin now..-_- I we done with this thing, I am hungrysleepy... -- User:DiscoDuck
I'm more or less neutral on this. The reason is because we have this thing called a "forum", which is hardly ever used by anyone. If people want to have discussions about whatever, then we can simply make forums for Sonic and non-Sonic topics, along with site discussions, etc. There's also the problem of convincing everyone to use the chat feature for non-Sonic discussions instead of blogging, which unfortunately too many of us are used to, but like I just said I don't see why we shouldn't be using the forums, which is something we've had on here since the beginning. Why add a feature that could be considered ultimately unnecesary by some?
Eh I'd say I'd like the chat option on here. I mean I want to chat with my old pals more often and a chat option is easier then just waste of space Blogs and bad editing.UltimateDude127 16:31, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
@Genesjs: I think both could be optional, especially if something off-topic becomes a major discussion. Then that could be discussed in an off-topic forum. Same applies for any other major discussions. Sort of like on message boards, where there are the forums and the shoutbox. I'll have to give myself a 16:33, September 3, 2011 (UTC)Sacorguy79
A chat will be easier to access for socializing. These forums are "Site Discussion forums", which are only for discussing for the site. If we use forums and blogs, both will be entirely similar to each other and therefore there is no need for restricting non-Sonic related blogs or any random topic. There is no way I am going to let these forums for socializing, they are precious to me. I do not want these to end up like blogs. A live chat will be easier to keep track and it will reduce the usage of "spam blogs", if we put in forums then we would have "spam forums" as well. So random sentences can be said in the chatroom so that there is no need for it to be deleted. And thus we can reduce the Wiki Activity from being filled up with "this user commented 58 seconds ago".--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 16:36, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
@Rainbow: Unfortunately yes, the Shout Box went bye-bye as soon as Wikia dumped Monaco, along with a bunch of other useful Widgets like the sticky notes.
I hate them for changing the layout. The older one was better. There's a couple of new things that make things easier and such, but overall the old Monaco layout was much better than this one. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(Recent finds and updates.) 16:49, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
I am not against the new look. As an admin, I think admins finally look like the have more rights with this new system. And also considering that alot of things are optional. I am okay with what Wikia's doing.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 16:52, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Why can't we simply just put it and stop taking forever! Other wikis have it without discussions and benefits but this wiki will have it a benefit of spam blogs.. -- User:DiscoDuck
I think MarioWiki needs one come to think of it... I might ask. Anyways, I'm just going to stay idle on this one now, because I'm just not sure if I should say "yes" or "no" to it. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(Recent finds and updates.) 16:57, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Disco, let's do this already! -- Cloudthehedgehog12sez Ello Gov'ner! Happy 2011! 17:00, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't know. I have the rights to turn it on but I think I will be getting confidence if Supermorff will let me. So far, nobody is in disagreement though.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 07:30, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
I vote nay, mainly for the few people who don't use Oasis. This chat only works for people who use Oasis, so enabling it with the stipulation of no non-Sonic blogs leaves people like myself in a lose-lose situation: we cannot/do not wish to use the chat, but are forbidden from making any socializing blogs.--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 07:36, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
A few people like myself do not use it, and the chat is restricted solely to people who use Oasis (hardly a coincidence IMO). This would ultimately leave Monobook users like myself with the short end of the stick, because we not only lose the right to make blogs about anything besides something directly related to the wiki, but we're also unable to use the chat, pressuring people to use Oasis instead.--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 07:45, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
You make a point there, Kagi. But the majority use Oasis.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 07:46, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it's not fair to the people who don't use it. I'm for freedom of speech and consensus, as you know, but that only goes to the point where it does not come at the expense of others. I don't mind one way or another if the chat is active, but I do mind the fact that people who don't use Oasis would more or less be screwed. Majority vote or not, it simply wouldn't be fair to the rest of the Users.--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 07:49, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
There is nobody who is locking anybody here, there is nobody here who is not giving anybody freedom of speech and consensus so you're not the only one. Don't give me the impression that you think you are the only one, Kagi. But you still make a very good point. I never knew people prefered Monobook from Oasis, which is easier to use actually. Is it because of nostalgia? I don't anything nostalgic to remember about anyways. Though I am okay with people preferring Monobook, I still find it pretty stubborn of them for being completely relunctant to change. More like a riot, like you hate wikia for trying to be easier to use and more visually appealing. It looks more like Wikia is making a community that is more together but the one's who do not like changes are just breaking the community apart by complaining and using their older stuff while they are being ignored and are never going to be advanced because Wikia is making Oasis more advanced. Oh and by the way, are you using Monobook right now?--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 08:04, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Many people were initially against Oasis because many older Users (myself included) found Oasis to be unwieldly, and could screw up pre-set page formats on several wikis, making some pages look messy. I use Monobook because I find it easy to use and navigate with. However, if Oasis could do something about its actual page width, then I would be more open to using it for other things besides categorizing image files. I'm hoping that option will be available some time in the future, and I will admit that Oasis does have its uses, but I need it to be tweaked a little more.
