response 25 of 49:

Apr 3 00:04 UTC 1995

. . . all these good ideas . . . .

response 27 of 49:

Apr 3 04:43 UTC 1995

Re 24: I can add that to the wrapper script that I'm supposed to be
writing to put around party....

response 29 of 49:

Apr 5 20:03 UTC 1995

        The division of the main channels might ALSO increase the warlike
feel in party, by further dividing the ranks of the partiers amongst the
"frivilous" and the "serious". And, if I were to get the urge to do
something not serious, would I be harrassed out of cafe? Or vice versa?

response 31 of 49:

Apr 6 13:32 UTC 1995

I've noticed an "oldfolks_x" channel that turns up in the evenings a lot.
I'd guess that's a good place to find more serious conversations.

Do people think it would be helpful to create some other permanent
channels, like the main channel, but which you would still have to
change channel to, to join?  Currently we have permanent channels
with names like CyberRPG, Espresso, Harvard, and Teddyber.  Would
it be useful to create some additional general-purpose permanent
channels, such as a permanent channel called Oldfolks?

response 33 of 49:

Apr 7 05:50 UTC 1995

I wouldn't advocate forcing particular behavour.  The idea is to create
different environments where different sets of people are likely to feel
more comfortable.  The different names (party vs cafe) and the noises would
be designed to create venues with different atmospheres, but the that's just
so they aren't percieved as interchangable and thus have an opportunity to
grow their own personalities.  These kinds of cues are a bit low key to
force any particular kind of activity.

As in any urban planning project, the types of people who congregate in each
area, and the kinds of activities they engage in may not be what you plan.
But they will tend to be different from each other, since people with similar
tastes will all end up in one place.

Currently, all the other channels here feel to me like private property.
Either they are temporary channels created by someone, or they were created
by Valerie at some particular person's request.  I'm uncomfortable about
joining them, because I'm not sure how public they really are.  So I'm pretty
much stuck in the main channel.

Now maybe this is good.  Maybe we want to keep most of the users in one lump
most of the time.  But sometimes there are an awful lot of users in party
all at once, and with 30 odd folks in party, odds are at least two are
more interested in attention than conversation, and the possibility of
talking much with anyone in such a crowd is pretty thin.  I think it would
be a worthwhile experiement.

Though I admit, folks seem to resist experimentation around here.  Anything
that was once arranged in a particular way, must always be arranged that way,
or some set of people will get pissed.  Thus experiments are hard to start,
and, possibly worse, hard to stop.

response 35 of 49:

Apr 7 18:59 UTC 1995

Okay, folks, calm down; we're not ones to make snap decisions on something as 
serious as splitting the main channel of party!!!  No need to spaz ifyou
disagree, I'm sure that it was only a suggestion that someone
thought could use consideration.

Having heard the objections I agree with you for the moment.  (more later)

response 37 of 49:

Apr 8 17:55 UTC 1995

In the last paragraph of #33, I mentioned that people resist changes.  #34
is a nice illustrative example.  I've rarely made any change to party that
nobody got upset about.  Even bug fixes are unpopular with some people,
because knowing about bugs gives some folks a sense of having arcane
secret knowledge which they don't like to have obsoleted.

If you leave the decision in the hands of the people who use it the way it
is, you mostly get people who like it the way it is.

response 39 of 49:

Apr 10 06:02 UTC 1995

        Janc- don't fix something if it ain't broke!
I have NO problem with bug fixes. I even like the idea of some changes..
BUT NOT THIS ONE. It's that simple. Party doesn't need /emote, and it
doesn't need prefab split-main channels.
        And, if you leave the decision to people who almost NEVER use it, 
you get arbitrary and unnecessary changes.

response 41 of 49:

Apr 11 03:06 UTC 1995

You can do /emote in a lot of the channels now.  I know it's in the
"teddyber" channel, for example, though I think it has a different name
there.

response 43 of 49:

Apr 12 05:47 UTC 1995

I think alternate main channels are another issue, and should be
addressed in that manner.  We don't need to muddle either issue with
the complications of the other.

response 45 of 49:

Apr 14 03:58 UTC 1995

I merely wanted to reassure you, and express my support for that sentiment.

response 47 of 49:

Apr 25 04:53 UTC 1995

damd for the idea of the other channel, i think it is a great idea!
some times i want to play and others i want to talk, and it would be a good
idea to alow this chance so that we do not loose hte string of the conversasion

well now you know how i feel on htis, and i party every time i am on grex!!!

response 49 of 49:

Apr 29 00:15 UTC 1995

                I just mailed draken to let him know.