Topic

Privacy in Glitch (isn't a contradiction)

[Gifs and funny images are totally okay in this thread. Whoever uses the most appropriate/relevant and hilarious gif in their post will get a cubimal box. This is arbitrary and subjective. But hopefully also fun. Not that it needs to be said, but please err on the side of SFW]

Hey all! As promised, this is a condensed (lol) post illustrating the overall issues and possible solutions (wish list) of people who want more privacy options in Glitch. It will also attempt to address some common misconceptions about this. 

It will be a bit long, but hopefully an easy read for those who are so patient as to take the time to do so. I will update it as needed with additional points that I have no doubt will be raised. 

The goal of this thread is to open up a conversation and get input from the community, as well as fine tune some of these ideas so that they can be presented in an easier to read format in the Ideas forum. Likewise, there is no delusion that these will be implemented today, or tomorrow, or even next year. The goal is to ultimately get this on the TS radar and, if it is indeed a priority for other players as it is for me, perhaps it will be something that is taken into consideration for future development.

Everyone is welcome to post, whether they agree with me or not. I would simply ask that everyone take the time to read through this and other posts before doing so.

First and foremost, what are these "privacy settings" I'm advocating for? They're pretty general, actually. I simply wish that there were ways to better control social interaction in the game. We'll get into WHY in a moment. 

What this isn't about: any personal information, or data about yourself you do not want known or shared should not be posted anywhere. As far as Privacy in Glitch is concerned, this isn't an issue that would or should be addressed by TS. It's more of a common sense thing.

What is Privacy in this context?
Privacy would consist of three levels: 

1. default (everyone) which is what we currently have

2. Friends only - specifically people I have added as a friend, not people who have added me as a friend - make sense?

3. No one

These levels would be easily switchable, and ideally scalable. E.g. I can set Friends only for profile, but I can keep my chat interactions open to everyone.

Here are the places I believe would benefit from privacy settings:

1) Profile Pages specifically location, log in and "jump to home street"

2) Chat IM specifically people messaging a player directly. If a player is in global, a player is in global. Likewise, local chat would remain unaffected. This would apply specifically and exclusively to IMs.

A great suggestion is a simple /DND command with an optional "away" message. This would be an easily customizable message to indicate that you are unavailable to chat at the moment, and would appear when users IM you. Some sort of visual indicator or reset could be implemented to avoid a scenario where one forgets it's active. However, if it works the same way as most messaging systems, users could still IM the person with the away message, but the auto-message would be visible. In this way, if I forget I have it on, when someone IMs me, it will display and remind me. I'm sure I could write that better. I'll work on it.

3) Friends Semi-redundant, but the friends system has some issues with it. Right now, if you add me as a friend, you have access to everything about me. You can mail me, you can jump to my home street, you can see when I'm online in-game, you can see my status updates, and you can IM me very easily. This is all regardless of whether or not I add you as a friend. If this were modified to work the same way as groups (accept invite / accept friend request), that would help resolve a lot of those inherent issues. Pending requests would be just that: pending. This raises some issues, however, of not needing to friend someone to permit them to follow you, as it were. The goal is to add options, not remove existing functionality. This section will need some help, so please offer suggestions / ideas as you see fit. I will update. 

As a quick aside, should friends be reworked, I think mail should be an option regardless of friends. That may be a bit intense, but I don't see a tangible benefit to being forced to add someone as a friend in order to send them stuff. I like friends, and don't personally have an issue with it, but it does strike me as a bit peculiar. 

4) No longer priorityHome Streets 
Though no longer an issue if the the three items above are modified, I will keep this as food for thought for the moment until the Friends functionality is better discussed. The below description doesn't get into why home streets should be private, so much as how extremely public home streets are. I think that's relevant and important to note.

Obviously, this is a major point of contention - I would simply wish that these 'public' streets be limited in accessibility for those who would wish it. As of this moment, home streets are the most accessible streets in Ur, unlike any other public place. 