Yup. I use Monobook 24/7 and for everything, functioning just fine all the while. The only problem I have is uploading videos, which I've done only 4 times in my 2-3 years on Wikia. And I didn't mean to imply that freedom of speech was not being applied here. I only meant to put emphasis on the fact that while I implore freedom of speech and majority of vote, I prefer it to not come at the expense of others involved. For me, it's mainly because of principle and personal taste. Oasis was put in place with no sense of compromise and at the expense of the majority opinion: I refuse to use something put in place under circumstances. Second, I just find Oasis to be too flashy for my tastes, compared to the more practical and subtle Monobook and Monaco (may it rest in peace). I'm throwing no riot or anything, but I just refuse to use something that goes against my principles. Besides, I've never been a "joiner". The point is, majority shouldn't come at the undeserving expense of the individual. If something else could be decided upon that would appease both issues then I would be glad to hear it. But if such middle ground is not a possibility, I'll just have to vote "nay".--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 08:16, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
That's good. So I hope you also understand that, with the current stipulations, I cannot support this.--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 08:33, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
I vote neutral. Why? I don't have any negativity against the chat system, but for some reason, it doesn't work for me(and i ain't usin' Monobook). I tried it on the Fanon Wiki myself, and whenever I type a message, it doesn't show in the chat system, which is some sort of glitch so I wouldn't be able to use it(I was able to with my old computer, but with this new one I'm using, it glitches things up) I'm not against it, but I'm saying, I can't use it, so I would possibly be breaking the rules about "Non-Sonic related comments" which, I wouldn't LIKE to do, but I would anyway because I've got a glitch. Would that be a problem? Pinkolol16, I love Sonic...I'm a Proud Sonic Fan 09:34, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Wow, it seems the community is overwhelmingly in favour of this, with one nay vote and a couple of people remaining neutral. Great, I will implement this straight away! -- Supermorff 09:43, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
And the stipulations for those who can't or won't use the chat? Or is this more or less Oasis all over again?--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 09:49, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Well, nobody can't use the chat. You won't and that's your choice. You could use the General forums. But the comparison to Oasis doesn't really hold since this has general community support, and Oasis didn't. -- Supermorff 09:53, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
I realize that. But will those who can't use the chat (such as not using Oasis or via technical difficulties) be likewise forbidden from making blogs not directly related to Sonic?--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 09:55, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, because we have no way of knowing who uses Oasis or not other than their word, which would render the entire exercise pointless. -- Supermorff 09:56, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what happens when a Monobook user goes to Special:Chat? -- Supermorff 09:57, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
If you want to know someone with technical difficulties, look at me, I can't use the chat, because of a glitch. I'm now doomed to be banned on the site forever very soon. Pinkolol16, I love Sonic...I'm a Proud Sonic Fan 09:59, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Blank. Absolutely, totally blank. Like a totally plank page that doesn't even have a title.--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 10:00, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Kagi> Huh, weird.
Pinkolol> Not sure what you're talking about, because you clearly joined the chat, said "Hello?" and then left the chat again. I can see it on my screen. -- Supermorff 10:03, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
No not wierd, because it can only be used with Oasis. Hence why I said some sort of middle ground should be reached. It's not fair to the people who use Monobook to restrict socializing blogs.--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 10:05, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Pinkolol> I suggest you use Special:Contact and speak to Wikia staff about that. It may be a known glitch they can help with.
