MetaChat - Dodgy,

It's not about you, ortho, but a lot of people have said they don't like the feeling of users just sitting on the channel and logging everything with no participation...

That's resonable. Inactive users have an hour to hang out and get the feeling of what's going on before being booted, if they just want to come see what it's like before getting involved. (Just to be clear, no one has complained about you. But even I wondered if it was really you, which is why I asked you today what was going on with being on the channel all night.)

posted by taz 09 March | 12:24

I just want to know why I can't un-invisible myself when in there. ROBOBUNNY IS TAUNTING ME!

posted by WolfDaddy 09 March | 12:30

have you tried the -i thing? Is your nickname registered?

posted by taz 09 March | 12:35

I can see both sides on this. I like to idle on the channel now and then, while at the same time I don't like the feeling of non-participants sitting there for the sole purpose of logging everything.

Last night when robobunny booted ortho, ortho's client immediately and automatically logged him back on. I know a lot of IRC clients do this. Makes me think robobunny won't be effective unless it does a temporary ban, which would probably come off as draconian.

It was something like:
* robobunny has kicked orthogonal from #metachat
[.001 second elapses]
* orthogonal has joined #metachat

posted by agropyron 09 March | 12:49

"... a lot of people ... don't like the feeling of users just sitting on the channel and logging everything with no participation."

DING! Yup. That about covers it.

posted by terrapin 09 March | 12:53

Idlers do often effect the dynamics of a channel, even if they're known and liked idlers.

Don't set autojoins and walk away from the keyboard. Join if you're planning on being active, quit if you're not. We shouldn't have to use even timed or temporary kickbans.

posted by loquacious 09 March | 13:01

Dodgy and I had already been discussing doing the robobunny thing and updating the irc faq for a few days, so it was only a coincidence that ortho happened to be on when robobunny took up residence. But, yeah - We don't have operators on the channel all the time, so it just helps to keep an eye on things generally, and a lot of people have said they don't feel comfortable going on the channel when there are people just lurklogging.

I think dodgy has adjusted robobunny for the autojoining.

posted by taz 09 March | 13:11

loquacious, you may or may not know that many channels are populated 24x7 by their core members. I frequent three IRC channels that I basically never leave, and all the other regulars on these channels also idle there continuously.

Clearly #metachat isn't like that, and the expectation here is that if you're on the channel you're at least somewhat active. Not all channels work this way, and it's completely understandable if someone new comes around with the expectation that they can idle.

posted by agropyron 09 March | 13:15

sitting on the channel and logging everything with no participation

Let me REITERATE. You do not need to be IN a channel to LOG a channel. I've said this only about twelve times, so I guess it bears repeating. If someone really wants to know what you're doing on IRC, they will know. It's not a secure network, not even remotely. You can initiate a DCC chat if you want some privacy, but don't expect it sitting in an IRC channel. This is just a placebo, to make everyone "feel" better. And it's all the worse because a placebo normally cures a psychosomatism. This is just aiding it.

And you know what? Sometimes shit happens, or I forget IRC is open. As agro says, most IRC channels are 24-7. The same way I leave my AIM online even when I'm in the kitchen, most people leave their IRC up for messages, file transfers, yes, logging, and just generally to make things look less empty and more welcoming. After all, robobunny is not "at" a keyboard. It's a bot, doing exactly the things you claim you don't want users doing. Idling in the channel, doing nothing, contributing nothing. I'll stop short of calling it hypocrisy, but only just. When (#)metachat becomes autocratic, the purpose (as far as I saw it when I joined) of metachat is defeated. If that's the road you want to go down, enjoy your hell of paranoia, unnecessary rules, and false comfort.

posted by Eideteker 09 March | 13:24

Until mIRC works for me, I have to use the SlashNet page. When I see a whole lot of people in the bar on the right, that's what makes me open up another tab with the SlashNet page so I can hop on and join in the conversation.

If there were people sitting around idle and not doing anything, I'd be talking to myself. And that would be very, very sad.