People can jump to home streets without using TP or energy, and can immediately link to them. This is a tremendous boon to friends and groups, but is a bit intense for all of Ur to be able to instantly get there. Hold your disagreements, we'll get to the why's in a moment. I promise.

Why? Why is privacy important in a game like Glitch?

1. Burn out.

Privacy is important for a number of reasons, but I think chief among them is burn out. This is something I've been trying to figure out how to say correctly for a while. I've gotten burnt out on the social aspect before, and I've seen plenty of other players get burnt out too. You probably have as well. People who were before very social suddenly disappearing or being moody in global.

Privacy is about limiting social interaction. Glitch is a social game. So why would someone want to LIMIT what the game is essentially about? Because the game is so social, it can be really easy to get overwhelmed. It's hard to spend a lot of time in the game and get "into" it socially without becoming more social. But, when you log in, and all your time is spent chatting while your character idles out, there's an imbalance of game mechanics. 

Sometimes I log in and that's all I want to do. I love chatting. I love talking to people. I love being social. But on those days when I just want to tidy up my little Glitch house, or explore Ur? Sometimes you want to just play the game and not talk to anyone. 

"So tell them!" Right, and by x time I've had to repeat myself to the x person, how good of a mood will I be in? How cheerful and polite will I be to the person who is innocently and justifiably trying to say hello? How nice is that? How shitty would it be to have your head bit off by a friend because they've just had to repeat themselves however many times and say they don't really want to chat at the moment? It's not about communication or needing to block people, it's about not being burnt out and turning into a colossal asshole. It's about still being able to enjoy the game and put energy into it when you have the energy to do so.

This isn't about blocking people who are saying hi. This is about controlling whether or not they can say hi in the first place so that you don't turn into a jackass. Perhaps people will be offended when my privacy controls are set to no IMs. But I think they'll be more offended if I have to tell them, "sorry, I really can't chat right now, because IF I KEEP TALKING TO YOU PEOPLE I WILL KILL. KILLLLLL. KILLLLLL!" (Points if you get the bad movie reference)

VS put it quite nicely: "Sometimes, I just wanna play, and the interactions are too many, too much. Saying so leads to more or prolonged IMs asking if I'm ok. On occasion I've ended up incredibly stressed and shutting down the game, when what I really want is just to wander and explore and go to my happy place. I created an alt to be able to just *play* sometimes, but oddly, conversely, that feels lonely because I'm not my usual me and for the sake of a little uninterrupted play time, I have to cut myself off from almost everyone. If there could be a way to let people know that I might not reply right away, I'd love to exclusively play as me-VS."

2. Public information is used against players in the forum. 

Information has been used against players by the community plenty of times (a specific example is the housing debates a few months back - "so and so hasn't been in the game, they don't deserve a house!"). Ad hominem attacks against users or value statements about users who play a certain way by well-enough-intended people who are trying to make a point and use the information on the public profile to fuel that attack. Some people are understandably uncomfortable with that, and would rather not have that information accessible at all. I think that's a completely justifiable and appropriate reaction.

3. Everyone's business becomes everyone else's business.

The Glitch community is EXTRA SUPER HELPFUL. If you ask a question, you will get a response. That's wonderful. Then you'll get another response (often very similar if not the same as the first). Then you get an avalanche of responses. 

Laureth explains this better.

4. Personal Identity and Avatars. 

It's no secret that people get their real identity tied up with their Glitch identity. That line is blurred and with some players, it's impossible to see where one begins and the other ends. It's never as clear cut as we think, because the physical aspects of the game rarely enter into it. We all know people use computers, but what we see and interact with is an avatar. An avatar is like a glove, with traits and a little personality we develop for it. So, a really creepy glove, in this analogy. 