Kagi> If you want a workaround, you could try switching to Oasis, opening chat, then switching back to monobook. See if chat works then. -- Supermorff 10:10, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful that will work Morff. Wikia certainly wouldn't let anyone use such a feature w/o Oasis being active. Why can't a compromise be reached to allow people to continue to make blogs to some degree? I mean, it works just fine on SFW. They have both blogs and the chat with no problem.--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 10:12, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
The weird thing is, is that when I used my old computer(with the blue task bar format) It worked fine. But I got a new computer not too long ago which 1. gives me spelling mistakes sometimes(be warned) and 2. has a different format(strange task bar with programs initally on it) and the chat doesn't work. I've contacted wikia, but I doubt they'll be able to do anything about it. And I'll be doomed forever(and I'm not using Monobook). Pinkolol16, I love Sonic...I'm a Proud Sonic Fan 10:21, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Kagi, I have just gone into chat and switched the skin to monobook in the other window. Chat continues to work fine while I edit in monobook (as I am doing right now on this page). -- Supermorff 10:24, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Alright. And moving away from the chat and back?--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 10:26, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
I keep them both open in different windows, so it thinks chat is in Oasis and everything else monobook. If you leave chat, then you won't be able to see what other people are saying anyway. -- Supermorff 10:30, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Alright. But not everyone should be forced to use the chat. How about this for a stipulation instead: nothing that is not related to Sonic or related to the User who makes the blog?--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 10:32, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Open a new discussion if you like, to amend the policy. I think this forum has run its course and you'll probably get more people interested in a newer forum post. -- Supermorff 10:34, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
I realize it's extreme and hardly anyone will be pleased with this, but the whole reason the chat was enabled was "reputation". Well now with Users running rampant and even cursing on the chat, the chat itself is becoming a big black eye on the very reputation it's supposed to protect.--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 00:24, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
Kagi, did you actually use the chat yourself? -- Supermorff 07:42, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
No, but there are plenty of statements telling me that the chat has serious issues. Morff, whenever I explained my reason for disabling the chat, NO-ONE denied or disagreed with the fact that trolling had occured. No-one's denying or disagreeing with what's been said. The point of the matter is that the chat needs work. But unfortunately no-one did anything about promoting chatmods or making policies for the chat, and the chat was just being left as-is. If SNN's reputation is so important, then we can't do that. Especially since new Users who don't know any of the wiki's rules or even contribute to the site use the chat.--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 16:51, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
So instead of either promoting a chatmod or suggesting some policies on a site discussion forum, or even just using the chat yourself one time, you turned the feature off? -- Supermorff 17:02, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
Morff, I did suggest policies. I suggested them here, where I made all of the issues with the chat abbundantly clear. The problem Morff is that the wiki is very relaxed: if you don't give the members a good reason to do something, they won't. So now if people want the chat back, they have to adress the problems with the chat first. Now to specifically adress what you brought up:
1) I don't know who uses the chat nor who uses it well and with respect to the rules. And I never would: everyone behaves when they know an admin(s) is on the chat. But that is far too rare.
2) I tried suggesting policies on my blog, and I tried the forum before: only a total of..... 4-6 people actually talked about it.
3) Using the chat myself would get me nothing in terms of information about the chat, as said in explanation 1.
I tried telling people something needed to be done Morff, I honestly did. I waited a week for someone to actually do something about it. But nothing happened, and problems on the chat were just continuing. But no-one did a single thing. Hell, read this! As I said, no-one denied what I said, and some don't seem to even care about the chat being disabled.--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 17:16, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind its being disabled. As I said, in a perfect world I wouldn't have turned it on at all. I'm just surprised at the way you went about it. The reason we have site discussions in the first place is because blogs don't work as a means of establishing community consensus on anything. My recommendation whenever anyone complained to me about chat (it happened about twice) was to copy and paste the relevant chat text onto my talk page. It never happened. -- Supermorff 17:50, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
Believe you me Morff, if I thought it would work I would have done it. The wiki's just too relaxed when it comes to this type of stuff. And actually Morff, I know for a fact blogs can be used for community consensus: other wikis I frequent do just that.--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 18:04, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
Bet you they're smaller than this one. -- Supermorff 18:35, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Is our sister wiki SFW smaller than us?--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 06:49, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
Kag, just because one our affiliates uses blogs to establish community consensus on various matters doesn't mean we have to do the same as well. I don't see the necessity in it at all, because one might think that using ideas and policies that actually work in the site's favor would be the goal of everyone who actually cares about SNN itself. While having a stable, civil community is important, so is accomplishing the very purpose of this Wiki: To create a respectable database for the Sonic series. What good is using blogs, which in our case spawn like ants and mosquitos in the summer, if it does nothing to help SNN's image, especially since we have other options which we can impliment that could establish community consensus just as well (if not better) as any blogs would be able to?