And even when mIRC starts to work for me again, I'd still rather talk to people than talk to their idle selves.

posted by TrishaLynn 09 March | 13:28

The easy cure to this, of course, is to write a script that auto-chats a single sentence every 59 minutes or so. It's so easily circumventable that it would make your imaginary invaders laugh. In fact, it makes me laugh with the futility of it all.

I understand your point, Trish, about idlers, but some people sit idle on IRC hoping someone will show up. I may be scrubbing my tub at the moment, but when I hear activity, I can come join you on IRC. If I'm not there to get you to join, who will ever join? Right now someone has to be the first one in the channel, and maybe they'll make a FPP post that they're on IRC. But they've still go to idle until other people join up.

Idling is not the problem. No one really cares about idling. What people care about is people they don't like or don't know making them uncomfortable on IRC. Making a big deal about it and getting all uncomfortable is not the way to foil those who would want to make you uncomfortable. In fact, you could argue that that's what they want you to do. Then, there's also the point that you're not that interesting. No one is logging #metachat because no one cares about #metachat. There may be an occasional influx or even incursion, but pretty soon they get bored and move along. Unless, of course, you demonstrate that your buttons are so eminently pushable.

posted by Eideteker 09 March | 13:37

He whose buttons are pushed the most is the one who makes the longest comments.

posted by matildaben 09 March | 13:38

I guess it depends - if you want a regularly active channel? Then you'll need to allow idlers. There's a high chance there *will* be an awake operator on if there's a problem (as long as you set enough ops and you distribute them over the time zones). If you only want the channel to be active at announced times, then, well. It gets pretty loud in there when everyone piles in at once for three hours then goes away again, though, and you can't just sit and talk to one or two people and have a pleasant convo, get to know other.

It *is* pretty common practice on IRC to let (known channel denizen) people idle. It's also pretty common practice to be wary of idlers that don't participate or that no one can vouch for. If there's enough people that hang out and keep watch, you can mitigate trouble before it starts. Like agropyron - I sit in two channels 24/7. If someone starts talking, the tab on my client lights up; if someone says my name, it beeps; so if I'm off doing something else I can come back to it and say hi. One channel I'm in regularly has 10 to 20 people sitting in it, maybe most of them will be idling at low points of the day, but it's hardly ever quiet once you start talking.

Eideteker is right - IRC's not secure like that. I feel you're sacrificing the chance to have another ongoing hangout spot for your members over this. Also, personally, I don't dig bots. =)

posted by Melinika 09 March | 13:39

Eideteker: due to the nature of #metachat (a lot of people who don't usually IRC, and a sidebar that indicates when there's someone on the channel), I think it's probably a good practice to avoid idling there for hours, even if we're used to that in other channels. For the same reason, I don't like seeing some unfamiliar name on the sidebar 24x7 for an entire week.

So I don't really oppose robobunny, but I think people should understand where the idlers are coming from, and not get too upset if one of us regulars idles from time to time.

Also: should robobunny be +i?

posted by agropyron 09 March | 13:41

How exactly do you log a channel without joining it?

posted by agropyron 09 March | 13:46

Melinika: Wonderful comment. No just because you agree with me, but because you did it without my added hostility.

posted by Eideteker 09 March | 13:53

Melinika's comment is good, but I think that what is different about #metachat is that it is an extension of Metachat.org, not so much an extension of IRC. People use the sidebar on the front page, or IRC-related FPP's, to know when there is a "get-together" going on on the channel, and join in based on that. It's more an episodic channel than an "ongoing" channel. And when people show up that obviously didn't get there from the front page, it sometimes feels a little squidgy. Idlers we know get cut a lot more slack than idlers we've never heard of before.

posted by matildaben 09 March | 14:00

My take is this: I like to leave CNN on. If I need to concentrate, I'll turn down the TV.

But if something interesting comes on, I can catch it.

Same with IRC. I lurk twenty-four/seven in #rockbox. Usually I idle. If the developer who is working on what I want to learn more about unlurks, and appears talkative, I shoot him my questions.

Same with #metachat (until robobunny). I'd leave it open, so I'd see when people showed up. If I also felt like chatting, I could just start chatting.

But with the time-limits and the kicks, I can't do that. The upshot, is, it's not so simple to chat if I'm in the mood for it and people are in the channel.

