|
Grex > Coop8 > #66: Membership privileges and telnet lethargy | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 113 responses total. |
chelsea
|
|
response 75 of 113:
| 
Jun 2 13:16 UTC 1996 |
I don't see keeping "mesg n" on as a default hostile or unfriendly in any
way. I've never had it off by default. Not here, not on M-net, not
anywhere. I wouldn't have a telephone that automatically answered and put
the caller on a speaker phone. Would you? Allowing folks to interrupt
whatever you're doing when they have a desire to chat is the same thing in
my mind. Send mail, it allows the person answering to make a choice as to
whether they want to talk.
Jenna, it's not rude. It's not inconvenient. Try it, you may be
surprised at how nice it is.
|
scott
|
|
response 76 of 113:
|
Jun 2 14:49 UTC 1996 |
Perms are really a question of Grex's growth. It's no longer a system with
just 5 lines and no Internet. So we have more to filter out now.
There's a problem with communications software on a big system. Now with
programs like PicoSpan and mail, each user can decide if they want to use that
program or not. With write, tel, talk, etc., there are users who can decide
to use a tel or a talk on somebody, and then there is the other somebody who
has had to actively decide earlier whether or not they want to use that
program. In other words, the program is intrusive on half the users of it.
We do need some way to turn off reception, and we do have that. I don't see
a big difference between no perms at all and limited perms to individual
users, since that is the receiving person's choice about how they want to
*use* that software.
|
brighn
|
|
response 77 of 113:
|
Jun 2 17:37 UTC 1996 |
The phone rings moments after the person dials the number, Mary.
Mail can take anywhere from seconds to a day to get from one account to another
even between Grex accounts (for archiving reasons, I've Cc'd stuff to
myself and had it take five minutes). If I have something I want to
say to Jenna, and need to be rather quick about it, I'd rather not
have to wait for the mails, as unreliable as they may be (ignoring
the fact that jenna has all her mail forwarded off-system, that's beside
the point here. =} ). And when your phone rings, you don't know who
it is unless you have caller ID, so you're not choosing whether you
want to talk to *that* person when you pick it up, you're choosing
whether you want to talk at all. SO the analogy is very bad.
|
scg
|
|
response 78 of 113:
|
Jun 2 19:02 UTC 1996 |
Well, that's not quite true. If I'm not feeling like talking to just anybody,
I'll often let the machine answer the phone, and then decide whether to talk
while they're leaving a message.
|
carson
|
|
response 79 of 113:
|
Jun 2 19:12 UTC 1996 |
ssh! you know brighn isn't a techie person!
|
kerouac
|
|
response 80 of 113:
|
Jun 2 20:38 UTC 1996 |
A while back a suggestion was made that the prompt "...is not accepting
messages!" when "mesg n" is in effect is inadequate and causes
misunderstandings I still think it would be a good idea if users could
personalize such prompts such as:
"....is reading mail now, please try again later"
"...is not accepting messages now due to technical difficulties"
"...is conferencing right now, try again in a few minutes"
|
robh
|
|
response 81 of 113:
|
Jun 2 20:42 UTC 1996 |
Same here, but I think we're in the minority.
|
carson
|
|
response 82 of 113:
|
Jun 2 21:34 UTC 1996 |
count me in with that minority, although I'm just now working with
"amin."
|
nephi
|
|
response 83 of 113:
|
Jun 2 21:58 UTC 1996 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 84 of 113:
|
Jun 2 22:17 UTC 1996 |
Minority? Us? I think we're just afraid to agree with Kerouac publicly. =}
It would be nice to have a tag that syas what the person is doing, if
the person so desires (presumaby the option wil either be to coose
er choose from a finite list of messages, or to allow the person to
write their own, but not both ("Brighn is tying up a tty during prime
traffic time and is off taking a shower and can't be bothered with messages
just now"))
Of course I thought of the example of screening one's calls, sheesh,
just because I don't get enough calls to warrant that (and no
offensive calls, though there was a month or two a while back, but that's
a personal story)... but the analogy still doesn't hold. In fact,
screening your calls is similar to getting unsolicited tels... you
consider who sent the tel, or who made the call, and decide whether
you want to answer. The differences: people *know* you're online when
they send a tel, they don't *iknow* you're home and pointing and
giggling at their goofy answering machine message ("God, do they *really*
think I'm going to answer the phone for *them*?"), and people don't
tend to call back five minutes later with another machine message
(unless they're frightening obsessive twits that one needs to get a
court order against).