Ok listen. This was my idea if anyone cared to listen to it (Bullet, Mewcat, and a couple others did). What if we had monitors that aren't necessarily admins have the job of monitoring? Users that SNN admins know quite well and have known them here for some time and can trust? They would take turns monitoring or something. If there's no monitor users on, the chat has to be turned off. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(Recent finds and updates.) 13:45, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
Ironically, I was pretty much doing just that before the chat was disabled: watching how people behaved on the chat AND the main Wiki so I could determine possible canidates for Chat Mods (pretty sure I said this a couple times to 58, at least). I was basically thinking that waiting about 2 weeks to a month to determine who may have been the best canidates would've been the best course of action during the intitial stages of the recent change, but sadly I (nor anyone else for that matter) will not be able to do so as long as the chat is disabled and we make yet another compromise...
Not a mind-reader Gen: no-one said anything, so I had absolutely no idea that anything was being done to fix issues on the chat. So that left me to assume the issue had just been allowed to die w/o anything being done to fix the problem. And honestly Gen, two weeks is much too long, especially with how people apparently have been on the chat. We need firm, no-nonsense policies and decent chat mods not in two months, not in two weeks, but now. Otherwise the chat will just become a sore spot for the wiki. It's already attracting Users who do absolute s**t on the wiki itself. Take User:SonicKiddo for example: terrible grammar befitting that of a 10-year-old, and his first three edits on the site were comments on a blog complaining about the chat being disabled. Do we want to attract MORE people like that?--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 20:11, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
So let me get this straight... you're telling me that we should be worried about people who complain about the chat feature being disabled, when they clearly have no right to anyway because they not only never do a thing to help out with the main Wiki... but also because these people (including SonicKiddo) are virtually complete strangers to other Users who actually do something to help out and hardly ever/never use the chat? Oh, and so waiting a BARE MINIMUM of 2 weeks to determine who're the best canidates for a position that can be considered by many to be RIGHT BELOW ADMINISTRATOR LEVEL (the latter usually having to wait several MONTHS before a decision is made) isn't good enough for you? Apparently giving a position like Chat Mod status much sooner than even normal Rollback nominations isn't good enough for you? You keep preaching the importance of finding trustworthy Users to be good chat mods, yet you don't want to play by the rules for nominating/choosing appropriate canidates, all because the chat itself is just such a huge inconvinience to you. Just choosing random people whom we THINK we can trust is also risky, because what if they abuse their powers the first chance they get to before we have adequete time to determine their character? What if, were the chat left on for a few more days, that people we THOUGHT we could trust srat displaying uncivil and rash behavior when there are no Admins present on the chat? We can't just choose to pick a handful of people, who may not even have the time to do such a task, without knowing for sure if they'd be good canidates, because that would be very risky.
If people come here to use our chat feature and ONLY our chat feature, then IDT they should have their say-sos listened to in anything that goes on around here, because they're not really participating on the actual Wiki itself and interacting with people here or even doing any edits. These Users can complain all they want, but with all due respect, IDT they have the right to. It'd be like listening to IPs coming on here to vote for some random change and THEIR votes get counted, just because they're participating in a discussion relating to the change, then they never show up again and we end up destroying the validity of our trusted members' opinions in favor of the people who up and leave after doing ONE THING. Would doing something like that help us at all? Or even listening to people who whine about the chat but never contribute? No, it wouldn't, we'd just be showing everyone across the Internet that we can't think for ourselves and trust people whom we've known much longer.
However, since I know that you don't really like people giving you long response (even IF they're required), I'll give you a short version of what I just said So we should be listening to strangers who never do ANYTHING on the main Wiki? And you think that we should bend the rules for how we promote Users into higher ranks just because what goes on the chat is being too great an inconvinience to you to actually wait? I really don't understand your logic when you imply that we should worry about Users whom none of us even know or barely know, and pretty much place the priorty of our own well-known Users below these total strangers, because I think it would just make us look like idiots who don't know what they're doing.
Even MORE simple response: I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.
Kag, you gotta understand that the kid is only 10 or 11 (one of the two). Although at that age I was editing a lot and actually created the majority of the Sonic Riders articles, I still can't believe I did all that. For an 11 year old, she just wants to be social and make friends on this wiki. But then at the same time, I completely agree with you. This user has got to at least edit some stuff, or post helpful blogs or something. And as far as we know, she hasn't been doing that. As of right now, I'm sort of on both sides of the argument here. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(Recent finds and updates.) 21:07, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
@Gen: Whoa, lots of text! Let me have some time to read that before I respond, okay? It also seems I've pissed you off somehow, so I think a cooldown is in need.
