Implemented Skype Group [UNOFFICIAL]

Yeah, you got it right.

 

...

 

Actually, you're not speaking in general. The last few suggestions your little group has made constantly imply that you're speaking for KHV, at least for most of us, when I keep seeing more disagreement against you guys than I am seeing support. Please stop assuming you're speaking for the rest of KHV or for however many members of KHV you're speaking for. Honestly, you're speaking for you, and whoever else is in this little group; nobody else.

I don't think that it has anything to do with users forgetting the responsibilities of staff, I think it has to do with users not knowing the responsibilities of staff to begin with. I've moderated on other forums and administrated on one (granted, they were nowhere near as active as KHV), I'm great friends with most of staff and decent friends of others, I've even dated a former staffie. So I like to think that I know a good deal about staff and their responsibilities, but even I, never having been staff on here, don't know the full responsibilities. And honestly, why should I? To better understand where they're coming from? That can't be it, because you are extremely passive-aggressive with any staff that disagrees with you and you're the one suggesting stuff like this.
You were staff here, right? Then you should know the responsibilities better than anyone aside from current staff and yet, from what I see, staff's opinions differ from yours except for a couple.

I can't tell if you want a place where you can speak to staff in any manner you want or if you genuinely do want a place for members to chill out. If it's the former, there's a staff-member relationship to respect. If it's the latter, well, we have the forum itself. If you want to make a chatroom, make it. But KHV is not going to be affiliated with it, for good reason (which you seem to keep ignoring).

 

I agree that they can be unwieldy, but I know for a fact that the staff have their group chats with each other. They just avoid having them with members. The chats I am talking about usually consist of about ten people at the most.

With Skype, the staff are barely available at all in my experience, group chat or no. Again I assume they spend their time in a separate staff conversation instead.

 

I don't think that has anything to do with them being staff. I think it has more to do with them being who they are. I'm not staff and I generally dislike large MSN convos. They move quickly and I can't tell who's talking to who, most of the time. I go to take a piss, I come back, and there's a lot I missed. The only time that I actually stay in them is when I'm drunk and hell, I do a lot of stuff I don't usually do when I am.

On another point, if anybody dislikes certain people in the chat or if anybody is too busy, it's not a big deal. But if it's staff, we suddenly don't have great staff-member relationships? I have a few staffies on my MSN and when I do talk to them, we actually do have nice and casual conversation. Same thing for some staff on here; we have on-site, casual conversation. Granted, it's not often and it's not usually long conversations, but that's just my fault as it is theirs. I'm terrible at replying to VMs and if I don't have an immediate response, I usually don't respond at all.
I can't see what the point of having an official, permanent chat group is because, as history shows, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
Anybody can make their own group and have anybody they want join.

Nobody is saying no to a Skype group because you're free to make one. Staff just isn't putting a KHV banner on it.

This, this, every other post says this^

 

I think there comes a point at which rationalizing the way things are ceases to be sufficient.

The staff mainly talk to fellow staff.

Members mainly talk to fellow members.

Reasons don't matter. This problem exists.

Solve it, please? If not with this suggestion, then make your own. Just stop making up reasons for why it is okay.

 

this is spam I assume but calling people Prick Brigade is hyper-unprofessional and proves their point.

 

Staff wasn't the prick brigade. It's a certain group users here....

Either way, got my words out. Just done. This is stupid and a waste of my time.

 

I'm friends with my coworkers. Sorry if that upsets you. But I talk to plenty of regular users too. My primary reasons for leaving group chats are: I'm busy, I don't like some of the people in them, I don't like group chats.

 

Speaking of people who haven't aged a bit, settle down, but alright, I'll bite.

The problem here isn't that nobody is looking at the "underlying issue with this entire forum." The problem is that your group seems to be the only one who sees it while the rest of us don't see it as a problem.

You know who I'm bashing in my current MSN convo? Your group. You know who else I am in a different convo? A character in a manga. On Facebook, I'm bashing people in the Olympics with someone from KHV. My roommate and I are bashing on coworkers right now. Earlier on MSN? Bashing staff. Sure, maybe staff "bashes" prems and prems "bash" staff, but I really don't think anybody besides you guys is seeing it that exclusionary. When I talk about other people in my convos, I don't talk just about staff. I don't think anyone does, well, except you now.

