Lonelygirl15

deagol wrote:

TOSG wrote:

truncatedslinky wrote:Yeah, and what about people on the comment boards? We're not allowed to chat at all, right?

Grrrr....

Hmm? I don't see where this is coming from. An IRC channel would be open to all, just like the current chatroom.

I think it was in reference to joygasm's unfortunate "forum members with high rankings should only be allowed to participate."

Ah, gotcha. I don't think that many of us share her opinion on that subject, though.

PS I was jokin about Joygasms comment...


jus tto let everyone know:

to get on the IRC chats go to Java.freenode.com

there are many lg15 chat rooms, here are a few:
#Hymnofone
#outofgame
#lonelygirl15
and
#maddison

Joygasm...could you perhaps clarify your statement concerning "seniority" and participation ion the chats?

I think it may have sounded quite elitist and confused/upset some; even those who have many many posts and months and months of participation.

============================================

and Ms. Raigne (if that is your REAL name!)

Taig, your posts are filled with malicious sarcasm and ad hominem attacks. If you see nothing wrong with them, why do you feel they might be deleted? The other posters in this thread have given their ideas a lot of thought and deserve as much respect as anyone else, whether you agree with them or not.

I think it is just the cutest thing ever that girls are studying logic or perhaps even philosophy in high school these days. Ok Ok, maybe it's even an Intro to Persuasive writing class at a local Community college.

I am a little confused by your deeming me as being maliciously sarcastic and then using the concept of "argumentum ad hominem" in the very same sentence. I don't know, maybe I was sleeping in class that day.

And as for the idea that people give their posts a lot of thought I can only shake my head in despair!

ok....I'm done

I'm going to scrunch this thoroughly charming thread on over to the Concerns and Complaints area where it appears to belong.

It probably oughtta be merged into the Poor Chat Client discussion there...but then again, I'm certain it would be bound to lose whatever semblance of...uh...semblance it might have claim to...

Taig wrote:I think it is just the cutest thing ever that girls are studying logic or perhaps even philosophy in high school these days. Ok Ok, maybe it's even an Intro to Persuasive writing class at a local Community college.

I am a little confused by your deeming me as being maliciously sarcastic and then using the concept of "argumentum ad hominem" in the very same sentence. I don't know, maybe I was sleeping in class that day.

Nice use of ad hominem tu quoque.

deagol wrote:I say only "suspiciously absent" posters can participate in IC chats. Everyone would create a new account and then the creators might be able to negotiate better ad rates based on inflated registered users.

<3

Okay people can we not be fighting with each other. If we just bicker amongst ourselves, we're never going to get anything accomplished. The fact is something has to be done about the LG chat. Can we please rally around a common cause and we can all go kicking sand in each others faces after we actually accomplish our goal.

plzkthx

Skunkwaffle wrote:Okay people can we not be fighting with each other. If we just bicker amongst ourselves, we're never going to get anything accomplished. The fact is something has to be done about the LG chat. Can we please rally around a common cause and we can all go kicking sand in each others faces after we actually accomplish our goal.

plzkthx

I agree.

Creators - can you at least acknowledge there's an issue here and that you are thinking about the chat issues? I myself don't expect an immediate resolution. But I would love to see you guys be able to do a chat they draws 600+ people like back in November.

milowent wrote:Creators - can you at least acknowledge there's an issue here and that you are thinking about the chat issues? I myself don't expect an immediate resolution. But I would love to see you guys be able to do a chat they draws 600+ people like back in November.

I believe Greg did acknowledge that chat issues while he was in chat the other day. If memory serves he then had to reconnect. During his absence is when I asked BK if they had a license. If they do have a license and are committed to the chat for a certain time period I would think it would be better supported. I think he also mentioned having one part time programmer when I thought they had 2.

immortal1 wrote: I believe Greg did acknowledge that chat issues while he was in chat the other day. If memory serves he then had to reconnect.

Ziola wrote:

immortal1 wrote: I believe Greg did acknowledge that chat issues while he was in chat the other day. If memory serves he then had to reconnect.

good one. for the record though, greg didn't address the problems with the chat client, as least not in the log i read. people were actually posting things like "this person can't get in here, but wanted me to ask you this question relayed to me via IRC: the chat clients sucks balls please help us marginalized fans!" that's a paraphrase. greg, like a good lawyer, was deft to avoid any direct answers.

BK acknowledged that problems do exist with the chat.

milowent wrote:BK acknowledged that problems do exist with the chat.

Sure. No one can deny that it doesn't work perfectly. There's all sorts of little bugs (audio stays on, people can't re-log in, etc.), not to mention the issue of people getting dropped or not able to get in. (Although I haven't had that problem.)

However, I like the chat. I like what it should do. If it functioned properly, I'd be happy with it...

Broken Kid wrote:

milowent wrote:BK acknowledged that problems do exist with the chat.

Sure. No one can deny that it doesn't work perfectly. There's all sorts of little bugs (audio stays on, people can't re-log in, etc.), not to mention the issue of people getting dropped or not able to get in. (Although I haven't had that problem.)

However, I like the chat. I like what it should do. If it functioned properly, I'd be happy with it...

these aren't little bugs though. that's like saying "i like my car. I like what it should do, i.e., go. if it ran, i'd be happy with it. There's all sorts of little bugs. brake pedal sticks, doors lock and people can't get in. not to mention the issue of people getting ejected out the sunroof at high speeds. but other than that, its great

raigne: touche toots!

I'm done.

For the record "I was just f'ing with you Ted"*

BTW I like your avatar too





=======================================
*Somehting About Mary

milowent wrote:

Broken Kid wrote:Sure. No one can deny that it doesn't work perfectly. There's all sorts of little bugs (audio stays on, people can't re-log in, etc.), not to mention the issue of people getting dropped or not able to get in. (Although I haven't had that problem.)

However, I like the chat. I like what it should do. If it functioned properly, I'd be happy with it...

these aren't little bugs though. that's like saying "i like my car. I like what it should do, i.e., go. if it ran, i'd be happy with it. There's all sorts of little bugs. brake pedal sticks, doors lock and people can't get in. not to mention the issue of people getting ejected out the sunroof at high speeds. but other than that, its great

Well, realistically, some of them are little. Sometimes audio stays on even if you click it off. You close the window and come back in. Not a big deal. The issue with a large number of users or users not being able to get in - that's a big issue, agreed.