To be perfectly honest, I'll admit that I'm starting to get a little frustrated with you, which is why I'm typing a lot more stuff because I feel you're not getting the main point of what me, Supermorff, and 58 are trying to tell you. Writing in more detail and all that. Trying something different because it feels what was being done before didn't seem to be working. You can think of my emotional state all you like, because I honestly don't care. I'm merely trying to get a word in like any civilized human being would, and if I feel that I need to try harder to get my word in then I'll do so.
(after reading) .....Wait WHAT?? Okay Gen you got me totally twisted around on what I meant. SonicKiddo is merely an example of the type of people the chat is attracting: people who do nothing on the wiki, and are only here for the chat. I was making a point of that by saying how SonicKiddo's only contribution came after disabling the chat to complain about disabling the chat. THAT is what I meant. I don't think we should consider the votes and comments about people like that AT ALL (I apologize for that misconception), and I don't know HOW I gave off that message.
The reason I was saying we need to pick chat mods quickly is because it's clear some people are not pleased about the chat being turned off. The sooner we find decent people to run the chat and the sooner we figure out some decent policies, the sooner the chat can be enabled again w/o going out of control. THAT is what I meant.
Again, I apologize for any misconceptions I may have given off. And Gen: I really don't like long responses because I get overwhelmed by having to read so much stuff. It's just the person I am.--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 21:22, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
Very well, then I apologize for misreading you. And I think you should know me well enough to know that I tend to talk big if I feel the need to, Kag. Heck, that was pretty much the reason why I made that comment on how you dislike long messages, even though I felt the need to make one anyway.
I'm going to simply say that I don't think that we need to use blogs to establish community consensus when we can use other methods to do so, and can work just as well if not better. I just disagree with your arguments so far, and I'm going to stand by what I think until you make arguments which I can actually agree with wholeheartedly.
I agree with you Kag. Long replies are overwhelming (haha). As for the chat mods, I'll be one, if you think I could be one. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(Recent finds and updates.) 21:37, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
If you guys are worried about new guys coming in for the chat, here is a suggestion. Make say 5-10 more chat mods. And establish the rule that only users with say 25 edits can join. Remember, if you ban someone you can unban them. This is something they do on the Pokemon wiki. -- Splashthe OtterCE 12:15, September 16, 2011 (UTC)
That's a nice little idea. But how about like 50 edits instead? And we have to know that they're not just blog comments. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(Recent finds and updates.) 13:27, September 16, 2011 (UTC)
It's a pretty bad idea if you ask me. Chat mod is not a joke. It's second to adminship. 25 edits are usless, like we need 3000. And we don't need that many chat mods, 2 would even be enough.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 14:04, September 16, 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, true, true, 58. I'll be a chat mod, if you guys trust me. Mewcat said she'd be one too, and I trust her. I think she could do it. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(Recent finds and updates.) 14:20, September 16, 2011 (UTC)
Query: Is there a way of only allowing people with a certain number of edits to access the chat, or would chatmods have to actually ban people with too few edits? -- Supermorff 16:39, September 16, 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Well why not they have a warning? Two let's say. If they still don't listen after two warnings, then they will be banned. Of course, now that you point that out, the idea sounds a little weak to me. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(Recent finds and updates.) 19:39, September 16, 2011 (UTC)
I say we get some mods picked out, and get this chat up so people will stop complaining. -- Splashthe OtterCE 00:30, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
Well your the admin, so you should choose them. But if you want my opinion, I'd say Metal Shadow, WK, and (not to toot my own horn) me. We were the ones on the chat the most. -- Splashthe OtterCE 01:41, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
No offense to anyone, but in my honest opinion I don't think MetalShadow and WK are the best choices for chat mods. As for you, I think you might be a possible good canidate since I haven't really seen any immature behavior from you or heard any complaints about you. But I'm going to see what the other Admins have to say before I make a final judgement.
How many times do I have to say I'll be one. The users are listening to me and think I should be one (not to brag or anything), but the admins never reply when I say I'll be one. But seriously, we need to get the chat back up again. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(Recent finds and updates.) 02:09, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Rainbow, I forgot about you. You would make a good candidate. But if Metal and WK won't be good ones, then I have no idea. -- Splashthe OtterCE 02:13, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I apologize. I've been in a bad mood today considering I just woke up and something wasn't right, and then I got in some good amount of trouble at school for something I feel wasn't even my fault, so I just don't feel very good right now. I'm changing it.
