Metropol

all new Phil wrote:

WillPS wrote:I think the continued presence (growth even), of a TV Forum subculture beside Metropol has annoyed those behind Metropol. Tell me I'm wrong if you like.

I would hazard a guess that those behind Metropol don't really give a shit.

Then how do you account for the circumstances?

oh it turned out that the majority of the drain on resources / thing causing crashes was actually something else on the server that I won't go into but tbh it *seemed* that the chatroom was the thing that was causing it given the various problems I'd had with it in the past.

Remember you've got a shiny new installation over there. I didn't

I take issue of the manner in which you recollect the interaction between yourselves and those trying to use the chatroom on election night however.

Pete wrote:I take issue of the manner in which you recollect the interaction between yourselves and those trying to use the chatroom on election night however.

So it fucked you off, but wasn't a factor?

WillPS wrote:

Pete wrote:I take issue of the manner in which you recollect the interaction between yourselves and those trying to use the chatroom on election night however.

So it fucked you off, but wasn't a factor?

It didn't help. But I was planning on killing what I thought was the root cause of our stability problems long* before that incident.

*a week is a long time when you're as impulsive as me

Cool - so that explains the catty comments about ChatPS or directed at ChatPS members then. I rest my case.

WillPS wrote:Cool - so that explains the catty comments about ChatPS or directed at ChatPS members then. I rest my case.

What explains what?

Pete wrote:

WillPS wrote:Cool - so that explains the catty comments about ChatPS or directed at ChatPS members then. I rest my case.

What explains what?

Read your last post. It contains information that he is pertaining to. If you can't find it, read it again.

The trouble I'm having when it comes to the ChatPS peoples'* claims is this: How do you separate "being a bit of a weirdo" from "running a rival website" to explain being slagged off? If there's one hallmark of Metro people*, it's being arsey at weirdos. I'm sure you'd agree there shouldn't be some kind of webmaster immunity from that. The other problem is it's all based on the assumption that Metropol people are really bothered by the existence of ChatPS, and killed the chat room out of spite. It's intrinsically really hard to prove the absence of things like that.

Now then, on the the specifics of killing metrochat

According to my recollection (and the logs) the chatroom was treated like ChatPS peoples' own personal playground through the election night. The most egregious bit of this was the constant posting of images that filled the screen (lots of use of http://dvbbrighton.tk/heroes/image.php), and vast levels of bizarre in-jokes. Basically this made it more shit than it needed to be and, whether intended or not, cliquey. My favourite example was DavidLees: "This chatroom is normally much better. All the new people are ruining it.". This kind of thing doesn't exactly produce much goodwill for the next bit.

I discussed killing the chat room with pete for a while, and the reason most certainly was that we thought it was killing the server. For what's it's worth, here's the 7th November adium log:
18:11:23 Sput : something is wrong at the uploader
18:11:33 Pete: i think it's killing the ram
18:11:36 Pete: right just email it please <-- That's an unrelated remark about a file I was trying to transfer
18:11:36 Sput : oh no
18:11:41 Sput : i think it was the chat room
18:11:46 Pete: urgh
18:11:48 Pete: lets kill the chatroom
18:11:53 Pete: maybe that's what keeps crashing the server

Now, did me and pete know this would remove your discussion area? Yes, but here's the crux:
What's the point in having a chat room for occasional use if it's (i) apparently breaking the server the whole time and (ii) haunted by the same 4 people that make it impossible to use for its actual intended purpose? There are probably technical and moderation ways around (ii), but the ChatPS people didn't stop the crap when asked to on election night, and that killed any goodwill that would have led us to bother finding a compromise that would have benefitted ChatPS people - and only ChatPS people - for > 99% of the time.

Maybe it's just a universal law of the internet that you wind up hating the forum that your forum is spun-off from.

Finally, re: that secret forum screenshot comment - I was joking. It's a subtle joke because no-one was laughing, but hopefully it's fairly obvious.

* I'm using "metropollers" and "ChatPS people" for shorthand rather than some kind of allegiance thing.

Sput wrote:The trouble I'm having when it comes to the ChatPS peoples'* claims is this: How do you separate "being a bit of a weirdo" from "running a rival website" to explain being slagged off? If there's one hallmark of Metro people*, it's being arsey at weirdos. I'm sure you'd agree there shouldn't be some kind of webmaster immunity from that. The other problem is it's all based on the assumption that Metropol people are really bothered by the existence of ChatPS, and killed the chat room out of spite. It's intrinsically really hard to prove the absence of things like that.

If Pete/Gavin aren't bothered, then why do they insist on making remarks about 'cliquey' comments? There are no such things (unless you see mention of Gay Byrne or Clive Holland.

