Talker discussion boardlog

From Discworld MUD Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

On Tue Jul 28 09:35:47 2009, Wallsy wrote:
> Why is the syntax for chatting on clubs and talkers different? Why not use the same system for both? Wouldn't that be simpler?

They should be merged, and it made free to create clubs, and decentralised with commands since they are OOC organisations, and then the Patrician's Palace could actually be made into The Patrician's Palace and be far more interesting than the bunch of bulletin board rooms (we have the web which is way easier anyway - or keep the rooms but don't make them the primary purpose of the place) it has been since so long :) Lets re-throne Vetinari!


TALKER CHANNELS


On Mon Jul 27 12:14:42 2009, Taffyd wrote:
> To clarify, my intent wasn't "get rid of chat channels" it was "get rid of the 'talker stick'".


NEWBIE


On Sun Jul 26 01:16:16 2009, Zexium wrote:
> [summary] we kick newbies off of newbie too soon.

On Mon Jul 27 03:38:59 2009, Kaetarin wrote:
> I don't think 18 hours is really long enough for real newbies to have access to the newbie channel for.

On Sun Jul 26 01:20:20 2009, Djoan wrote:
> I'm a newbiehelper and I still find myself using (newbie) on new alts, generally for intended-guild-specific things.

On Sun Jul 26 23:50:41 2009, Avant wrote:
> I think players should have the ability to keep newbie until at least 2-3 days. There could be an opt out ability for those that don't need it.

On Mon Jul 27 05:07:22 2009, Qianling wrote:
> It'll be nice to extend the privilege of using the (newbie) channel up to a few days

On Mon Jul 27 08:40:34 2009, Andrew wrote:
> On Mon Jul 27 07:21:53 2009, Taffyd wrote:
>> Should we extend the length of time people have newbie for? 36 hours? Until you're 7 days old?
> Given that you can earmuff newbie if you don't need it or find it annoying, I don't see the harm in this. If it helps a couple of newbies feel more welcome it's a good thing in my book.

On Mon Jul 27 10:49:13 2009, Elspeth wrote:
> I think 7 days would be a good amount of time for a newbie to ask all the questions needed to start up. Earmuffs can be done so it's not like it's a big hassle to alts.

On Mon Jul 27 12:16:55 2009, Tohya wrote:
> Why base it off time played at all, rather than, say, GL? Just because someone has been playing for x length of time doesn't mean they're beyond (newbie) help. > But by the time they've reached GL 50 - 75 (For example), they'll have found a guild and people to ask for help, learnt a good amount about how things in the game work, quite likely died at least once, and probably decided whether or not they like playing; they'll be better placed to continue by having met an in-game goal instead of an arbitrary length of time.

On Mon Jul 27 15:34:29 2009, Paddy wrote:
> On Mon Jul 27 14:39:21 2009, Bimbletrot wrote:
> > I'd like to see the Newbie channel last longer, perhaps doubling to 36 hours as an experiment and going from there is an idea? > > I still think this is too short a time period. For example, I remember reading an article a while ago (By Llylia, if memory serves) which mentioned that we as a community stop thinking of people as newbies when they reach 40 days. I don't think the channel should last *that* long, but I believe upping it to maybe 5 days would help matters.
> One problem with the current system is that it aggressively pushes the talker over the newbie channel. Every chat comes with a warning not to be too talkative, and newbiehelpers are encouraged to give answers like "That would be a good question to ask on your talker!". We give them this channel for asking questions on, and then tell them they will be punished if they overuse it.
> Why not allow newbies to chat with each other on a channel that only they have access to before we throw them into the deep, murky waters of (One)? The helpers will be there to provide answers, and the older newbies will be able to help out the younger without the questions becoming lost in spam. They'll also (hopefully) make friends and get to know their fellow newbies.

On Mon Jul 27 15:58:24 2009, Beatrice wrote:
> I do agree it would be good to allow people access to newbie a bit longer methinks, 7 days or so.


OTHER CHANNELS


On Mon Jul 27 06:03:00 2009, Emrys wrote:
> (One) works as a channel precisely because it is default, that way it absorbs all the dregs and trolling that would otherwise be found on the guild channels. This is also why (Debates) doesn't work. Its not default, so you don't get the dregs naturally rolling down to the point of lowest potential energy and maximum dispersion that (One) is.


QUESTION CHANNEL


On Sun Jul 26 01:20:20 2009, Djoan wrote:
> how about a new [..]channel (Query)?

On Mon Jul 27 05:07:22 2009, Qianling wrote:
> have a (game) channel on which people can ask questions.

