CDB-Man wrote:
Offkorn wrote:
CDB-Man wrote:
Not sure if youever were an IRC person, but if you're willing, we would much appreciate having you around on #anidb @ IRC to help us go through a lot of the tag issues that need good solutions; even if you're only a ghost and online intermittently. There are just some things better discussed live (ie via chat) than static (ie via creq or forum).
Hmm yes, because having discussions in an off-site chat room where it's impossible to participate in discussions you're not online for and which does not keep independent/searchable records of said discussions is clearly the most effective way to handle site policy decisions.
At one point in history, you were offered to IRC, and you declined, multiple times. If you do not see the value of instant chat with respect to discussion of complex issues, you must either be quite the poor communicator, or quite the stubborn person. It goes without saying that anything discussed live is ultimately documented on the site, either publicly on the Wiki, or internally on staff-only forums. If you fail to see that, you are either selectively ignorant, or trolling. In camera (latin, lit. "in a chamber", meaning in private; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_camera) sessions exist in real life for a reason.
@CDB -- hmmm, you're asking a dog that ain't growing any younger to learn a relatively simple trick. Let's see if I can do it
@Offkorn -- you might argue that at least that way, a conversation between two people won't get hijacked by a third party, eh? But seriously, would you want to outlaw hallway conversation and cubicle aisle discussions at work? What would take 10 emails can be done with one call and what would take 10 calls can get done with a couple of minutes of face-to-face time. Back here, you'd fall back on creq exchanges/forum posts if you can't get folks online but that would be the preference. Put another way, if I want to make laws, I need to drag my arse to parliament, not the other way round.
Calling IRC "parliament" might be stretching it, though
CDB-Man on 19.03.2018 13:49 1q5529
Hmm yes, because having discussions in an off-site chat room where it's impossible to participate in discussions you're not online for and which does not keep independent/searchable records of said discussions is clearly the most effective way to handle site policy decisions.
At one point in history, you were offered to IRC, and you declined, multiple times. If you do not see the value of instant chat with respect to discussion of complex issues, you must either be quite the poor communicator, or quite the stubborn person. It goes without saying that anything discussed live is ultimately documented on the site, either publicly on the Wiki, or internally on staff-only forums. If you fail to see that, you are either selectively ignorant, or trolling. In camera (latin, lit. "in a chamber", meaning in private; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_camera) sessions exist in real life for a reason.