>>161991
I would like to follow up Moony's request by asking that /chat/ be renamed "The Moony Zone".

But that's what /gala/ is.

>>161993
/gala/ says it is for serial threads of the community. i don't think conversation lounge is at all the same thing. After all, /ooc/ is the "roleplaying lounge."

i understand what you're trying to imply, but i also still think that we can be respectful of /chat/ even while we figure out where it does belong.

>>161994
>figure out where it does belong.
It belongs in a museum.

>>161997
this could well be the case... but i still think we could be fair with the name until the ponies decide on it

>>161994
A thread on /gala/ right now is a thread for conversations.

Each thread has the lounge type atmosphere of being a comfortable place to talk shit between themselves.

/chat/ on the other hand is a place where people talk shit about particular topics as defined by the thread OP's that also excludes all pony related topics.

Hence, "Obligitory off topic board." considering this site is called ponychan.
Chattanooga was added recently due to user request, as i saw a way to fufill that request without obfuscating /chat/'s primary purpose of being the obligatory off topic board for this site.
I also have a very basic sense of humor.

Is the problem that it's changing too much, or that it's not what you want?

Because if it keeps on sneaking back to "obligatory off topic board" I guess then it has a consistent title. If it's changed to "Conversation lounge" for a while than I don't see how that's making it more consistent.

>>162001
tru-werds

>>162001
Sounds to me like the problem is that it's already been changed at least once, but then sneaks back to the old description without anyone's say-so. If you work to change something and succeed, then see that it's right back where it used to be, then it's not consistent and a problem.

>>162001
It's mostly about the inclusion of the world "obligatory."

i don't think /chat/ is "obligatory" and the point was never that it was an "off-topic" board. Off-topic from what?

The description does not at all fit what it is. And now, the title of it is treated like a bit of a joke. i just don't think that is, or has been, fair for /chat/.

>>162007
This is also a problem... in that it has been changed now numerous times, and keeps changing -back- to the title that we had agreed in the past was inappropriate for the board.

And it keeps on doing that!

>>162008
>Off-topic from what?

Off-topic from ponies. It's the non-pony board. It's where people go to talk about things that aren't ponies.

And it's obligatory in the sense that basically literally every site or forum ever has one.

>>162010
If it's a non-pony board, then it should be called that, as it actually, and literally was called until it was changed -again- back to the topic we had previously agreed was improper.

i don't think it is obligatory at all. Obligatory means "required by legal, moral, or other rule"

It's not about being required to be there because of a rule. Necessary? fine. but obligatory sends absolutely the wrong message.

i'm not going to press the issue; this is just a request. But i do hope we can at least consider a change to something more fair to /chat/.

it just isn't "obligatory" and to imply that is precisely obfuscating it

>>162009
I've only changed it the once, to include the chatanooga thing, and i dont remember any threads about changing it, if you can show me a screencap or the thread number i'd be able to look it up.
Otherwise you'll have to take it up with orange or inkwell, as they are the only ones who could previously change it.

>>162011
The only reason that /chat/ still exists alongside /oat/ is that people wanted a place that was entirely separate from pony topics.
The main argument for this group was that every forum had an off-topic section for them to post things in, i didnt and still dont agree with that, but thats a topic for a different thread.

The point is that the name fits /chat/'s purpose of being the obligatory off topic board as dictated by the users of /chat/ themselves.
Unless you're going to try and say that the people who advocated for keeping /chat/ seperate from /oat/ back then were not actually users of /chat/ itself, i fail to see how this isnt fair or how it's obfuscating the purpose of /chat/

>>162016
Whether /chat/ should or should not exist is a separate issue though. This proposition is really just about the undertext. If conversation lounge doesn't work, we should at least remove "obligatory"

it implies that it (/chat/) must exist out of obligation (obligatory), and not on its own merits. Whether you agree or disagree with that is not the issue. What i do hope we can do however is keep opinions in their proper place here, instead of proclaiming them as fact on the top of a board.

its called an obligatory off topic board because websites with a central theme usually have an obligatory space for users to go and hang out and chat about other stuff in the world beyond that. this website has the central theme of ponies, and chat is the obligatory off topic board contained within it

this issue is about as pressing and in possession of merit as that time people got angry about the subcommunity board having the word "sub" in its title

Last edited at Tue, Sep 30th, 2014 16:23

>>162020
you're right, it's not really all that important, or pressing of a matter at all.

but, that said, i do think it is worth looking into. But just like the "sub-community" fiasco of long past, i believe that emotions and feelings are things of great effect, particularly on community management. And the way we phrase things and frame things can have a big psychological impact on the way we see the environment around us!