I understand people are afraid of unknown lurkers, but I think I'm a known quantity. Make #metachat registration only if you must, but please see if you can keep it so that people can stay logged in to the channel. It's just not nearly so useful the way it is now.

posted by orthogonality 09 March | 14:02

Alright, let me explain some of my thinking behind this.

On the one hand we have the lurkers. They don't like getting bounced out for lurking and argue that they're not doing any harm, they're not being offensive and logging doesn't matter cos irc isn't secure anyway.

This is all true and I can see their side of it.

On the other hand we have the people who don't lurk. They complain that lurkers rarely contribute, rarely respond when called, rarely justify their existence in the channel, rarely do anything but lurk. They feel that lurkers aren't rude, but then they're not polite either.

I can also completely understand that point of view too.

So now we have a quandry - two perfectly understandable points of view.

Ultimately though, if I have to choose a side - and I feel I do - then it has to be the side of people who use irc to chat.

posted by dodgygeezer 09 March | 14:07

Sorry ortho, I missed you on preview.

To answer your points I'd simply say that while some channels may work the way you'd like others don't. #metachat now falls into the latter camp.

Please don't take it personally.

posted by dodgygeezer 09 March | 14:11

I vote FOR idling, for the record. I like the convention of changing one's nick to indicating idling (for example, "afk_eamondaly"), but I'd rather a bunch of idlers hanging out than no one at all in the channel. At least with idlers there's a chance that they'll be back in a moment or will wake up once a conversation gains some traction.

In my mind, the question is this: would you rather very pretty but very empty room or a very messy room full of zombies? I choose zombies, 'cause with zombies, you never know what you're gonna get.

posted by eamondaly 09 March | 14:18

Melinika's comment is good, but I think that what is different about #metachat is that it is an extension of Metachat.org, not so much an extension of IRC. People use the sidebar on the front page, or IRC-related FPP's, to know when there is a "get-together" going on on the channel, and join in based on that. It's more an episodic channel than an "ongoing" channel. And when people show up that obviously didn't get there from the front page, it sometimes feels a little squidgy. Idlers we know get cut a lot more slack than idlers we've never heard of before.

This is a summary of everything that's wrong with MetaChat as a whole. Mudpuppie made an excellent comment at one point about how a MetaChat orgy would involve endless voting, paperwork, and committees. Like the photo Friday thing. Hanging out should not be rigidly organized. It should be loose and casual, or it loses the fun of spontaneity.

I'd like to hit metachat in the mid-morning or early afternoon, because personally, I prefer talking to one or two people, even if they happen to be on another continent and thus home from work already. But IRC is going to naturally be less populated at those hours. I can post an FPP and wait an hour for someone to show up, but maybe they will. Whereas at night, someone will likely join after only 15 minutes of idling. And then everyone will join at once from the east coast, then the west coast, then everyone leaves at the same time. It's like being told when to wipe your ass.

ON PREVIEW: Eamon is absolutely correct. Your nick should reflect your idleness. And if you're /away, you don't show up on the front page. It's a non-issue, really.

posted by Eideteker 09 March | 14:21

Here's a wacky idea: if you're idle for 15 minutes and you haven't changed your nick to the "afk" prefix, you get booted. If you've changed your nick to "afk" and are still idle for, say, 120 minutes, you get booted. Then nobody's happy, which is the mark of a good compromise to me.

posted by eamondaly 09 March | 14:22

Idling isn't lurking, though - they're two different things. A lurker doesn't contribute, and most channels are wary of them for that. But you could argue an idler is more committed to a channel than most, by making themselves that much more available: by hanging out constantly, they keep the channel active.

It seems the pull is between the channel being used for the occasional cocktail party, and you have people that would like it if the cocktail party is a comfy neighborhood coffeehouse in its downtime. And I'm just saying, that's a sign of a healthy community wanting even *more* opportunity to bond, why would you want to discourage that? =)

posted by Melinika 09 March | 14:23

On the other hand we have the people who don't lurk. They complain that lurkers rarely contribute, rarely respond when called, rarely justify their existence in the channel, rarely do anything but lurk. They feel that lurkers aren't rude, but then they're not polite either.