It's not staff's fault if they reject an invitation from the troublemakers. That's the troublemakers' fault for...making trouble. Why would staff want to associate with those who make their VOLUNTEERED job more stressful?

This site does have a relationship between users and staff. Sometimes it's love, sometimes it's hate, sometimes it's simply friendship, other times, apathy. The problem seems to be that staff isn't measuring up to the standards of your group.

 

This is true. Misty and I have talked a few times

 

Unofficial chat groups can work. They allow people to make new friends, of course. We already have the various existing Skype groups.
The problem, from what I may observe, seems to be the already existing tensions between the members which would boil over as such. Behaviour presented by members on the forum are prone to colouring opinions within external chat rooms I noticed. I adore the idea Rainshine, and it could work namely if people would improve their behaviour and not simply stay civil but stay open minded in regards to various things. Which is possible, but to reach such one must get over the existing tension in the forum.

That being said, in my opinion there should be a shift in communication between groups to communication between individual people. When one continues to group and group in such a strictly serious manner then it almost dehumanizes the individuals part of the group. And I have personally seen the preponderance of existing groups.

But that is my two cents. Let me retrieve my umbrella.

 

Please do not try to pull straw men on me. This does not upset me. I did not place blame. I presented a problem.

The problem exists. You did not deny this. You tried to give a reason like I said not to.

Are you going to keep rationalizing, or acknowledge the problem and try to figure out a way to fix it?

 

I think I'm misreading your post, but assuming I'm not:

I don't think the point is that staff mainly talk to fellow staff and members mainly talk to fellow members. Honestly, I see it as people talk to people they talk with. Friends talk with friends. Coworkers talk with coworkers. This group seems to imply that staff mainly talk to staff and members mainly talk to members when I'm saying that this isn't true just because certain staff don't talk to certain members.

I've suggested it before. You want a friendlier place, a "chill-out" zone? Well, that's what the forum is for; be friendlier here. You want staff to associate with troublemakers? Stop being troublemakers. There are better ways to make points than causing trouble.

Just because she didn't flat out say "I deny this" does not mean she's not denying it. It sounds more like she's not acknowledging the problem because she doesn't see a problem and frankly, neither do I.

 

Do you ever think that you guys are the problem and the reason staff don't want to talk to you, is because you're constantly calling them out on stuff that apparently only applies to your "group."

I've never seen an issue between staff and members, unless the members caused it. Some of you make it out to seem like staff are terrible at their job and just in general, and then you want them to get to know you. I'm not sure how that works.

 

Your suggestion doesn't solve this specific problem, though. The problem, as ShadowJak expressed, is that these two groups know that the other exists and barely associate. The main interaction that the groups have is in threads like this or when a staff member raises their hand. Because the staff are not significantly involved in communicating with members in a casual setting, there is an obvious disconnect between them.

To give a scenario, let's say that someone in a member group makes a thread that they think will amuse the group. The staff group sees the thread and links to the other staff telling them to keep an eye on it. The staff go into said thread and wait for something bad to happen while the guys in the other chat have fun and worry that maybe the staff aren't happy with them.

Then the staff lock the thread and condemn the users who were involved in the whole thing: the member group.

In situations like this, the staff chat and the member chat are directly in opposition to each other, and little to no communication goes down between the two. If the staff were involved in the member chat or vice versa, this division between groups would not happen and people might get a better idea of what is acceptable. On top of that, staff might have a more lighthearted attitude towards things if they can see what leads to them.

Does that make sense?

 

Hi everyone. Um, I guess I just wanted to say a few things. I understand that the Skype convo may not be quite the way to create some sort of unity, but there needs to be more communication on casual terms between staff and members. I wanted a more intimate way for discussions and friendships to grow. It's important for staff to have strong relationships with their co-workers. It's important for members to have strong relationships with each other. But those strong relationships don't exist all across the board. And it probably won't. But there needs to be an effort to come together. I'm very disappointed to see that my thread has only driven people further apart, but it only strengthens the purpose of this thread.

 

The nice version of what I said XD +1'd

 

Interested. Group created yet?

 

This is my favourite post of the thread, so pure <3.