By framing /chat/ as an obligation, we deprive it a bit of its standalone merit. Not unlike the sub-community fiasco, the feelings of ponies can be greatly impacted by the slightest changes.

i would also cite the pony-show name change! As you recall, the mods at the time all thought "well, we should just change /pony/ to /show/ to better reflect what we want for /pony/" and yet, the backlash was tremendous!

why? it's just a name change, right? But logic is not always the cleanest dictator of what feelings reflect. And i think a good balance of logic, and understanding of real feelings, is very important in handling a community.

What we see as only logical may not be so crystalline for others. This might be a tiiiiiny, itsy-bitsy issue. But, i also think it bears consideration for the above reasons, too. Every little step is important, and every little thing can be relevant. i could've not brought it to the mods, but that's what this is for; we are here to improve the site, and i think this is a good opportunity to balance feelings and logic and come out with a good result, albeit for a minor and near inconsequential topic.

>>162018
>Whether /chat/ should or should not exist is a separate issue though.
Exactly what i said.

>What i do hope we can do however is keep opinions in their proper place here, instead of proclaiming them as fact on the top of a board.
Except "Chat is the obligatory off-topic board" isnt an opinion.
It's a fact decided on by /chat/ users themselves, i'm not entirely sure how else to communicate this to you.

>>162021
>But just like the "sub-community" fiasco

The definition of "sub-community" is a distinct grouping within a community, it may also mean the suburbs of a community, but it's use on site was the aforementioned version.
That fact was obvious unless you already believed the site or the mods are hostile to the users.

>By framing /chat/ as an obligation,
It is not framed as an obligation, it is framed as the off-topic board that is standard for forums or imageboards centered around a specific theme, Ponies in our case.
To be framed as an actual obligation would require number of things depending on people involved.
An obligation for users would require site-wide messages instructing people to use chat.
An obligation for mods would require me, yang or inkwell to frequently instruct mods to patrol /chat/ in particular.

Technically, staff are supposed to patrol the entire site, so in that sense /chat/ is part of our obligation to the site as a whole.

>and yet, the backlash was tremendous!
Mainly because of a fuck-up in communicating the name-change poll, leading people to vote for a joke option and causing the impression that mods didnt give a fuck what users wanted.
The name change itself received mild grumbles and more than a few "Why?" questions.

>And i think a good balance of logic, and understanding of real feelings, is very important in handling a community.
Me too.

Logical: The description is clear and communicates purpose effectively.
Emotional: As of now, exactly one person in this thread cares about changing the description.
Bonus
Personal conclusion of community: They dont care about the description.
Personal outlook: Do not let the personal feelings of myself or others get in the way of things, never let "I dont like thing" effect judgement.
Personal opinion: The description is fine, you are making a mountain out of a molehill of your own design, changing it is pointless.

Alright, i concede that if this change isn't wanted, nor felt warranted, i will not press it further. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss it, too.

i really hope though that /meta/ can be a civil place for discussing things, even things we don't agree on.

>you are making a mountain out of a molehill of your own design

i will be blunt, i don't think this statement is fair. We had a discussion, and if my idea isn't a good one, i can accept this. /meta/ should be a civil place, where we can feel welcome to present and discuss our ideas.

>>162023
To be blunt, i'm not going to take away or even discourage a persons basic right to give their honest opinion on ideas.

If you dont like or disagree with said opinion, well, tough shit, i'm going to express it anyway until inkwell tell's me i cant.

I'm not saying you are "making a mountain out of a molehill of your own design."
I'm saying i believe you are.

>>162024
okay fenny, if you say so.

I have a little request as well.

request

>subtitles of boards matter
>as if noobs on /chat/ wouldn't be able to find out what's to be posted there on their own
Pls.
If people are so curious and shy that they need to figure out what the boards are for but not ask anybody, they can go to the front page.
It's not like "what is this place" threads are cluttering up /chat/, or pretty much any other board on this site.

Does this mean we can get /hi/ back?

i just noticed that the /chat/ title thing did change! ...it's still something silly... but you know, it is an improvement. i know it was an idea tabled in this thread, and that it is pretty trivial... and weirdly controversial, but i still think it is an expression of care.

Thank you, mods, for your listening ear. i know it seems like a small thing, and it might not have had anything to do with the thread, but it is still something i am thankful for. <3

>>162160
>looks
>/chat/stantinople
That doesn't even sound right. Mods wat r u doin

>>162166
It was a lead up to /oat/stanbul, which also doesn't make any sense. Discovering this half way through, I decided to not change /oat/.

Also interesting to note that Fen changed /oat/'s subtitle at the same time he changed /chat/'s, and not a single person has commented on it.

>>162167
/oat/ has enough going on below the titles so people simply don't notice them. :^)

>>162167
Foreshadowing that /oat/ and /chat/ are going to be the same exact place?