Just a guess here, but I'd suspect that the majority of metachatters are people who, at a real life party, spend a good proportion of the time at the edge of the crowd nursing a drink and not saying much (or even burrowing under the pile of everyone's coats to hide out for a bit).

Channel idlers like me just want to do the same virtually. It's kinda nice to get the semi-companionship of seeing everyone else, without feeling a requirement to "contribute" or to "justify my existence" or to come up with witty repartee at all times.

Sometimes, I just want to stand in the corner and sip my drink; if a topic comes up that I think I have something to contribute to, then I can do so.

But if you ban idling, I won't ever be there when those topics come up.

A while back, before metachat existed, I tried out #tapes. It sucked, basically because the channel ops were nasty and dictatorial. That's not happened in #metachat and I don't think it will, but with the banning and kicking and so forth, #metachat just isn't as friendly a place anymore.

It used to be a bohemian coffeehouse were you could just hang and sip your coffee. Now it's more like a Waffle House a waitress coming around to glare and ask if you're planning to buy another coffee or leave.

posted by orthogonality 09 March | 14:24

Having some kind of afk_ recognition sounds like a potential point for compromise, maybe...?

posted by matildaben 09 March | 14:24

I tend to idle occasionally, mostly out of forgetfulness, though -- usuually when I do log on I fully intend to participate, I just get busy with something else meantimes.

There's a basic issue here whereby a commons finds a minor need for enforcement, but to have the enforcement of that minor item needs, well, enforcers and rules and suddenly that commons is no longer just a pleasant bit of grass but a Park with signs saying Do Not X, Y, or Z. That bugs some people. Not necessarily me, here, I'm just sayin'.

posted by stilicho 09 March | 14:26

To answer your points I'd simply say that while some channels may work the way you'd like others don't. #metachat now falls into the latter camp.

How do I put this correctly?

Dodgy, metachat's your baby, you and taz provide the code and the hosting, and I suppose that means what you decide, we abide.

But I won't prevaricate: having you state so unilaterally that "#metachat now falls into the latter camp", without asking for input from those of use who don't foot the bill but do make up the community, rankles.

Again, your site, your rules. But it rankles, because I thought the whole point of metachat was to be less rigid.

posted by orthogonality 09 March | 14:32

Please read this before commenting further

I just want to clarify this so people aren't quite so confused:
Idle for one hour and you get kicked. You'll only get banned if you autorejoin (otherwise being kicked is pointless - right?).

So, if you're away from your keyboard no harm has been done.

posted by dodgygeezer 09 March | 14:35

This is a summary of everything that's wrong with MetaChat as a whole. Mudpuppie made an excellent comment at one point about how a MetaChat orgy would involve endless voting, paperwork, and committees.

Um, I did make that comment jokingly once, but I'm on dodgy's non-lurker side here, and I don't want the above to be misconstrued otherwise. Please don't use my previous comments to make your argument, Eideteker. Not cool. Thanks.

(Will say more after I have had coffee, if I feel like it.)

posted by mudpuppie 09 March | 14:39

Having some kind of afk_ recognition sounds like a potential point for compromise, maybe...?

Poor Dodgy. "HERE YOU DO THE WORK BECAUSE OF MY INSECURITY." The problem you're trying to solve is illusory. But you fail to acknowledge that.

This is just a case of a very few vocal users making things more complicated and less fun for the crowd at large. I'd venture that less than 20% of MetaChat actually care about this, and among those that do, at least half are because they're being told to feel that way by the other half who are largely unfamiliar with IRC. I really think this is unfair to dodgy and unfair to the rest of the users. But mostly unfair to dodgy, because he is stuck in the middle of it.

I haven't seen anyone from #tapes in awhile, at least not persistently. As the exception, PP comes around, but only because some people respond to his bait. Then again, some of us have actually tried and succeeded in holding conversations with him. But I think nuisances, if they exist, should be held on an individual basis.

