The "Overlord's" Take On The Revolution, page 2

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Thanks, Bill...

I'm looking forward to seeing the edited version with all the good bits... At the official start time of 6:30 pm in NYC it was already 12:30 a.m. (ie Nov 6th) here. Naturally I logged on for it before then, but after waiting until 2 a.m. for someone to start the official presentation and having spent two hours watching people chatting and drinking, I went to bed and apparently missed it by a few minutes.

So, thanks for letting us know why there was such a long lead-in and that it was basically outside of your control.

There were several of us members commenting on the Nov 5th ("dollnean") thread, basically just chatting and posting one-liner responses, because we couldn't access the chat room as they were maxed out. Most frustrating, when we had other members posting "Come join us in chat. It's a blast!" A limit of 20 in a chat room is really insufficient for events like this. Could lesser-used chat rooms have their capacity linked somehow to make one larger "room"?

Some members also complained about the 200-post minimum requirement to access the chat rooms and that might be worth reconsidering. Perhaps have a lower post limit for members who have received "applause" a few times? (If the system holds such data and it can be used in auto-assessment -- the way it holds data on total posts.) Surely if a member has made (say) only 50 posts but has been applauded a few times they have indicated their worth as contributors.

If anyone thinks I'm sour-graping about this, I have over 200 posts. I'm just offering some perspectives to perhaps make such criteria more reflective of ATS/member values and less bureaucratic-style inflexible and arbitrary. Yes, any changes would still be arbitrary (because all rules/TOS on any site are arbitrary by definition) but at least by recognizing that the number of posts alone is not the only criteria for assessing a members' contributive "worth" (for chat room participation), this site would be placing itself a cut above the rest in that respect. You have already demonstrated this understanding by giving applause/awarding points on a scaled, content-value-oriented basis and by the excellent moderating standards of the threads, so it seems to me that extending this thinking to chat room access is a natural evolutionary step.

I am aware that the 200-post limit was imposed because new or low-participation members were getting in and basically trolling. Okay, that was fine as a quick fix but there is no reason why the criteria cannot be reviewed.

It's good to see the direction that ATS/TAN is going. Congratulations on the continuing evolution!

Mike

[edit on 7-11-2007 by JustMike]