|
Grex > Coop7 > #94: Party - how are the permanent party items named? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 124 responses total. |
lilmo
|
|
response 75 of 124:
| 
Oct 7 18:32 UTC 1995 |
Bother. Has anyone ASKED llanarth to give up Oldfolks? That is, among those
who have a personal stake in it?
|
davel
|
|
response 76 of 124:
|
Oct 8 02:47 UTC 1995 |
For that matter, all this complaining is because she owns the noisetab?
Does she actually exercise this ownership in any way that is objectionable
to anyone, or anything like that? If so, I missed anyone's describing it.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 77 of 124:
|
Oct 8 13:15 UTC 1995 |
I still have a problem with saying that people "own" party channels.
They might maintain a noisetab for a channel, but they don't really have a
lot of control over the channel beyond that. They can't reopen it if it
gets stuck, or control who uses it in their absence, or go back and read the
log files from the channel when other people were in it.
Re 74: Llanarth doesn't control a noisetab for channel Oldfolks because
*she* asked me to remove the noisetab for the channel. *Not* because
anybody else "faught" for it.
Re 76: Oldfolks uses the same noisetab as the main party channel.
Llanarth doesn't own a noisetab in that channel. As far as I know, the only
objectionable thing she's done is request that the channel become a permanent
channel even though she herself isn't old.
(If anybody wants to see the complete and up-to-date list of all party
channels and their options, type "!menumore /var/spool/party/chantab".)
|
davel
|
|
response 78 of 124:
|
Oct 8 20:09 UTC 1995 |
(or even "fought" for it, I presume?)
|
janc
|
|
response 79 of 124:
|
Oct 9 04:38 UTC 1995 |
Llanarth may not be old, but she's older than she used to be.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 80 of 124:
|
Oct 9 17:20 UTC 1995 |
Aren't we all? :-)
|
selena
|
|
response 81 of 124:
|
Oct 10 18:15 UTC 1995 |
Look, she wasn't going to nix the noisetab until myself and a few
others asked her to *repeatedly*, and, as she was the one to request
the channel, she's the one who can ask to reinstate the noisetab.
Popcorn- like it or not, party channels are viewed of as "owned".
Ask llanarth how she keeps others out of channel llan, when she's not
online, because it is locked when she's not here.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 82 of 124:
|
Oct 11 02:52 UTC 1995 |
Hm. I just ran a "party #llan" and it worked fine.
|
selena
|
|
response 83 of 124:
|
Oct 11 04:22 UTC 1995 |
It didn't a week ago. She can switch it that way.
|
scg
|
|
response 84 of 124:
|
Oct 11 06:12 UTC 1995 |
So can anybody else. I think it's a bug in party, but I'd have to ask Jan
about that. It has nothing to do with who owns the noisetab.
|
steve
|
|
response 85 of 124:
|
Oct 11 15:36 UTC 1995 |
This is new to me. I didn't know that someone could close a party
channel and leave it like that. I guess I need to read all the party
doc and source sometime.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 86 of 124:
|
Oct 11 15:49 UTC 1995 |
Oh, I've seen closed permanent channels- unlees I'm gravely
mistaken, teddyber used to do it regularly when he wasn't here.
Given that. is the concept of ownership so hard to gather?
|
janc
|
|
response 87 of 124:
|
Oct 11 19:05 UTC 1995 |
I forget how that was done. I seem to recall that it wasn't exactly a party
bug. If someone mails me a description of how it is done, I'll scratch my
head again over how to fix it.
|
steve
|
|
response 88 of 124:
|
Oct 11 20:06 UTC 1995 |
Ya know, the more I hear about party "channels", espically closed
ones, the more I think they have no real purpose on Grex. We decided
that we wern't going to have any closed conferences other than staff,
and I see a contradiction here.
Yes, I'm clearly seeing how people come to view channels as theirs.
|
anne
|
|
response 89 of 124:
|
Oct 11 20:24 UTC 1995 |
I think that closed channels are necessary- I mean, sometimes people
want to have 'private' conversation- without alot of people. chat
is great if there are only two people- but for anymore then that you
need private channels..
|
scg
|
|
response 90 of 124:
|
Oct 12 02:13 UTC 1995 |
re 86:
Given that anybody who knows how, not just the person who asked for
a channel to be created, can somehow close a channel when they aren't there,
that does nothing towards showing that a channel can be owned by somebody.
|
steve
|
|
response 91 of 124:
|
Oct 12 17:46 UTC 1995 |
Hmmm. I thought the "private channel" for conversations was mail.
|
remmers
|
|
response 92 of 124:
|
Oct 12 19:54 UTC 1995 |
That's for private asynchronous, time-shifted conversations. Synchronous
live ones are qualitatively different; I think both have a place.
|
selena
|
|
response 93 of 124:
|
Oct 12 20:36 UTC 1995 |
Yeah, you need both- but the custom channels, you *don't* need.
|
janc
|
|
response 94 of 124:
|
Oct 12 22:27 UTC 1995 |
I resisted closed channels for a long time. Eventually someone found a
bug that let them close a channel and before I knew it, closed channels had
a constituency. I could fix the bug, or formalize it. I chose the latter
in this case.
We allow completely private conversations between two people? Why not three?
I suspect you'll find most closed channels have very few people in them. Two
or three. A lot of people prefer talking there to !write or !talk.
|
selena
|
|
response 95 of 124:
|
Oct 13 02:57 UTC 1995 |
Wrong. Have you been in party lately? At night, there will be four
or more people together in a private channel, commonly, and sometimes more
than one channel will be like that. No, closeables are needed, but
permanents? I don't think so.
|
mlady
|
|
response 96 of 124:
|
Oct 13 19:24 UTC 1995 |
Hey, what if you have a jerk in the open channels, and you just
want to get away from them?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 97 of 124:
|
Oct 14 03:17 UTC 1995 |
STeve -- originally Grex's party program was installed to not allow
closed channels. There was a huge discussion of closed channels in
co-op. There was strong support for having closed channels. So I
turned them on. I think you're still going to find strong support
for them now. (Personally, I think it's fine to have closed channels.)
|
selena
|
|
response 98 of 124:
|
Oct 15 04:26 UTC 1995 |
<Selena offers support.. and to rouse the troops down in party,
if needed>
|
lilmo
|
|
response 99 of 124:
|
Oct 15 18:16 UTC 1995 |
I think we need a reap policy for party channels. if they are not used for
some number of days, they disappear. (the "permanent channels", that is.)
|