I know I'm probably making a pretty strong case for myself to be banned here (because hey, ban one, ban two, it's a slippery slope), but I feel strongly about MetaChat in general. I've met a lot of really cool people here, but I only stick around for the laid-back atmosphere. Those would would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither, and all that. (and yes, I know there is a sizeable contingent who'd like to see the door hit me in the ass on the way out, but I'm not really about giving people satisfaction, either.)

posted by Eideteker 09 March | 14:46

I hope people will try to restrain themselves from becoming too dramatic. Everyone can just discuss their points in the normal way. I know it's the internet, and we're talking about IRC, omg... But let's not start biting one another.

posted by taz 09 March | 14:51

I have a few cents to throw in here.

I think the majority of Metachatters, and especially the majority of people who hang out in IRC regularly, are a group of folks who genuinely enjoy each other's company. With that as (I think) the primary, if unstated, goal of the website and the channel, there is an over-riding, if unstated (until now) goal to keep it as friendly and welcoming as possible.

The elephant in the room is that there have been occasions when "mischievous" assholes (I'm being charitable here), for whatever ill-conceived reason, have tried to fuck with the harmony of the place. Those of us most dedicated to it -- and by "most dedicated," I mean those of us losers who have really come to feel that #metachat is a surrogate family -- necessarily want to protect against that kind of thing.

The idling -- stealing away to watch a movie or cook dinner or whatever -- isn't a big deal to me, and I suspect it's okay with lots of others too.

The unknown quantity who spends 2 or 4 or 24 hours in #metachat without saying anything is a big deal.

We're a bit wary of strangers, yes, but that's based on past experiences. If strangers talk to us and let us get to know them and get comfortable with them (which often takes about 3 minutes), it's all groovy. And the next time they're back, they're welcomed heartily. I really believe this. I've seen it.

But you sit in the room for hours on end without saying anything, and we no one has any idea who the hell you are? That's trouble. And it's happened -- recently.

Look, lots of #metachat conversations are patently silly, but lots of them are serious discussions about bad and painful shit going on in people's lives, with the sole purpose of seeking/providing support from a community of friends.

The asshole who comes in from wherever, just to log that conversation and post it on some other website in order to laugh at us soft-headed bunny freaks? That's the person I assume dodgy is trying to protect us from.

And I, for one, am all fucking for it.

posted by mudpuppie 09 March | 14:56

This is a summary of everything that's wrong with MetaChat as a whole.

"everything wrong with MetaChat" is a reference to a null value.

posted by agropyron 09 March | 15:00

My IRC experience was with a somewhat already established channel on DalNet called #subcafe. Since it was an established channel, I got used to seeing people on it at certain times of day and I knew when the channel would fill up.

The way I see #metachat right now is that it's not a regularly established channel because most of us aren't huge IRC regulars and enjoy watching and doing things away from the computer. Yes, it does take someone to "seed" the channel and I totally see Eide's point on that.

On preview: That's totally how I feel about it, taz. Thanks for speaking for me.

posted by TrishaLynn 09 March | 15:08

Sorry, sometimes unreason demands to be met with unreason. Especially when reason and cooler heads have failed. There's no need for any of this, but there's also no need to be insulting. I realize "YOU'RE BEING IDIOTS" is not the clearest way to make one's point, so I've probably sabotaged the entire side of helpful idlers. For that, I'm sorry.

If you're offended, I'm sorry.

But my point still stands.

mudpuppie: What you have to say is perfectly understandable. No one should have to worry about their safety among friends. But you're still missing the point that this is Internet Relay Chat, which is an insecure protocol. If someone wants to log you, they will. You can either accept that, and laugh it off on that rare case that someone's dirty laundry gets aired on the web. But please please please if you take one thing from this thread (aside from the fact that I am a complete asshole, but you knew that already) know that anything you post on IRC is just as insecure as if you had posted it on a website. So you can take the chance of being logged, or you can set up a secure network just for metachatters. Everything else going on in this thread: lurkers vs. idlers, liberty vs. security, fun vs. rules; is spurious to that essential dilemma.

I repeat, because I'm still assuming some people don't understand me (and please don't think I'm condescending; I don't think any of you are dumb, and it's not your fault if you're not a computer nerd).

Your choices:
1. Accept that your IRC conversations are floating in the ether.
2. Set up a secure network only for metachatters (probably on an invite only basis; no one will be able to wander or stumble in)

Those are the only two options being debated here.