I'm not sure that's an improvement vis-à-vis the vulgarity, but I appreciate the apology. -- Supermorff 16:30, September 23, 2011 (UTC)
I'm Pretty sure we should reactivate the chat feature now, It was closed because there wasn't enough "chat mods", but the users are getting tired of not being able to talk about non-sonic things as a group, so we should consider reactivating this feature. --Bullet Francisco(talk)Contributions Editcount
Rainbowroad6w– Your face. TALK– 18:10, October 4, 2011 (UTC) EDIT time 02:01, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
I agree. EDIT: We seriously need to get this chat thing back up. I'm now not the only one looking for Chat Mod powers, and they'll come useless to every user with the power until the chat is enabled again.
Either we wait until we have a sufficient number of chat mods promoted, then enable the chat when it can be easily maintained. Or, we let the chat run wild once again with people cursing uncensored, not following the rules, and even Users who don't contribute to the wiki in the first place signing up to the chat. Would you prefer waiting and being able to deal with the chat after, or have the chat now and be totally unable to keep it from making a mess?--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 04:57, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
I'm gonna vote for "have chat now and deal with it". Chat cannot make a mess, since it's not persistent. Besides, if somebody has a problem, they should copy the relevant text to an admin's talk page. I told any number of people to do that and nobody ever did. Also, while you'll probably argue that my mere presence on the chat was enough to discourage cursing and "not following the rules" (what rules are those, by the way?), but on the days that I was on chat for the entire day (even when I wasn't active), I saw nothing worse than riffing and some minor teasing. We'll never be able to stop non-contributing users from signing up, not matter how many chat mods we have. Finally, point of order: we can't promote chat mods until chat is activated, so your condition can never be fulfilled. -- Supermorff 06:21, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
We can at least have them picked out. And yes Morff, the present of a known admin and 'crat is going to keep people from causing trouble. And pardon me, but your whole reason for wanting the chat activated was so people couldn't b**** about non-Sonic blogs being forbidden in order to get people to contribute. So users who don't use the wiki period but rather chat sort of goes against that, doesn't it?--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 18:19, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
I love the chat features and we need one! ~Sonicfan
It's a good thing we have some chat mods being nominated here. -- Splashthe OtterCE 18:26, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
"Honestly, that's their problem." Indeed, but their gonna get so pissed off at the fact they can't talk about anything non-Sonic related, they'll go bananas. And I know admins aren't gonna want to ban every user from the site, because that's obviously ridiculous. And I've been given chat mod powers. But because others have just recently nominated themselves for the rank, it may take another 9 days before it's up again. Ugh.
Let's look at the facts. Lately, many users have been using blogs to talk about non-Sonic subjects. This was getting out of control. There were literally about 50 blogs made daily, most of them non-Sonic related. I know you've heard this, but I'll say it again for you: This is not a social website, like Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter. On a Wiki, everyone is supposed to work together to add in every possible information on the main subject. The main subject of this Wiki is Sonic, not MLP, or other related parties. Yes, this is a communtiy, and people should feel free to socialize here, but not if you're not contributing to the Wiki. That is what everyone has to understand. Believe me, I am completely understand what you're saying, but it can't be helped. Things have to change for the SNN.
Rainbow, ugh-ing about the modship nominations isn't necessary. We need the mods to get the chat on the road, otherwise we'll have chaos. -- Splashthe OtterCE 19:21, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
When we get a few more chat mods. I'm one, I think you're gonna be one, Free, Knowall is about to be one any hour now, and MetalShadow's getting his in 3 days. So yeah, probably minimum time until the chat's back up is 3 or 4 days. Not too bad.
Why not have me a mod?
wkmeads1 @Let's Play International! 00:59, October 15, 2011 (UTC)
I mean is...you don't have to do that right away. When I get a laptop, I will be coming on chats. So I will let you know when I have my laptop.
wkmeads1 @Let's Play International! 01:09, October 15, 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure it does? Unless you requested it? It comes seperately.
Admin comes with chat mod. I'm an admin on Pokemon Wiki, and i came with chat mod there. Admins also have the ability to turn on chat, so I'm pretty sure it comes with chat mod rights, and admins have the ability to give users chat mod status. --Bullet Francisco(talk)Contributions Editcount 21:20, October 15, 2011 (UTC)
Well, all I'm trying to say is admin comes with chat mod. Thats why all the admins immediately had chat mod. Admins can also give out chat mod, not just bureaucrats. --Bullet Francisco(talk)Contributions Editcount 21:42, October 15, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know you can. But Kag was the one who turned it off and has been sort of the reason we're stuck here with no chat, and Supermorff is practically the head of the site, being the only completely active one that's got crat rights.