On Mon Jul 27 09:22:32 2009, Qianling wrote:
> the social aspect is very important for trolls of (One), but i wonder if it's possible to find an acceptable substitute so as not to confuse people? > what if there was a default (game) channel and a non-default (RW) channel? what if the (RW) channel was automatically added to all talkers?

On Mon Jul 27 22:10:07 2009, Yvain wrote:
> I'd personally rather a "questions" channel of some sort be set up, that's default on at creation but mutable. This would give players (newbies or otherwise) the advantage of being able to see the answers to questions as they come up.



USER-FRIENDLINESS


On Sun Jul 26 23:50:41 2009, Avant wrote:
> When I began discworld [..]I couldn't figure out how to use it for days

On Mon Jul 27 08:15:42 2009, Petrov wrote:
> I don't think I knew the talker existed for a while when I was a newbie...


TALKER STICK ITEM


On Mon Jul 27 12:22:04 2009, Taepha wrote:
> On Mon Jul 27 07:21:53 2009, Taffyd wrote:
> > * Should we keep the talker at all?
> Yay, dump the talker item! The channels are OOC, even if people like to add a bit of flavour to them, and having an in-game item for communication--a pretty major part of any multiplayer game--is an unnecessary barrier to young and old.
Agree totally! it'd well worth it, and we shouldn't let tradition hold us back(and I say this as someone who's been on and off since 2000 :))

On Mon Jul 27 12:14:42 2009, Taffyd wrote:
> To clarify, my intent wasn't "get rid of chat channels" it was "get rid of the 'talker stick'".

On Mon Jul 27 07:21:53 2009, Taffyd wrote:
> * Should we have OOC as a global channel but guild/IC channels through the stick?
Nah, the stick doesn't make sense IC really, it would make the clacks obsolete for example and other complications, it'd be a pretty huge jump from the books

On Mon Jul 27 14:39:21 2009, Bimbletrot wrote:
> Losing the talker as an actual object wouldn't bother me either

On Mon Jul 27 21:12:04 2009, Ilde wrote:
> On Mon Jul 27 18:24:14 2009, Mimi wrote:
> > Pros: Good for burden, don't have to keep it repaired and cannot be stolen/looted, will the feature being moved to global function rather than item mean that you can chat into it whilst dead?
> I hope it would--the worst part about being dead is not being able to chat/listen on the talker. :( Somebody think of the ghost alts!

On Tue Jul 28 08:54:36 2009, Beale wrote:
> Gagging someone by the current mechanism would remove their ability to talk on any form of mass-communication (other than shout, I guess).
> [..]
> allows things like:
> * A channel for dead people.
> * The ability to spawn temporary channels for whatever reason. (CTF?) (CTF-spectators?)
> * The option for certain types of inform to be disseminated via the chat system.


ROLEPLAYING


(this ties into the existence of the talker-stick and the IC implications mentioned previously)
There should be a roleplaying channel but it should probably be for letting people know where the RP is and updates on whats going on around the Disc than actual IC roleplaying, for instance because of the volume one group of people doing a RP would kill all other, same effect as letting emrys or wallsy on the channel really


CLUBS


On Mon Jul 27 12:22:04 2009, Taepha wrote:
> [..]dump the talker item! [..]I feel quite the same way about the hideous club badges

On Tue Jul 28 09:35:47 2009, Wallsy wrote:
> Forget this talker crap, let's talk about why clubs suck. Fix them and you make it much easier for people to form groups to talk about things that aren't of interest to the general population without spamming everyone.

> [..]allow clubs to be set to open membership. If I set my club "Benevolent Society of Angry Misanthropes" to open membership then anyone could join it at any time, just by typing > something like "club join Benevolent Society of Angry Misanthropes", no matter who was online or where they were.

> Secondly, I'd add a setting for membership by application. Anyone could use the same syntax as above to apply for membership and there'd be a new discusion item posted that was available only to recruiters, and they could vote on the new member.

> Thirdly, I'd add remote recruiting. If you wanted to join my club and I wanted to recruit you, instead of us having to meet somewhere, I could just recruit you remotely.

> [..]get rid of the badges

> why are there two different election types? Why do I have to go to the palace sometimes but can do it from my badge others? How does that benefit > anyone?

-Xola, waiting to see if a brave new world comes from this or if it just gets sandbagged into the rainy day pile like most of the other good but "too much reworking" ideas ;/

p.s. saving discussion from the posteating scrollback monster (why can't we have say 5 pages of board posts anyway instead of just 1?)


On Fri Jul 31 00:54:14 2009, Taffyd wrote:

> That's quite a lot of work--- you should save this to the Wiki

> Taffyd