Taceas said:
I'll admit this guy's attitude IS something else, but I do have one slight point to make.
While trying not to dredge something back up, but do y'all remember that now infamous chat thread a few weeks ago?
Sure. For those of you keeping score at home,
here's the link.
About how a frustrated few asked for help because they were sick of being made to feel obligated to "help" people from Fauna about every little thing that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic the Cornsnakers were talking about at the time.
I don't think that's a correct assessment. First of all, the impetus for that thread was
Rich's reaction and response to those who emailed him with issues about people (generally, from Fauna) coming into chat with topics and questions not having to do with cornsnakes.
If you were made to feel "
obligated"
to be helpful and civil in chat, that's on you.
Nobody here is obligated to respond, whether it be chat or on the forums here. Shoot, it's even easier to
not respond here in the forums.
But Rich had asked in the aforementioned thread that
we improve on the civility in chat, or he'll pull the plug. FWIW, that's my assessment of that thread.
I mean, seriously, who goes to a Cornsnake chat room to get real help on sallymeanders?
Perhaps the same people who post (in General Chit-Chat, as is within the rules established by the owner of this site) photos of sallymanders, lizards, arachnids, and tropical fish in
www.cornsnakes.com ?
At least this guy is on topic, cut him some slack.
The topic being, as I see it, his distaste for getting links in response to questions that he has asked, as evidenced in
this thread and
this thread.
In other words the "topic" here, not being directly related to cornsnakes, is a "meta-discussion". A discussion about how threads/topics are discussed. That's where I see the
only simliarity with the chat "meta-discussion" thread you referenced.
I seem to remember the general concensus was, "next time, play nice and answer their assinine questions". Am I right?
Bzzzt. Thanks for playing, here's a home version of our game.
First of all, I don't think that there
was a general concensus in that thread, since
nothing was generally agreed upon. There is no chat charter, so to speak. A number of people have stated to me "hey, I see your point, but I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do in chat". So be it. That's personal liberty at work. My only response was, and still is, that I only hope it doesn't cause the loss of a privilege Rich has given us.
And just as here in the forums, nobody is obligated to respond in chat. You can respond, move to another room, not respond, or put the person on ignore.
And yet, to see a couple of those same people here in this thread telling this person how rude and wrong he is, how he's supposed to fit in with us, not vice versa, or heck just to point fingers and make fun. I ask you: What's the difference? The _CS in the name?
Wow, is this a softball. The difference is
obvious; chat takes place in real time, and thus, at a much faster pace than any forum. The expectations of "netiquette" are higher in forums and newsgroups than in chat. I have commonly joked about "Chat Tourette's"; you'll never see me mention that concept in a forum, since you can reply at any time. Matter of fact, one is practically
expected to write a more thoughtful response in a forum or newsgroup than they are in chat.
If you tried to reply "at your leisure" in chat, you could
- lose context,
- get ribbed for being "slow",
- confuse readers,
- all of the above.
An analogy: If you're in a car in town, and you're caught behind a blue-haired old lady driving 10 mph where the speed limit is 25 mph, your reaction will be far different than if that lady is doing the same speed on the track at Daytona and you're driving at 200 mph.
Also, there is the "form" versus "content" to consider. If you whine and stamp your feet, and/or demand action, you're less likely to get a civil response, or
be granted any credibility. As to this thread, I think Dean addressed this rather graciously:
Roy Munson said:
I don't know what you expected this thread to accomplish, but I'll bet that the result is that most who read it will be unlikely to reply to your questions at all in the future.
Galen did as well:
gwb8568 said:
BUT, if you would have said something to the effect of: "thanks for all the replies and links guys and gals, i check them out and still had one more question that either i couldn't find a definite answer on or all the answers were conflicting with one another".........i gaurantee you would have not received this response.
So yep, I replied in a smartarse fashion here in the forums. It's a response I've done here often to those who
demand a response be formatted to their liking. It's a response that CAV practically trademarked. It's a response designed to get a chuckle, not convey information. Most people understand this.
And it's a response you apparently dont mind, as you stated in the "chat" thread:
Taceas said:
If you can act like an adult and not demand we do anything for you, or act like a dick...you're going to be accepted....
So yeah, there
is a difference. The venue, and more importantly, the
expectations, given the venue.
Am I surpised at all of this? Nah, not really. It's all about the do as I say, not as I do....or so I've been told.
Given the above, I think I'm quite consistent - but that's for others to decide.
Just some food for thought.
:cheers:
Veni, rumini, regurgi.
regards,
jazz
