Aidey, can we just employ you as our public relations officer on here? ;)
Okay, it's late, but let me try to address some of the points raised here.
the unwanted - would you like to explain in more detail what you (and others, it seems) don't like about the changes in chat?
Over the last couple of weeks and months people complained about the setup of chat, and from the feedback the moderators received, the general consensus seemed to be that a) we don't need as many rooms and b) the names are confusing.
There is a thread, right in this forum, as a sticky, explaining what the different rooms are for. The names weren't new; they had been taken over from our old chat. The explanations were what we thought was clear... and yet people did not heed any of that. Clearly, a change was needed, and as I mentioned above that was the impression we got from members.
I haven't had much time to be in chat today, but whenever I was in there, at most two rooms were occupied - as has been the case lately whenever I was in. That doesn't make it a universal truth, of course. But it does suggest to me that four rooms should still suffice.
As far as private conversations are concerned, Aidey already pointed out the "private chat" function. Have you tried that? It works just the same as two people being alone in a chatroom, and it actually more private.
"a small handful of people within the room will dominate" - yes, it happens, and lately it has quite often happened that general talk took away attention from support in mixed rooms. This way, things are much clearer than before, I think.
Seriously - it's only been one day. Nearly every change chat has gone through was hated at first. It wasn't so long ago that what you now call the "old" chat was met with disapproval and everyone wanted the old system back. At least try this new way before condemning it - that's all we ask. ;)
|