I was wondering if there's a way for us to only be able to occupy one chat room at a time?

It's a bit frustrating and confusing to be sitting in a room and watching the stylus move on one of the avatars (signaling that they are typing something to say) waiting for them to finish only to have it not even be posted in the room I'm currently occupying/participating in but being posted in another room they're simultaneously occupying/participating in.

For instance I was in the Coffeehouse Saturday night and Bi-Polar chat was occurring at the same time ... A poster in Bi-Polar chat was chatting there, but the pencil was moving in the Coffeehouse as if they were going to post in the Coffeehouse, so I sit there waiting patiently for them to finish and post so I won't be rudely interrupting whatever it is they have to say to only have them not even post their text in the Coffeehouse but in Bi-Polar instead.

I guess I could simply ignore the fact that they aren't actually participating in the room I'm in, but it takes a while to figure that out, so I'd like to know is if there's a way for when we leave one room to go to another that it automatically removes us as occupying/participating in that room we've just left and places us in the room we're actually occupying/participating in instead of the one we're not?

Thanks,
Pfrog!

[KarenSue]

I find the same thing disconcerting myself at times, Pfrog.

I would think if a member is not in a room, they could place themselves on "away" maybe, and hope that stops the green arrow from showing up.

I agree it can be disruptive to the flow of a chat room if the member is not there, while we are politely pausing for a post b/c we see the green arrow...

I like the green arrow, however, when the member is in the same chat room.

[Gus1234U]

it can be very discouraging to have someone just sit in all the open rooms and read or be elsewhere and come back and forth. i vote to limit occupancy to one room at a time.

[seesaw]

I disagree with this. I enjoy being in multiple rooms at once and carrying on a variety of conversations. I don't think we should be penalized either if we are sitting in a room and listening to the conversation but maybe don't have anything to add to it at the time or to say that if we aren't actively participating that we shouldn't be in the room. I think this is a minor annoyance that you all are complaining of. Also, mods need to be able to occupy multiple rooms at once so they can monitor conversations if necessary. And if you are chat host opening a room, and you want to go into another room to announce it is open, the room might close if you have to leave it to go into another room to announce that the room is now open.

If I'm in the Coffeehouse and someone asks to go to ES, I don't think I should have to leave my conversation in the Coffeehouse to go to ES to give someone support. I should be able to be in both rooms.

Again, I think what you are mentioning is a minor annoyance and to change it would change the nature of chat fundamentally.

Seesaw

[seesaw]

By the way, that green arrow means pretty much nothing. I have seen it going over my avatar when I haven't typed anything in ten minutes. So your problem is likely less with people being in multiple rooms and more with the inaccuracy of the green arrow, which I would recommend you just ignore.

Seesaw

[thom2297]

I agree with seesaw. I enjoy the ability to be in multiple rooms at once and participating in multiple conversations. The green arrow also activates when someone is typing in PM.

[KarenSue]

I suppose some people whose names show in multiple rooms at the same time may just like as many others to see their names listed as possible? Maybe they are waiting for someone? There could be any number of reasons. I don't know. If it makes them feel good, and they can be helpful to others in multiple rooms at the same time, I say go for it.

My problem is when the member in a single room thinks others are there and speak to them, then receive no reply because the member is unknowingly occupied elsewhere in another room. It can lead to a member feeling ignored or shunned and that is not what this site's mission is (nor what we want it to be). I'd hate for someone to erroneously feel that way, which can happen if a person is not aware that a member listed as present really isn't.

And those of us who are in need of having a complete conversation should PM or engage in the room with someone who is stationery in just that room. I know that is up to each individual member to decide for themselves.

I see your point, seesaw. But some members do not have the same abilities to participate in multiple rooms. (I know I'd make no sense to anyone if I tried that, nor could I keep up!).

But I disagree that the OP and 2 replies constitute "that you all are complaining". I think it is appropriate for a member to be able to state a personal opinion without being labeled a complainer here.

Sorry this thread upset you, though I'm not sure why it did, dear.

[seesaw]

Karen,

I'm not upset. I'm not sure why you are reading that I was upset. Just because someone disagrees does not mean they are upset. I used the word "complain" to describe a "complaint" that was being made. It's unfortunate this word triggers you; but that is your issue, not mine. I did not say that complaints couldn't or shouldn't be made. I did not say "you all are complaining." I said the "minor annoyance which you are all complaining of" which is very different than what you have decided to interpret. Pfrog started a thread about a COMPLAINT he has regarding people being in multiple rooms at one time. I disagree with the complaint, so I stated so. Nowhere did I label anyone a "complainer." You are putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting what I said.

Regarding members who cannot be in multiple rooms at one time: so we should limit what others can do because someone else is not capable of it? That does not make sense to me.

I think your point about people not getting responded to and feeling badly is moot as well. People are just as likely to get no response from a room that has five people in it, that are not occupied anywhere else, as they are from people who are occupied elsewhere. I've been in the Coffeehouse before and no one is in other rooms, and no one is saying anything in the Coffeehouse, it's completely silent. This happens all the time.

The main complaint here, that I read, is that people see the green arrow moving and think someone is getting ready to say something. My advice is to ignore the green arrow because it is unreliable. That is a lot simpler than taking away chat features and inhibiting other people's abilities to engage in chat.

Seesaw

[KarenSue]

Seesaw, sorry if my interpretation of your post was incorrect. You just seemed upset to me. I could post quotes you made, etc. but I don't play that game.

Again, I'm sorry for misinterpreting your post.

[KarenSue]

I would like my statement of "but I don't play games" to read, "I don't engage in that type of behavior" as i think my first sentence could be interpreted as rude upon re-reading. That was not my intention.

Originally Posted by seesaw

By the way, that green arrow means pretty much nothing. I have seen it going over my avatar when I haven't typed anything in ten minutes. So your problem is likely less with people being in multiple rooms and more with the inaccuracy of the green arrow, which I would recommend you just ignore.

Seesaw

I agree with this
Especially since the green pencil doesnt show up in mobile chat, so you may think that someone isnt responding to you in mobile, when they actually are

To me, the little green pencil shouldnt be used to rely on to see when someone is writing because it is often wrong anyway

[DocJohn]

I agree, there are some technical things in chat that don't quite work the way the developers intended. But they've stopped development on it, so there's no way to fix them either, unfortunately.

I would just not read anything into the green arrow, as it is not at all like the ... when you're texting someone. It doesn't work in the way intended. Sorry.