At any rate, the telephopne analogy is just plain silly.
|
scott
|
|
response 85 of 113:
|
Jun 2 22:41 UTC 1996 |
The telephone analogy is not silly, just not exactly appropriate. The analogy
would hold a lot better if the person who didn't want the phone to ring was
recording music, or something else where an interruption isn't very welcome.
|
jenna
|
|
response 86 of 113:
|
Jun 3 01:00 UTC 1996 |
the thing is a bunch of weird strangers don;t come to your door in
the middle of the night and bang on it incessantly and ifg they do
you call the police or at least you don;t let them in! ongrex
you're pretty mucvh stuck with them knocing
|
adbarr
|
|
response 87 of 113:
|
Jun 3 01:10 UTC 1996 |
If I wanted to "chat" online, I would go to those parts of the system here
or elsewhere. Online time is important to me and I don't like, though I don't
resent interruption. I have never had a request for talk, etc. from anyone
I correspond with via email on a regular basis. Thanks to popcorn I have my
perms turned off for this purpose and do not miss the interruptions. Not
at all. My emai address is easy to figure out here. Ideally a system to
allow only certain persons to "ping" you would be nice.
|
selena
|
|
response 88 of 113:
|
Jun 3 04:06 UTC 1996 |
Leaving it all to email is a pain in the ass, though, for those of us who
need to contact you.
|
jenna
|
|
response 89 of 113:
|
Jun 3 05:00 UTC 1996 |
I think you're all missing a point here:
there are plenty of people I WANT to talk to and would love
to have communication from (any sort)...there are conversations
i would love to have with anyne who wane them. So I refuse
to turn off my tels or writes or ntalks to those people.
does that mean I should be harassed by a bunch of people
who want cybersex?
|
omni
|
|
response 90 of 113:
|
Jun 3 06:28 UTC 1996 |
After 3 yrs of my perms being on, I have turned everything off. I don't miss
it. I don't mind helping, but it got to be that every 5 mins I was being
written for help, or a ntalk request when I just didn't want to talk.
I favor the use of email to ask if a certain party wants to chat for a bit.
5 minutes isn't too long to wait for a reply. I feel that this practice is
proper net etiquette. I will still talk, just mail me first, and tell me what
you wish to talk about.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 91 of 113:
|
Jun 3 17:04 UTC 1996 |
Omni, you said it and you said it well. That would be fine with me, but
I would suggest a 10 - 15 minute custom. It drives me a little nuts to have
to deal with unsolicited flashes on the screen when I am trying to understand
the flow of a conference. Perhaps my usage here is in the minority. I am
not opposed to the idea of instant notification of chat etc. but it seems
analogous to being home, early in the morning, getting ready to face the
day and having someone you don't know, from another continent step out of
your pantry and say, "Hi!" Want to chat?" Disconcerting! "You have more
mail." does not bother me somehow, since I can more readily control the
flow of conversation in mail. <adbarr never did like the telephone>.
|
brighn
|
|
response 92 of 113:
|
Jun 3 17:24 UTC 1996 |
Like I've already said, I've seen Grex' mail take as long as a day
to deliver mail, even between accounts. Granted, *most* of
the time, it's under ten minutes, but still...
And at any rate, the problem isn't with people who have a strong
sense of etiquette, so devising rules of etiquette won't alleviate
the problem, it'll just create an elite class of back-slappers who
look down their noses at the rest of us and say, "Jolly good *we*
don't act like that sort of barbarian, wot?"
*ponders why he used the future tense -- it *will* create -- upon reading
some of the comments in this item...*
|
adbarr
|
|
response 93 of 113:
|
Jun 3 23:13 UTC 1996 |
brighn, I don't think I quite get what you mean. Email is more like an
answering machine to me. Zapping my screen with an uninvited message is
like having the telephone system interrupt my call and tell me that
"<you-name-it>" wants to talk. I don't like, or need call waiting, nor
do I want to be defenseless against interruption. Of course if the rules
are different then I would have to adapt or seek another system, or just
be anoyed. Those are not great choices, from my selfish perspective.
Besides, we are getting spoiled aren't we? Not too long ago people
communicated by postcard and letter carried on ships. Now that was
elegant! Time for contemplation, reflection, and an ordered response! :-)
|
brighn
|
|
response 94 of 113:
|
Jun 4 00:48 UTC 1996 |
Yep. And you're free to log off at any time and go back to
those days, Arnold. =} Send me your address, maybe I'll write.
*g*
|
remmers
|
|
response 95 of 113:
|
Jun 4 14:11 UTC 1996 |
I'm coming around to thinking that a .yeswrite list would be a good
feature. No strong feelings one way or the other about a .nowrite
list.
(I seem to recall suggesting the .nowrite concept years ago, on
M-net. I called it a .shtlist...)
(What was this item about, originally?)
|
adbarr
|
|
response 96 of 113:
|
Jun 4 17:45 UTC 1996 |
Leave it to a Linguist . . .
|
jenna
|
|
response 97 of 113:
|
Jun 4 20:54 UTC 1996 |
what exactyl is a yes write list?
|
brighn
|
|
response 98 of 113:
|
Jun 4 20:56 UTC 1996 |
that was explained in another item, think...
er i think
a .yeswrite file would be a list of people who could write you even
if you have your perms off
a .nowrite file would be a list of people who can't write you at all.
|
robh
|
|
response 99 of 113:
|
Jun 4 21:47 UTC 1996 |
What brighn said.
|