Pretty new/old noise proposition (argument)

Mar 27 14:36 UTC 1995

One and all, I am proposing a well-proposed party noise here, as I was directed
to this conference with my argument.  Most of you have undoubtedly heard of the
suggested noise, /emote (or in Coffee's case, /me, and in teddyber's, /i). When
I brought this noise proposition up with a friend, (orinocom actually), he told
me of the arguments on either side. I want to lean the favor to the noise's.  
(favor).
        The first argument against this sound was that is might constrict
        creat-ivity-
ivity. I disagree.   (hold on, I forgot to describe the noise, silly me!  It
goe   goes like this $0 $1  Example /emote flappewapple would go: amoco
flappewapple) With this new noise one could go beyond the constraints of the
premade noises  and be all the more creative with ever-changing new and more
complex noises. In many cases, I've wanted to say something in the future
tense. like 
        <amoco would never lie to you>
But noooo, this is not possible with the current noise listings, and I don't
wan   want to waste time mailing off proposition after proposition when I only
plan to use the noise once.  Anyways, the noise list is long enough as it is.
        Next, if my noise is created, I'd still use the other ones, for their
creativity, or for that fact I don't feel like retyping them.  So they become
obsolete. 
        Lastly, I don't want to use /me in Coffee or /i in teddyber, because
        one
can never get everyone to follow you to a whole new channel just so you can ma 
  make a noise.
        I certainly hope you approve and support this noise, called either /me
or /amoco or whatever, and please reply with your arguments like I know you
will.
Thanks,
Oops, run-away comma

response 2 of 49:

Mar 27 20:39 UTC 1995

Hmm, I think one can cause the same impact with the current noises or noises
th[C[C that may become available later.  /slap is a good example, and /shove
may later co r come into use.

response 4 of 49:

Mar 28 02:56 UTC 1995

I like the noise.  I hate searching for some noise out of hundreds when 
I could just type it out myself.

response 6 of 49:

Mar 28 05:45 UTC 1995

        I'm not ignoring you, steve! :}

        I've been on M-Net's party, where emote is alive and well, and I
*HATE* it! It's gotta be the one reason that their party is SO much more
nasty than ours! Some idgit called reverend over there once did this to me
with it:
        <reverend knows selena's soul will burn in hell for all eternity>

        Now excuse me, but I was already having a bad day, and that's the
last thing I needed.. and that's one of the few /emotes I remember seeing
that DIDN'T involve swearing in it!

        Let's not, and be proud we didn't, okay? YUCK!

response 8 of 49:

Mar 28 06:31 UTC 1995

   What I don't understand is why people want the emote ability
when whatever said as a noise could just be written directly?
I'm trying to understand.

response 10 of 49:

Mar 28 10:49 UTC 1995

Re 7 - There's a thought, an option that if the majority of
partiers decide to "kill" you, they can knock you out of party.
I can think of a few times that would have been useful...

Naaaaaaaaaw.

response 12 of 49:

Mar 28 21:14 UTC 1995

Like I said previously, just $1 is bad.  I admit that, hell, I push for it to
not  not exist.  Myself and and friend of mine (excuse the lack of actual
grammar) recently fell victim to some very nasty stuff.  But, my noise ties the
writer to the noise, hence ending all blame-wars.  Abbout being nasty, I can be
just as nasty writing ,my  as nasty writing my stuff than "noising" it.  the
reason I'd like this to be a noise, (Steve) is because of the jocularness that
comes with using a noise.  It comes out to be actually funnier than if you type
it.  
        I sincerly hope we cant trust our partiers enough with such a noise.

response 14 of 49:

Mar 29 20:49 UTC 1995

Noises are overused.  that I agree.  therefore, i suggest (if this noise goes
through, ) a new channel setting--emote or noemote.  Noemote would allow all
noises *but* emote, for those with an objection to it

response 16 of 49:

Mar 30 03:10 UTC 1995

        I was one of the first people to use party a lot on Grex, I think,
so I'm probably one of the few frequent partiers who remembers the days
when nobody on Grex partied, and those of us who did were all trying to
figure the thing out, rather than knowing how to use it already.  I'm
somebody who likes things to be challenging, so others may not agree with
me on this, but one of my fondest memories from those first few big Grex
parties, with carson, yagi (who was still embu at the beginning of that
week), jasmine, bdp, fireball, and others (although not all at once, since
Grex only had six dial in lines at that point), was the challenge of
finding new noises in the noisetab and figuring out creative uses for
them, as well as laughing at some of the noises in there or their names. 
The reason I don't like /emote is that it would take away a lot of that,
and allow people to become lazy about actually looking for preexisting
noises.  I think /emote would make party a lot less fun. 
        However, this is now a much different Grex and a much different
group in party than it was then, and having people in party is no longer a
new thing for Grex.  Maybe looking at party for its sentimental value
isn't the right thing to do, since so much else about it is different too.
I'm certainly not comfortable imposing my nostalgia on the rest of Grex.

response 18 of 49:

Mar 31 07:14 UTC 1995

I just hate it when some fool is flooding party with the garbage, and I 
don't even know who to yell at.

response 20 of 49:

Mar 31 19:39 UTC 1995

My suspicion is that both M-Net and Grex are going to have to push toward
a more divided party.  Like you could set up the default channel to be
very restrictive:  no noises, no reads, etc.  This would tend to make people
who who want silly stuff move to side channels.

Or you could make "cafe" and "party" have different default channels, with
"cafe" probably being structured to encourage more serious interaction and
"party" being sillier.  Cafe might only have "dignified noises" like
<janc greets popcorn with a tip of the hat> or <janc sighs moarnfully> or
<janc tops off popcorn's cup of coffee>, while the "party" default channel
would have wilder, free-form noises.

I think some experimentation along these lines would be good.  There have
been times in the past (at least on M-Net) when party was dominated by
fairly serious discussion.  Now on both systems that has prety much been
squeezed out, but neither system has moved far from the single-channel model,
and that isn't really necessary as the number of users gets bigger.

response 22 of 49:

Apr 1 05:42 UTC 1995

I like the idea of Interim Sack (steve) 
I'm not sure who that is right now.  But his/her idea to have two 
party channels is very appealing to me.

response 24 of 49:

Apr 2 14:31 UTC 1995

How about having two "default" channels -- one with noises and file
read-in, the other without -- and a little front-end script that
comes up when you run party and asks you which one you want to join?