Real life identifying information is moot in this instance, because the information that's really important is exactly the information that's available in game. Players have dealt with stalking behavior in-game before. Stalking doesn't always have to be malicious, (and it usually isn't). It can be well intended and still make people uncomfortable. Gifts left on doorsteps or letters in the mail can really rub people the wrong way. I've been on the receiving end of some peculiar things in my time, and I can only imagine what some other players have received.

I want to be really clear - this all relates to in-game situations. Stalking in-game and situations that happen there, not anything that has happened to anyone in real life. The goal here is to illustrate the separation between real life and Glitch while also acknowledging that personal identity doesn't adhere to those separations nearly as neatly.

One thing I can say for absolute certain is that even when something is apparently hostile, a quick conversation with the user in question usually turns that around. Most people here are great people and really nice and well meaning. I don't expect anyone to be able to handle the quirks and odd behaviors of the entire community all the time, and I think privacy options are really useful for giving a player some armor when dealing with that until they figure out what strategy works best for them (if they ever do).

I don't think Glitch should be about sinking or swimming in a social space. I think there should be options to better enable people to get along harmoniously without burn out, hurt feelings, feeling threatened, or being attacked.

Privacy is about options. Privacy would not and should not be the default. Public should be the default in this game. An option is there to provide an alternative when and if you want or need it.

Misconceptions:

Why do you need privacy settings? Just block people!
Blocking is limited for three reasons: 
1) It's reactionary - it requires a problem to present itself in order to be an effective tool

2) It's permanent, in that it is very difficult to undo, and requires diligent record keeping on the part of the user

3) It's not very nice. A blocked person can tell they've been blocked if they poke around. Blocking is appropriate in situations where someone is being abusive or inappropriate, or simply annoying (not warranting TS involvement).

Privacy settings (in theory, of course) would differ in the following ways: 
1) Privacy settings are progressive. It can be set prior to any event occurring. If I know I'm in a foul mood, I can proactively update my settings so that I don't inadvertently offend someone because I'm feeling fat and sassy. I'll save that for Global. Like I usually do.

2) Privacy settings deal with levels of interaction, rather than individual players, and are therefore impersonal. E.g. "It's not that I don't like you, dear reader, it's that I don't wish to chat with anyone at this point in time."

3) Privacy settings are inherently temporary and easy to revert. If I am toggling between being able to chat with everyone in the world, or only with friends, I should be able to easily switch back and forth.

You don't need privacy in Glitch! No one knows your real information!
As it relates to the game, my "real" information is what my character is doing and where she is. That's the information I don't want people to have. (See above in "why").

Privacy options is about hoarding resources. It gives a player an unfair advantage!
Privacy isn't about resources. It's about feeling comfortable in a social context. Not everyone is the social butterfly that you are, and not everyone takes to the unique culture of Glitch as quickly or as easily as others here have. 

The world, as many have pointed out, is FULL of resources. I would say there's a surplus. Privacy would create no advantage - if anything, it would create a disadvantage where resources are concerned if the user intends to utilize only their backyard for resources in the "home street" context. Since replenishing resources is a LOT easier if you have help.

As for greed in general, we can debate until we're blue in the face who's "greedier," but at the end of the day some people will be greedy and some won't. Some people will be greedy about certain resources and generous with others. Sort of like a game economy...

This is just my initial take and attempt to address the many factors that enter into this discussion. I'm sure others have better and more eloquent ways of saying this, so please, please take the time to read through any replies. I will update this OP with additional concise points as they come in.

Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

1 2 3 Next
  • To put the DND thing succinctly, no one deserves to be blocked simply for wanting to send me a friendly IM. In these cases, blocking is not useful, helpful, or kind. Sometimes, even saying "can't talk right now" can lead to more questions or hurt feelings, as can ignoring an IM or a knock on my door. Closing the browser to avoid this means that I have to sacrifice playing glitch, so that doesn't seem like a very happy solution either. Some of us are hermits and can be socially awkward. Some of us have life histories that mean it isn't easy or simple to tell folks to leave us alone at times. That's why a DND setting would be welcome and helpful.
    Posted 7 months ago by Voluptua Sneezelips Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Also, if you could establish a Do Not Disturb message, that message goes out equally to everyone who tries to contact you.   If someone IMs you and you say, even nicely,  "I'm busy right now" it can have the air of a brush-off.   A DND message is LESS personal, which is a good thing, as there is no possibility that a potential contact is being rejected for personal reasons. 
    Posted 7 months ago by WalruZ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Xev Thank you for taking the time to explain your view of the home street thing.