There seems to be a great deal of angst from Pete in particular that a group not involving him, leave alone with him as ring-leader has arisen. See Pete's flippant comment about subversion somewhere on TV Home Forum.

Sput wrote:Now then, on the the specifics of killing metrochat

According to my recollection (and the logs) the chatroom was treated like ChatPS peoples' own personal playground through the election night. The most egregious bit of this was the constant posting of images that filled the screen (lots of use of http://dvbbrighton.tk/heroes/image.php), and vast levels of bizarre in-jokes. Basically this made it more shit than it needed to be and, whether intended or not, cliquey. My favourite example was DavidLees: "This chatroom is normally much better. All the new people are ruining it.". This kind of thing doesn't exactly produce much goodwill for the next bit.

I discussed killing the chat room with pete for a while, and the reason most certainly was that we thought it was killing the server. For what's it's worth, here's the 7th November adium log:
18:11:23 Sput : something is wrong at the uploader
18:11:33 Pete: i think it's killing the ram
18:11:36 Pete: right just email it please <-- That's an unrelated remark about a file I was trying to transfer
18:11:36 Sput : oh no
18:11:41 Sput : i think it was the chat room
18:11:46 Pete: urgh
18:11:48 Pete: lets kill the chatroom
18:11:53 Pete: maybe that's what keeps crashing the server

Now, did me and pete know this would remove your discussion area? Yes, but here's the crux:
What's the point in having a chat room for occasional use if it's (i) apparently breaking the server the whole time and (ii) haunted by the same 4 people that make it impossible to use for its actual intended purpose? There are probably technical and moderation ways around (ii), but the ChatPS people didn't stop the crap when asked to on election night, and that killed any goodwill that would have led us to bother finding a compromise that would have benefitted ChatPS people - and only ChatPS people - for > 99% of the time.

Maybe it's just a universal law of the internet that you wind up hating the forum that your forum is spun-off from.

Finally, re: that secret forum screenshot comment - I was joking. It's a subtle joke because no-one was laughing, but hopefully it's fairly obvious.

* I'm using "metropollers" and "ChatPS people" for shorthand rather than some kind of allegiance thing.

You've done little to convince me that my theory isn't true - whatever technical basis there may have been it was at the very least a sub-motive to get rid of it, and as I said it's pretty clear that some elements at Metropol are annoyed that it continues with no input from them (although you're all welcome to join).

I think you're massively overstating the use of that image. From memory, it was used quite a lot in the first hour, and then not much at all after - certainly there was no usage of it when I buggered off at 7 o'clock the next morning. Perhaps if we're talking about good will we should mention that I was asked by Pete to feedback on the chat software before the election night, which I did. Doesn't matter though - I'm not saying Metropol were not within their rights to pull the plug, just the sudden manner in which it was done combined with the attitude toward the continuing group's survival/growth smacks to me of being the behavior of somebody quite bitter.

There's absolutely no resentment toward Metropol from me. None whatsoever - this is why I find the prissy comments directed at ChatPS so annoying. From the outset I've tried to stamp out the notion that we should compete (in terms of forums) with Metropol. I have no interest in that; all I want to see is a publicly available chat room to accompany TV Forum.

Well for a man who bears no ill will, your use of "prissy" and "bitter" reeks a bit.

You've now been shown the actual logs of the conversation and you continue to say it does nothing to convince you. At the risk of giving your paranoia further fuel, I think you really have to get over yourselves.

I have no knowledge of how many people enjoy a bit of casual chittle chottle. I thought there was less than a handful, but you keep shoehorning in that its "growing".

FANTASTIC. The more the merrier for you - and I mean that most sincerely.

I'd really have to have known that your like minded chatters were increasing in number for your theory of jealousy or bitterness to be true, and I didn't. And to the absolute best of my knowledge, neither was Pete nor Sput aware, nor have we discussed it in any casual conversation. It is of no particular interest, sorry.

I've been on the forums and pals with some of these people for 13 years. Any accusations of cliqueyness are so much hot air to me now - I couldn't give a toss who thinks what of the associations I keep, and that extends to who you knock about with. It's so trivial as to be pathetic when thrown as an accusation.

If you don't believe what you've been shown, so be it. I for one am over it. If you are working into your angst that you've been the victim of catty comments or other scurril, er... sorry, maybe you have, but I've been catty about a million people and never really given it any real consideration. Certainly no one is bitter or jealous or gives a fuck. People only want to be involved with what they want to be involved with. I've heard no suggestion that anyone feels they are missing out.

And that's it, really, I don't have much left to say.

Gavin, I have no issue with anybody on here whatsoever - what I take issue with is the way Pete and to a lesser extent yourself seem to single out sig-carrying ChatPS members and accuse them of making 'cliquey' remarks or (worse still) carrying some kind of policy to subvert discussion.

projection, paranoia, bitterness