|
|
| Author |
Message |
orinoco
|
|
party stuff (remix)
| 
Mar 14 00:09 UTC 1995 |
Well, popcorn, here it is. the official "I WANT MY OWN PARTY CHANNER
*NOW*" item. Before we were so rudely interrupted by the restarting,
I had asked about the possiblility of "cloaking' a channel. can it be done?
|
| 111 responses total. |
steve
|
|
response 1 of 111:
|
Mar 14 06:53 UTC 1995 |
I think we might want to talk about seperate party channels in
general, and why we might want them, or not.
We don't have private conferences, except for staff, but we have
private party channels. Why? Does the party concept more closely
follow mail, which is inherently private, or that of a conference,
which is public?
|
eeyore
|
|
response 2 of 111:
|
Mar 14 13:32 UTC 1995 |
i think that the private channels are good...it lets people have a serious
conversation with more then just one person, and without people like fuzz
butting in with stupid and annoying things. but i think that having a
permantly closed channel is a bad idea. private cf's i think would be bad,
but i can't give a solid reason why. :(
|
selena
|
|
response 3 of 111:
|
Mar 14 15:10 UTC 1995 |
It's a solid mix of both. Party is as personal as mail, but has the
chance of being as populous and thought provoking as the cf's. Because
of this, I'd say that it needs aspects of both, and *I* think our current
setup has. As for permanent private channels?
I dunno.. if staff doesn't mind setting them up, fine. If they've
got better things to do, then tough on the sillies who feel they want a
piece of "surreal estate". I find that the options allowed by adding the
_x or _z or _x! are adequate enough, and if I want privacy, I'll just make
a _x channel.. I don't need to have a permanent abode down there!
|
popcorn
|
|
response 4 of 111:
|
Mar 14 15:29 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
steve
|
|
response 5 of 111:
|
Mar 14 17:06 UTC 1995 |
Interesting point, about the public conferences.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 6 of 111:
|
Mar 14 20:12 UTC 1995 |
Well, you know, from my experience, it's when the partiers have
some control over who they do and don't party with, that they are happiest.
To eliminate private channels would eliminate a good share of said control.
I must say that there is not much a user can do about main channel,
except avoid it, if someone is there whom you do NOT like. Perhaps the
intro message Valerie proposed in oldcoop could include channel-switching
instructions, so that a newbie won't be "trapped" into sharing a channel
with one of our infamous "gnats".
|
popcorn
|
|
response 7 of 111:
|
Mar 14 21:05 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
nephi
|
|
response 8 of 111:
|
Mar 14 21:34 UTC 1995 |
(But I don't think that anyone would type it *exactly* that way . . .)
|
eeyore
|
|
response 9 of 111:
|
Mar 15 03:58 UTC 1995 |
but most newbies don't know that...hey, i didn't until you just put it there!
|
remmers
|
|
response 10 of 111:
|
Mar 15 12:58 UTC 1995 |
Re #7: That would filter out responses that include the word 'popcorn'
anywhere -- probably broader than what you'd want. A better filter:
:set filter="grep -v '^popcorn:'"
That will filter out only the responses *entered* by popcorn.
|
selena
|
|
response 11 of 111:
|
Mar 15 20:05 UTC 1995 |
Hmmm.. okayyy..
I think that maybe should go into the message that sidhe mentioned,
maybe like below it or something..
|
scg
|
|
response 12 of 111:
|
Mar 15 20:29 UTC 1995 |
Actually, when I'm trying to filter somebody out, I usually prefer to
filter out the responses mentioning them as well. That way I don't have
to deal with all the people who can't be bothered to filter them telling
them to shut up repeatedly.
|
wind
|
|
response 13 of 111:
|
Mar 15 21:21 UTC 1995 |
re #7, 10:
that works just fine for one or two twits, but when you have to filter
out twenty or so twits, it doesn't seem to work.
|
robh
|
|
response 14 of 111:
|
Mar 15 22:57 UTC 1995 |
And if you want to filter out both what popcorn is saying,
and any sound effects she enters, you can always do:
:set filter="egrep -v '^popcorn|<popcorn'"
Why you'd want to do that to popcorn, I have no idea. >8)
|
nephi
|
|
response 15 of 111:
|
Mar 16 03:03 UTC 1995 |
Believe it or not, I talked to fuzzball for hours last night (this morning?)
and found him to be far from a twit. Some peole just need a little more
work to get to their good sides, that's all.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 16 of 111:
|
Mar 16 04:58 UTC 1995 |
i admire your patientce, nephi. you have great courage. :)
|
steve
|
|
response 17 of 111:
|
Mar 16 06:18 UTC 1995 |
I've been talking to him too, via mail/write. I think he has potential.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 18 of 111:
|
Mar 16 12:26 UTC 1995 |
now, to get him to focus that potential on something non-annoying...
|
wind
|
|
response 19 of 111:
|
Mar 16 17:09 UTC 1995 |
It is very nice to know that the inner circle of Grex can publically
identify and thereby humiliate certain users as "twits." It really
gives a feeling of friendliness and community.
|
ajax
|
|
response 20 of 111:
|
Mar 16 19:42 UTC 1995 |
At the risk of sounding flame-ish....
(a) you're the one who first used "twit" in this item
(b) nephi's the only other one who used it, to say fuzzball *wasn't* one.
(c) nephi lives like umpteen states away from grex; he's no insider!
(d) as far as other peoples' perceptions of fuzzball (which did not
involve name-calling), if they're generally negative, it's in all
likelihood fuzzball's own doing.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 21 of 111:
|
Mar 16 21:01 UTC 1995 |
It is his own doing. What's good, though, is that he seems to have
taken it upon himself to behave, as he noticed how quickly everyone down
there hated him before.
|
nephi
|
|
response 22 of 111:
|
Mar 17 05:33 UTC 1995 |
Socialization really works wonders, doesn't it?
|
nephi
|
|
response 23 of 111:
|
Mar 17 05:38 UTC 1995 |
(What's the difference between grep and egrep? I saw that most people
here used grep in their filter, but robh used egrep.)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 24 of 111:
|
Mar 17 07:05 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