    @Bashere Just as a sidenote: I've played MMOs that had something close to the level of privacy Xev is suggesting built in (before Facebook existed), and it was nice. Even MMOs that don't at least tend to let you set yourself to busy/afk with an away message, should you wish to appear unavailable for some alone time. A recent example: GW2 lets you choose before you log in whether you want to appear invisible or not.
    Posted 7 months ago by MX Ghostie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @NiceDayToday Thanks for your concise response. I apologize if my initial comment didn't clarify.

    1 Block is hard to do: You go to a player page click "Block".  To unblock you click "Unblock"

    Except I have to remember who I blocked. There's no list or archive of blocked users. Unless I keep diligent track of who I blocked or I randomly encounter them on the street, I will never know that they are there and that I should unblock them. This is perfect for a block functionality, since it removes the blocked user from your interactions very effectively. 

    2 Its permanent: No its not permanent. (See above)

    It's permanent in the sense that unless you are keeping careful track of who you've blocked, it's really hard to unblock someone. Sorry, little bit redundant. But that's in keeping with "see above" :)

    3 Its not very nice: This is your personal feelings towards Block. I cant say your feelings are wrong. They are yours, not mine.

    As others have pointed out, if someone is IMing me to ask a question or say hello, blocking them is a harsh response, especially if I forget to unblock them. They've been bizarrely cast into the abyss for a completely innocent reason. 
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @NiceDayToday Just to add my simple wording and opinion to what Xev already said:

    The answer to your original question is, "No, blocking does not do everything (I) want it to do."

    If I want to play for an hour or a week without chatting with other players, I would have to block everyone. My friends. People I met on the street. This isn't feasible. If I DID manage to block everyone in the whole game, I would then have the daunting task of UNBLOCKING them in an hour or a week when I did feel like chatting again. In other games I've played that had a "busy" feature, there were some tasks that didn't lend themselves to interruptions, so I would use the feature. In Glitch, I think the AL is a good example of a situation in which people don't typically chat. If it were available, I would turn DND on while I was running from the jujus. The block feature does not give me that flexibility.
    Posted 7 months ago by Audaria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I've really enjoyed reading through this thread. I agree with most of the things in the OP and think Xev has done a stellar job with responding to concerns, questions, opinions and doubts presented by others.

    I do want to also point out something that I think (I may have missed it) hasn't been pointed out about the issue of using blocking as a privacy control; if one were to use blocking just to get some quiet from their friends on a day they're not feeling particularly social, it would remove those friends from their friend list, and they'd have to re-add them. That could become very messy, since when they re-add the friends, the friends would be notified (I believe). Blocking really is only for shutting out people that have caused you problems or offended you. As has been mentioned, it is not a proper privacy tool; it is a proper problem-solving tool.
    Posted 7 months ago by Little Miss Giggles Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I am delurking just to add my +1 to everything Xev has suggested in his OP.

    I don't use the social aspects of Glitch as much as would probably be fun, because I am super-shy (and often very busy so would often have to choose between chatting and playing if I made lots of Glitchen buddies), but if I ever do get my courage together and start making buddies I would like to be able to "revert" sometimes without the extra worry of offending people.

