RE: The new Ted Dekker Site to be launched June 1

Darth Twinkie wrote:

Zoe wrote:

I don't know how you got the link, but no, you're not supposed to be on it yet.

Does this mean we'd get in trouble if we were caught? For example, say I logged in and shortly after, Gregg logs in and sees me on there. What would happen? <.< >.>

I actually don't know.

We've been posting the last couple days and Gregg knows...so I don't think anyone will be in trouble for being there before Tuesday.

You wouldn't get in trouble. I talked to Gregg right after they launched it a few days early, and asked if others were suppose to be allowed to log on, post, etc. He said it was fine.

Why he didn't let us folks that were messing with it know that? *shrug* It may not have been his decision to launch it.


But um, I'm just going to publicly say this: YAY NO MORE CHAT ROOM!

So Natter isn't staying up until July?

Nah, it will stay up, I'm just happy it isn't on the new forum

As excited as I am to have the new forum...I will miss Natter...just a bit. But YAY for new forums that AREN'T Ning.

Well, I joined the new-old Circle (mostly because I saw that discussion will be allowed) and I must say the Ning site was so. much. better. I think I will stick to this site more...

The thing I don't get is the extreme moderation of the discussion section... like that was a huge problem in the past and so now must only have 5 topics at a time that are automatically deleted every so often so that whatever we write in there goes away forever unless we save it on our computer. Bah! These topics are only active for 7 days at a time. The moderators get to choose what we discuss from a list of suggestions we make in another area of the board. I really don't get it.

Why? Are they trying to keep the discussion focused on Ted's books by not allowing us to talk about anything freely except for Ted's books? That doesn't make sense to me because there is only so much you can say about the same book. Now if Ted were churning out a new book every month, then maybe, but as of now, I don't get it.

Was there may major problems with the discussion section on the old site? I saw -none-. Topics were -rarely- locked because they got out of control. I really don't get it, and it makes me super glad this site exists where we can talk freely about things that interest us (whether Ted's books, deep philosophical conversations, or silly game threads.)

Obviously, this annoys me very much, so this is partly venting and partly confusion and partly sadness. I would especially be sad if it became so that the Circle forum was all about marketing Ted's books... but I guess that's his prerogative. I still don't have to like it, though.

Just wanna say...it's Ted's site and therefore he can make it however he wants.

And I don't mean that in a cranky way at all. Just sayin.

Essentially its what Ted wanted. The mods didn't make the decisions, they were informed.

I know 'it's his site he can do what he wants.' However, if he wants to keep people on the site, he might consider what they want, too. Also, just because you're in charge doesn't mean you have to be despotic, nor does it mean I can't say when I don't like something. Just because it's his site, doesn't mean I can't say I hate what he's done with it.

Cassondra wrote:

Well, I joined the new-old Circle (mostly because I saw that discussion will be allowed) and I must say the Ning site was so. much. better.

Aesthetically, sure, but from a technical/administrative perspective, phpBB is only a step up. This is how Ning's technical people solve problems: Oh, you want your moderators to have actual controls? um, too bad. What, everybody who uses our software doesn't like X feature? Well, we're not going to change it. Too bad, get used to it. They were a nightmare to work with. I can say that now because we're not with them anymore and I'm not a mod anymore. So ha!

Just fyi, the new Circle and this site are run from the same software. The new board could look cool if Ted wanted it to.

You're not a mod anymore? I didn't know that...

Well, the better aesthetics and cooler features is mostly window dressing to me, anyway. I was mainly talking about the awful new policies. I did like the aesthetic of the Ning better. The new site (and this one, also, no offense) is just too dark, IMO. Black background, grey text, etc... ick! Gimme some color or at least some lighter neutral colors (white, light grey, etc.).

Sara wrote:

You're not a mod anymore? I didn't know that...

Heh. They slimmed down the mod list tremendously.

Adira wrote:

Sara wrote:

You're not a mod anymore? I didn't know that...

Heh. They slimmed down the mod list tremendously.

Yeah, I looked at the list after I posted that. Wow.

Cassondra wrote:

The new site (and this one, also, no offense) is just too dark, IMO. Black background, grey text, etc... ick! Gimme some color or at least some lighter neutral colors (white, light grey, etc.).

Bright colours in high concentrations on a monitor give most people headaches faster. Dark colours give off less light and therefore strain eyes less.

At least, that's my practical excuse. Most of us just enjoy dark colours, methinks.

And yes, it's spelled "colours".

Yeah...take a look at this:


Then this:


The black is definitively easier on the eyes.

Thanks for that. @_@

There's more where that came from...

Of that, I have no doubt. I'm fine though, thanks.

I swear Im attracted to the threads he post stuff like that in.

Thanks for that, Emo. My eyes love you.

Cassondra wrote:

Well, the better aesthetics and cooler features is mostly window dressing to me, anyway. I was mainly talking about the awful new policies.

The board guidelines are c/p'd from the Ning site . . . Do you mean for the discussion forum?

Nikolai wrote:

Bright colours in high concentrations on a monitor give most people headaches faster. Dark colours give off less light and therefore strain eyes less.

At least, that's my practical excuse. Most of us just enjoy dark colours, methinks.

And yes, it's spelled "colours".

For me it's the contrast of bright and dark that makes it hard to read. This site is fine because it's a pale blue-gray against dark gray - very muted. Stark white against black, for me, is difficult to look at for very long (if anybody noticed, the average post length in discussion topics was way shorter on the Echo board, which was also white-on-black, than it was on the original board or the Ning board, both of which had black-on-gray text).

I went through the trying-to-be-British phase once too. Lasted about a year for me.

Zoe wrote:

I went through the trying-to-be-British phase once too. Lasted about a year for me.

Ah, but as a Canadian, 'tisn't a phase. 'Tis simply correct!