Thanks for putting up with my less-than-eloquence.

posted by Eideteker 09 March | 15:08

Eideteker, how exactly do you log a channel without joining it? I didn't think that was easy.

posted by agropyron 09 March | 15:12

Also, while we're on the topic: Should a few more people be made chanops?

posted by agropyron 09 March | 15:17

Yes, what taz said. Points are getting lost in tone. It's not necessary and it's not helpful.

Why isn't kicking/banning someone no one knows, that no one can vouch for, that no one's seen before, and that doesn't participate, with a fair warning or two, not an option? Genuinely curious. That's usually how I've seen it handled, rather than not allowing anyone to idle because a few people have idled or lurked with malicious intent. It's not quite the friendliest way to handle things, no, but I'd much rather make the new person a little uncomfortable than have the regulars uncomfortable. (If you have people around all the time, "seeding" the channel if you will, they will be able to spot suspicious activity more quickly.)

Also, /away makes you not show on the MetaChat sidebar? That seems like a viable compromise. You'd only see the people actively talking, and one could set one's client to mark "/away" within a few minutes of not talking. People that are away are faded out in my client (XChat) so it's easy to see who's active and who isn't currently. I've seen similar features in other clients.

posted by Melinika 09 March | 15:24

I guess I don't understand why, if you're away from your keyboard for over an hour, you'd really care whether or not you get booted. When I used to hang out at #mefi a few years ago, sometimes I'd inadvertently leave my client open all night after I went to bed, and through the next day while I was at work. When I turned my monitor on after getting home, I'd realize I'd been logged on for close to 24 hours without participation. My first instinct was to apologize, not that there was anyone to apologize to. It wouldn't have bothered me in the least to have been booted sometime during the night while I was sleeping. Once I was back at my desk, and wanted to join the conversation again, all I'd have to do was to make a mouseclick or two. Doesn't seem that onerous to me.

posted by deadcowdan 09 March | 15:37

Just a vote for idling, even though I don't do it intentionally. This is normal IRC behavior.

posted by knave 09 March | 15:38

Channel idlers like me just want to do the same virtually. It's kinda nice to get the semi-companionship of seeing everyone else, without feeling a requirement to "contribute" or to "justify my existence" or to come up with witty repartee at all times.

That's exactly the counterpoint I made last night as we were poking at you (you=ortho) while you were idling last night.

There is an entirely valid and bunny-fluffy argument that people can indeed take comfort from the "chatter" that results from logs. Perhaps they don't have the time/schedule to participate and interact realtime, but looking at a backscroll or log can fill that gap.

Like Eideteker has painstakingly pointed out, IRC isn't secure. I generally try not to say anything on any IRC channel I wouldn't say in person or on a public webpage. But then, I'll fuckin' say anything, so I'm not the best test case.

My only motivation for supporting the no-idlers policy is that dodgy and mudpuppie want it - and I can understand the arguments of people being shy to talk freely around idlers, so I'll support it. I don't really care either way.

In general, I think it's unworkable if we want to preserve the "all-for-one-and-one-for-all" and "neither master nor slave" feeling that #metachat has. There's no real way to have both at once.

As for additional chanops, we could use more. Despite Eideteker's self-deprecation and supposed loathing, he'd make a good chanop. He knows IRC, has shown strong moral backbone, etc.

While you're at it feel free to set my chanop status level to 100, so I can actually unban people from the channel when it happens. It's happened once or twice before accidentally. I should be at status level 50 now, which is just less then dodgygeezer as channel owner/operator. Though, I'm not sure if you can set more than one person to level 100 with slashnet's chanserv.

posted by loquacious 09 March | 15:42

Yeah, hopefully this will basically become a nonissue. The main reason for the robobunny thing is because we really aren't on the channel a lot... Dodgy and I especially aren't on much. It may be that it gets much busier, and we have more ops, and it all becomes redundant-redundant.

posted by taz 09 March | 15:46

On having more chanops: One of the thing we used to do in the old room was to have a bot that gave chanops to "recognized" names (as well as kicking, etc.). Like I see mudpuppie in the room all the time, and I don't think people here would mind if the pup got an automatic @ whenever she (OMG, I totally forgot if the pup was male or female!) logged in. I'm not sure how the bot was programmed to do that, but more tech-savvy people than me can figure that out.

posted by TrishaLynn 09 March | 16:10

TrishaLynn, the IRC server we use has that functionality built in. mudpuppy is a chanop, and thus gets an @ when she logs on. Also matildaben, loquacious, dodgy, and taz.

posted by agropyron 09 March | 16:19

Yeah, ops are automagically handled by the channel server (chanserv) based on registered nicknames via the nickname server (nickserv).