    Just looking at some of the mini-conversations in this thread you can see how easy it can be to offend or just rub people up the wrong way, completely unintentionally...
    Posted 7 months ago by indium Subscriber! | Permalink
  • everyone talks about this blocking thing as if it's harsh or sad or mean.

    it's perfectly lovely. if i wouldn't talk to you in real life, why would i want my game littered with you?

    i suppose it's mean if i were to track down the people i've blocked and leave notes for them to make sure they know i've blocked them.

    but i think the discussion over whether or not blocking is extreme gets in the way or the discussion abotut whether DND is a good thing to ask for.

    blocking is lovely for people you don't want to talk to. ever.

    DND would be lovely for times when you don't want to talk to anyone, and those two things are very, very different.

    i would also go as far as to say that it would be nice to have a little list of people in the imaginary privacy system who may always speak to me, even if i have put up my DND, because i can think of at least one person i'd talk to whether i felt like being disturbed or not.

    a long time ago people of a certain set could simply tell the butler "i am not at home", meaning "i am not taking calls or visits" and it was understood that you might be physically at home, but were not taking calls or visits. it was a lovely social convention and i imagine it would be useful in the game.

    there.

    i am not at home now and if you wish to let me know you called, you may leave your card.
    Posted 7 months ago by flask Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Oh thank you guys for posting. You make some great points and expand nicely on others. 

    I think what's really critical is understanding that this is about empathy. We are very social, as a species, and when we unintentional create a social problem (either through a misunderstanding or a miscommunication - especially where the other person is hurt or offended) it is extremely stressful.

    Glitch shouldn't be unduly stressful. There should be some protections in place to help players be social in a way that is positive and fun.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @flask: you just hit the nail on the head. 

    "it's perfectly lovely. if i wouldn't talk to you in real life, why would i want my game littered with you?"

    That's EXACTLY what block is for. The difference is that most of the people who would be affected by privacy options (friends, potential friends, random nice people) are NOT the people who would or should be blocked. These are the opposite - the people you want to talk to, but just don't feel like talking to at the moment. That's where DND is incredibly useful. In that context, block is harsh because that's not what blocking is designed for.

    Your butler idea is also quite excellent. I don't know enough about them to speculate myself, but I will probably update the OP with that idea.

    Thank you, flask :)
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • flask, I think you described the situation perfectly. Thank you. I agree. It's what I was trying to say, but you said it so much more clearly.
    Posted 7 months ago by Audaria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • 1. Invisible mode.

    2. DND request friends can still IM--only works with #3

    3. Keyholders, friends, AND acquaintances. 
    Posted 7 months ago by M<3tra, obviously Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Secondlife has a lot of those privacy features mentioned in the OP.      
    Posted 7 months ago by Treesa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Second Life is not a game.  It's marketed to businesses, universities, and other enterprises that are required by law to keep various employee and client information private.  

    They couldn't exist without complying with those requirements.  

    Nothing in Glitch uses your real, personally identifying information.  There's nothing here that's connect to your real name unless you choose to reveal it.  That's not the case for classes (for example) conducted at SL classrooms.  
    Posted 7 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Its a virtual world.  I never used it for business or classroom situations although some folks do.  

    Anyway, I don't use secondlife anymore.   I mentioned the privacy features because they are similar to what the op wanted and yet it was a bit of a turn off dealing with people who had all those privacy features in use in SL.   When I first started using the site I found it strange that people I knew from outside the site, who updated their twitter feeds with their IRL locations, would not  give me permission to see where they were inworld.    People set up the privacy controls by default to share very little about their activities - even after they had added you as a friend.   Why do they fill out their profiles with all their IRL details?    It just made it seem like I was dealing with people who wanted to cultivate a huge friend list, to become popular (partly based on their IRL lives or offsite credentials or internet popularity)  but at the same time to make themselves unavailable to the friends they had gone out of their way to cultivate.    It just seemed kind of stupid. 

