Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kaleigh Doyle]

Sooo, I've been a bit more active than usual lately in the rp arena, and I've noticed something that may or may not interest you. Specifically, the issue of lurking in character channels. Having been both a channel owner and a participant in channels, I wondered how everyone felt about a channel full of lurkers in an rp channel and what impact (if any) it has. If someone new joins a club or bar, and there are six people there not responding, does that have more of a negative impact than if the channel was empty?

Thoughts!

[BloodBird]

So basically you are asking what we think is better for the 'RP atmosphere' in  IC-channels - empty or half-filled with lurkers.

I think I'd have to go with empty, or only the active ones at that. If there are 5 guys in a channel and onle two of them are even there, it sometiems feels a bit bothersome to engage in what is essentially a conversation between two people. These are usually private - in the way that, no-one else can hear/see them, but with 3 other guys that potentially logg the chat, they have full access to what you have been saying.

Minor issue, after all if you wanted it totally private that's what convos are for.  What's worse is the way these other toons get back to being active and then possibly join the chat. Say your in a 'bar' channel - two of you are having a drink and a chat. The rest of the bar is empty. Then another guy get's on and enters '/me enters bar and looks around' and all that. This is an excuse for your two toons to notice the arrival of this third guy and greet said guy upon arrival. If you arrive and there is one afk guy there, it's more '/me enters and waves to X' followed by a half-hour delay until the other guy returns to go 'oh, hi Y, I didin't notice you/were half asleep/were tripping on my blue pillz, sorry, hor are you?'

Awkward. Now you have to somehow find something that justifies sitting around for hours effectively not doing a thing. Better perhaps, if you don't afk around in IC channels at all, though I can only see this issue with 'bar' locations and such. After all, 'merely' IC intel channels, or public coms channels or whatever isn't that bad - it's just a coms channel after all, not a location of note.

[scagga]

I think lurking can have value in that there is a certain likelihood that they may engage in discourse if contemporary chats pique their interest.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

I think lurking can have value in that there is a certain likelihood that they may engage in discourse if contemporary chats pique their interest.

So purely hypothetical scenario here. You're a channel owner that observes a Lurker for a month who has never contributed but is clearly active in other channels.  Would you hold the same level of optimism for participation?

[Esna Pitoojee]

In general, I follow Scagga's opinion on things here.

I lurk in a bunch of RP channels, all the time I'm on. Why? So I can see if anyone else drops into the channel. I've also noted times when Esna wandered into a channel after long periods of silence, and soon after another "lurker" appeared to strike up a discussion. I would personally hate not being able to know if there's a discussion in a channel, or if there 5 people or 15 people in the channel, etc etc ...

[Shintoko Akahoshi]

Ultimately (and I know I'm being a hypocrite, as I lurk in RP channels as a matter of course) it comes down to people taking the attitude of "I'll lurk, so that I can respond if anything interesting happens".

The result, of course, is a channel filled with people waiting for "someone else" to start something.

[scagga]

I think lurking can have value in that there is a certain likelihood that they may engage in discourse if contemporary chats pique their interest.

So purely hypothetical scenario here. You're a channel owner that observes a Lurker for a month who has never contributed but is clearly active in other channels.  Would you hold the same level of optimism for participation?

The common factor in their lack of participation is your channel.  Is something wrong with your channel?

[Usagi Tsukino]

I could see lurking in a channel like 'The Summit' or another 'chat' channel, but for instance I won't lurk in The Last Gate because to me that's a 'venue'. If I enter that channel, as far as I am concerned, I am entering the bar.

It makes no sense to me to simply idle there, because then you're just an anti-social barfly which kind of defeats the purpose of being in a channel like that. That's not to say if you're idling there waiting for people to show up. I'm talking about the whole 'having 71 chat channels open, but not chatting in any of them' syndrome. 

*FWIW, I am not singling out TLG, just was the first one that came to the top of my mind because it's Usagi's favorite. <3

[Kaleigh Doyle]

I think lurking can have value in that there is a certain likelihood that they may engage in discourse if contemporary chats pique their interest.

So purely hypothetical scenario here. You're a channel owner that observes a Lurker for a month who has never contributed but is clearly active in other channels.  Would you hold the same level of optimism for participation?

The common factor in their lack of participation is your channel.  Is something wrong with your channel?

Does there have to be a problem, and if so, why lurk?

[scagga]

Does there have to be a problem, and if so, why lurk?

What I mean is, if the entity is active in channels, it suggests that there is a factor related to your channel that may engender lurkish behaviour.  For example, if topics of conversation in your channel are boring or irrelevant, the aforementioned entity is not stimulated to engage in discourse.  Longitudinal analysis of what engages the entity in other channels may answer the much begged question - 'what is the heartstring?' 

However, it is also likely that for reasons unknown to you, the entity has an interest in attending there in silence.  You can always prod them, disturb them or engage them in light discourse in private to better understand their behaviour in a manner not out of keeping with the parameters laid down in your assumed character.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

So my question is..if it's boring or irrelevant,  why not engage the channel with something that interests the Lurker instead of just being passive?

[scagga]

So my question is..if it's boring or irrelevant,  why not engage the channel with something that interests the Lurker instead of just being passive?

The same question can be inverted and turned into "why should I exert effort to make this channel more interesting?"

There is nothing to lose if one does nothing, and in the event that somethin interesting does happen, one is a recipient of benefits without investment.  It may be a good thing to do, 'giving' and all, but it reminds me of the saying, "something must be done, but never for the first time."

[Kaleigh Doyle]

Which boils down to my original point... does a Lurker, presumably waiting for something interesting to pass under their nose, serve as a benefit or hindrance to a channel? Does the burden rest solely on the channel owner, or is it a mutual effort?

[Esna Pitoojee]

Oh, it's certainly a mutual effort - Esna will enter bars on his own, waiting for someone else to pop in and start a talk, and very often a "lurker" will pop out of the woodwork to join him. Conversely, when I leave a lurking phase to enter a channel in response to someone else, I imagine much the same is going through their mind.

[Ciarente]

I prefer channels where people can lurk and strike up a conversation if someone else appears active. Most of the channels I've created are pro-lurker. I think that if it's a large venue - a big night club, a shopping centre, a gym, a park -  it's quite plausible there might people a bunch of people there you might or might not see.