I believe quonsar is/was an op, as well. Again, I vote for Eideteker as a new chanop.

posted by loquacious 09 March | 16:23

I think I was banninated by robobunny.

posted by sciurus 09 March | 16:28

I have it! Set up a #mechaIRC-idler channel, and then we can all be happy.

posted by Skrik 09 March | 16:29

ROBOBUNNY WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

≡ Click to see image ≡

posted by mudpuppie 09 March | 16:34

Grant me clemency, CyborgLepus!

posted by sciurus 09 March | 16:38

I see mudpuppie in the room all the time

Fine, fine, we all know I don't have a life.

posted by mudpuppie 09 March | 16:41

mudpuppie: You know I didn't mean it like that!

posted by TrishaLynn 09 March | 16:49

Thanks, loq.

posted by Eideteker 09 March | 17:10

sorry scirius - some of the flod settings still need working on. try again now

posted by dodgygeezer 09 March | 17:10

yay!

posted by sciurus 09 March | 17:35

As I privately let taz know, things have been a bit ug for me lately. Being able to hang on in chat and see some familair names alleviated that a bit.

posted by orthogonality 09 March | 17:37

Wait a minute, this page isn't gray. I almost thought I was on MeTa for a while there.

I just think it's a matter of being courteous. I don't care about being logged or people just listening and jumping in when they feel like it. I do other things all the time when I'm on irc. But when people are on without having any reasonable expectation of contributing to the discussion or even being at the computer, it bothers me a little. Like someone said earlier, it's not exactly rude, but it doesn't really seem to be in the spirit of the community we have here.

I have nothing personal against ortho or anyone else who wants to idle, nor do I even have a grudge against anyone here, it just doesn't seem all that beneficial to do it.

posted by kyleg 09 March | 17:44

I'm going to stop visiting chat. It's been fun, it isn't fun anymore.

Thanks to everyone, and I hope metachat continues to be fun for you.

posted by orthogonality 09 March | 19:06

I hate every single one of you derelict, filthy gutfuckers and I hope that each of you is raped by the thorny, flaming cosmic suncock of Ba'al forever and ever. You should all be filled with angry bees.

On preview: Ack! Ortho, err... is there anything I can do to make it no longer not-fun? I'm 100% certain that the whole point of this wasn't to drive you off or anything.

posted by loquacious 09 March | 19:17

As a long time resident of #mefi, continued bastard resident of #tapes (soon come the revolution, comrades), and occasional friendly visitor to #metachat, I tend to agree with ortho.

I would visit #metachat more often, and appear less of a "stranger", if it was a continuous channel. As it is, it feel like a part time channel. I can't just log in there any hour of the day or night and expect to find someone there, so I don't bother. Letting people lurk, making the channel constantly active, would be a positive step, I feel.

On top of that, as I understand it, Metachat.org is the "official" friendly chat site of Metafilter presumably open for all Metafilter members to come and post. #metachat is the "official" IRC channel of Metachat.org. My my logic, surely anyone who logs in with a recognizable, or searchable, Metafilter user name shouldn't be considered a stranger, or a threat, right?

posted by Jimbob 09 March | 21:24

Ortho, I for one hope you'll still come around.

posted by agropyron 10 March | 01:20

So is it bad form to irc without pants?

posted by arse_hat 10 March | 01:29

so, there's a bot, and it's kicking people who are idle, and banning them on rejoin? and it's there because idlers made some chatn00bz feel "ucky"?

dodge and taz, listen carefully: yer fuckin' it up.

posted by quonsar 11 March | 07:27

09 March 2006