    I can never figure out if people who want to be popular are sociable types or antisocial types.   Don't play the popularity game if you don't want to have to deal with the attention that goes along with that.  I may be wrong but it leaves me feeling that the person wants attention (which is fine with me, I'm happy to give attention to people who crave it) but also wants to CONTROL the attention they get and the people who give them that attention.  If they just want to be loved, then fine; if they want to be liked and to also be able to call the shots on everything that goes along with being popular...then not so fine. 

    Also,  if you don't want to share certain information about yourself just don't put it on your profile.   Talk to people you trust and hope that they don't repeat your conversations to others.
    Posted 7 months ago by Treesa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The only place I use privacy features is at Flickr ( to avoid anyone collecting all that information about locations, face recognition,  information in tags etc).    Facebook privacy is a dogs breakfast (and one of the reasons I've avoided fb since day one).   Just assume everything you upload to fb is public, and that it is owned and controlled by fb and they will do whatever you want with it (actually, you can believe that about flickr too...or any other website you give your content to).   

    Privacy controls can be misleading and they really don't do much to help integrate new players.  

    In the end, if you like attention you will get attention - and everything that goes with it.
    Posted 7 months ago by Treesa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • i suppose you fall in the "celebrities don't deserve a private life" camp.

    just because a person is well-known doesn't mean they want a webcam on them when they take a dump.

    we needn't choose either "all attention all the time"  or "no attention at all", hmmm?
    Posted 7 months ago by flask Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I have never found it particularly rude if someone ignores the chat window.  I ignore it myself sometimes when I'm busy. If my rare chat initiatives are ignored until later it is no big deal.  I figure the person is either busy, didn't see the chat window, or is talking to someone else.   The way I play I don't usually encourage chat.   I read and respond to updates and add to the forum discussions but not when I'm trying to get something done in the game.    It doesn't seem to be a problem that requires official controls on who can or can't speak to me. 
    Posted 7 months ago by Treesa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Flask:  ha, I'm not much of a fan of celebrities so I don't care so long as their private homes remain private and people keep their distance from them in public.  Public is public.  It annoys me when a film crew comes to a town or city and takes possession of a public street (paid for by taxpayers) because of the fear that someone might get too close to a celebrity.

    As a somewhat related point, much as I respect the TS owners and staff for their ability to make stuff I use...I find the whole  "rock star developer"  (dev lobe)  thing a bit unprofessional.  Why do they encourage it?  Its bound to backfire.  
    Posted 7 months ago by Treesa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Totally agree with that last bit, Treesa.
    Posted 7 months ago by Aurora Dellaterra Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Treesa: Would you mind expanding a little on your last statement in regards to Tiny Speck and them being 'rock star developers'?  I know there's a lot of talk here about privacy controls and whether or not it's on the devs' agenda, but please forgive me: I am trying to relate that statement back to the original topic at hand and not doing so well, heh.  (I'm also just super curious as to what constitutes as 'professionalism' for different people.)
    Posted 7 months ago by Classical Subscriber! | Permalink
  • There are four "fan club" groups, 3 of which are for fans of specific staff members here:

    Glitch Devs Fan Club
    kevbob Fan Club
    stoot Fan Club
    Mr. Conkin Fan Club

    Celebrities often have fan clubs, so perhaps this is the "rock star" aspect being talked about.  

    I'm not sure either what rules of professionalism apply to developers who have already made millions selling a software product to Yahoo!  I don't think it's the dress code that's under discussion.  But, no worries, since "it's bound to backfire".  
    Posted 7 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think I joined one of those fan clubs.  I join all the groups I get invites to but never post there.   
    Posted 7 months ago by Treesa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • classical:  it was an answer to the comment about "celebrities" which also has nothing to do with the OP.  The thread took a turn to "celebrities" after that.  Feel free to turn it back to whatever you want.   
    Posted 7 months ago by Treesa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • This one here (but there are probably more)
    http://www.glitch.com/groups/RA91HJP9BGO2QL1/

    I don't even know who Mr Conkin is, I figured the group was just a gag. 
    Posted 7 months ago by Treesa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Xev The whole "at home to the public" thing is why I suggested that the new Botlers might serve as privacy proxies.
    Posted 7 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • heh, like security guards in gated communities?  
    Posted 7 months ago by Treesa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think a Not Available choice for IMs would be nice, because you are correct....sometimes you just want to get on and play with no chit chat.  As you said, mail is still an option if a person really needs to get a hold of you.

