response 50 of 109:

Jan 18 05:47 UTC 1996

I notice that the script will trash any other partyopts settings somebody may
have.  It would be a good idea to either check for the existence of an already
existing partyopts line, or to at least echo a warning saying that people
shouldn't run it if they already have a partyopts line in their .profile or
.login.  Also, it's changing the .profile only if a .login doesn't exist,
meaning that if somebody has both for some reason (like, if they switched from
csh to sh), and use their .profile, the script won't do anything meaningful
for them.

(just a couple of bug reports ;) )

response 52 of 109:

Jan 19 06:15 UTC 1996

Wow, so I made a difference?
        And I've never even visited the co-op cf before.....
                <Erinn gives herself a cookie!>

response 54 of 109:

Jan 20 20:42 UTC 1996

ssh! it's supposed to be our private playground!

<smiley gratis for the humor-imparied>

response 56 of 109:

Jan 21 06:36 UTC 1996

it wasn't broken, why did it get *fixed*?  If someone wanted personal
changes made to party for their own sake, fine make the changes
for yourself and, *perhaps* advertise that personal tastes AWAY
from the "standard" can be made "thus and so."
  
Nooooooooooooooo, without warning (as usual) without user-consulation
(as usual) some tectonic alteration was foisted on the *entire*
population strictly fo the sake of a couple/few perns who either
wouldn't or couldn't make individual changes for themselves and
then advertise their prowess at individualization.
  
Now .... the xillion or so blind-sided users have to make a xillion
changes (if they know where to look, or even more so, *how* to
make the changes) <popcorn, fly your help flag to deal with this, ok?>
so that things "appear" to be "normal" again.
  
How thoughtless.
.

response 58 of 109:

Jan 21 17:58 UTC 1996

Re 56 TS --
1) The change wasn't made without asking users.  There was a note in the party
news file asking for users to enter their input here.  I agree I probably
should have annoyed people with repeated requests for their input, rather than
just asking once.  Next time I will.

2) It's not a "tectonic" alteration.  Users used to have to press the spacebar
before entering words in party.  Now they don't.  If they do the old thing
and press the spacebar, their text shows up indented by one space.  This is
not tectonically different, though it does feel a bit weird at first.

3) Plenty of users, old and new, have complained that party doesn't work like
IRC, and that it's confusing to learn to press the spacebar to talk.  This
change is helpful to them.  The number of people in this group is very large.

4) Users who want to change back *do* know where to look.  Every time they
join party, two paragraphs show up that say, among other things, to type
"!old_party" to go back to the old party settings.

Calm down!

response 60 of 109:

Jan 21 19:41 UTC 1996

        And what if one's .login or .profile is heavily modified already? 
        Also, I'll have you know I'd much rather NOT have party even
minisculely resemble IRC. It alreayd was far too similar, and now it's 
just an inadequate copycat, instead of being a distinctive, and better,
product.
        Further, I find that I agree with selena, tsty, brighn, and
other partiers with experience when it comes to feeling put upon.
If you find a nice new group of settings, make THAT available via script,
and leave the rest of us who enjoy party the way it's supposed to be
well enough alone.

        I feel that this sort of highhandedness is inexcuseable, and as a
member, I would like to propose that nephi be displaced from partyadm
immediatly, and that popcorn keep that in mind. But, I won't. I think the
better course of action, to show my displeasure, is to abort my
membership, and take away the funding and support I give to idiocy such as
this.
        And I would encourage others to do so, if they are also as upset
with this and other ridiculous acts on part of administration, towards
party, and unverified, but still valuable users. I know I am.

response 62 of 109:

Jan 21 21:07 UTC 1996

I just re-read this whole item.  This item was entered on Dec. 7.  Only 18
responses were entered in the following month.  On January 11, Valerie
announced and then made the discussed changes.

Now, not then, is everybody coming in to bitch.  Despite the discussion having
been announced in the party news.  Is it some obscure rule that changes can
only be made after 1 year of discussion and dozens of attempts to involve
people?

response 64 of 109:

Jan 22 07:04 UTC 1996

I don't particularly like the change to party, but I was outnumbered in the
discussion before the change.  Given that there seemed to be an almost
consensus here, after a month of being able to discuss it, blaming the
staffers who made the changes is rediculous, and calling for a staffer to be
removed over this, as sidhe did, is just plain rediculous.  Besides, it's been
a week now.  Changing anything back at this point, whether or not it should
have been changed back when people started complaining about it, would just
serve to throw in more confusion.

response 66 of 109:

Jan 22 13:52 UTC 1996

When I first came to grex and discovered party I was confused by the
type space to... thing.  I spent a lot of time trying to find out how
to make it easier to use, and after that I spent even more time telling
nearly every newbie how to change the settings for themself.  My
'statistics' on this seem to show that about 70% to 90% of people
coming to grex as newbies don't like the 'type space to...' thing.
So I have to say that I am upset that a few people have claimed that
staff has done something in spite of the user base can cause such 
trouble.  Grex does not revolve around a handful of experienced users
any more than it revolves around staff.  Staff tries to meet the 
needs of users, notify them in an appropriate manner of changes or
problems, and keep grex alive for our use.  *All* this is done on
a strictly voluntary basis.  I am very grateful for what they do,
even when I don't agree with all of it.  They work very hard for
us, and I think they deserve a little praise when they make you
happy, or at least respect and courtesy when you want to complain 
to them.  Thank you staff for all your time and energy.

response 68 of 109:

Jan 23 07:17 UTC 1996

any change that affects 9590 out of 9590 cannot be considered to have
been non-"tectonic." That the apparent results appear to be slight - 
aside from the "private message made public" thing - does not in the
slightest diminsh the "tectonic" nature of the change.
  
janc, i believe, wrote party and it was not broken. additions and
personalizations were just that, additions and personalizations.
  
i don't recall having *that* many yells for help about how to
work party - even when i was in party. we siimply explained the
correct way to operate janc's program. Gee, worked every time. 
  
i am sincerely thrilled that there are "personalizations" abailable
for the discriminating user. My non-thrill was, and is, that these
personalizations were foisted onto 100% of the loginids and forced
the currently happy campers to engage in de-personalizations to 
get things BACK the way the worked for them, personally, quite well.
  
de-personalization is not what the grex-i-used-to-know was.

response 70 of 109:

Jan 23 09:53 UTC 1996

It's not fair for staff as a whole, nor nephi as an individual, to take any
heat over the changes to the party settings.  As I've said before, it was me
who made the changes.  Flame away at me, but not at innocent bystanders.

response 72 of 109:

Jan 23 13:02 UTC 1996

I have to disagree, TS.  Making a minor configuration change which requires
existing users to make small customizations of their own shouldn't be
undertaken lightly, but is not "tectonic change".  Plenty of warning was in
fact given; people just ignored it.  There was indeed one real snafu, in that
the change was instituted in a way that made individual customization
impossible.  *That* was worth complaining about, but OTOH nobody's defending
that except to point out that it was done in error.

I feel really annoyed by some of the flames I saw in that some of those doing
the flaming have in the past suggested changes in Grex that would mean radical
changes from past practice, & then been quite abusive toward anyone who
objected that these would cause problems.  We have here a minor change, opened
for discussion well in advance, made for good reason (user complaints about
the way things worked) with little expressed dissent, & which those who don't
like it can fix on their own.  If we can't make such a change under such
circumstances, we may as well give up on the idea of changing *anything*.

response 74 of 109:

Jan 23 14:50 UTC 1996

Grex's software is going to continue to change and evolve, often with the
goal of being more approachable to newusers.  We tend to trust that the
old users will figure out how to adapt.