    Social media and gaming sites are awesome, but expecting privacy is a fantasy.  If it is on the internet, someone will find it.  

    In reference to the individual who posted a clear violation of rules, people most definitely should of been nicer in notifying them. The decision to defend their breaking the rules is what I believe opened the flood gates to the mess.  The appearance  of righteous self entitlement  is what sends people into a rabid frothing war of words.  I am not saying they deserved it, or defending the actions of a few, but for gawds sake...don't flame the passions of the already offended. It never ends good.

    I personally would of sent an IM to the user to tell them they might want to delete the post and say no more.  Not to encourage rule breaking, which I do not condone but as a friendly note to "CYA".
     But, I refrained from wading into the abyss on that one.

    You and I had a similar argument about a user in global who lacks basic common conversational skills and societal politeness.  Conversational skills include listening, a grasp of the language and an awareness of the medium. In this case, a non audio/visual form.

    I've been around long enough to have witnessed many a misunderstanding happen online because of knee-jerk reactions to a message.  Because online conversations lack the visual and audio part of a conversation; misreadings are the norm rather than the exception.  If you add in the very "global" nature of Glitch with differing societal norms... well, we've all seen the results.

    I realize I diverted from the original thread in the last several paragraphs, so let me get back on point:

    Tiny Speck is a business and they have a right to set rules for their proprietary programs and certainly there is no reasonable expectation of privacy from TS while using the in-game communication channels. While I am intelligent to know that my pithy little IMs are not monitored; I am also aware that as soon as I hit "submit", "send", or "reply" it is no longer private.  In short, don't post personal details that you don't want broadcasted anywhere.  If they do, and it is used to hurt them - certainly don't expect any sympathy from me.  They might get a "dumb-ass" though.
    Posted 7 months ago by Zooo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • A lot of interesting things happened in my absence. I will do my best to respond to everyone tomorrow. In the mean time, have a good night (or day), everyone. And thank you for your efforts. Any posts between now and tomorrow morning will be read through as well, so carry on as you see fit.

    One final thing: please refrain from judging the actions of individual players however indirectly. As stated before, it's hard for the players in question not to respond defensively. Thanks.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Treesa: Ah!  I see now.  I was just confused, is all, but that is now solved. :>
    Posted 7 months ago by Classical Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Mr.Conkin is a staff member. Just thought I'd clear that up for those that were unaware. I've no more to add right now; just going to keep reading some as more feedback is posted.
    Posted 7 months ago by Little Miss Giggles Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Treesa: Thanks for taking the time to address some very relevant point that I don't think anyone had brought up before, but rather alluded to in the past.

    1. "I can never figure out if people who want to be popular are sociable types or antisocial types.   Don't play the popularity game if you don't want to have to deal with the attention that goes along with that. [...] If they just want to be loved, then fine; if they want to be liked and to also be able to call the shots on everything that goes along with being popular...then not so fine. [...] In the end, if you like attention you will get attention - and everything that goes with it."

    Popularity is a funny thing. There are people who WANT to be popular and try very hard to be so (and occasionally succeed). There are also people who aren't trying and just become popular without much effort (or as a consequence of something else they were trying to do - like organize or lead something, like say a mining group or a cubimal lottery). This isn't high school - the "cool" kids aren't part of a clique per se. But there are comparisons between an online community and a high school. It's a social environment, and there will be subtle but very real distinctions between people and groups based on what the community collectively thinks of them.

    So to sum up, there are two kinds of popularity: People who are popular because of what they do, and people who are popular because of who they are. There is inherently overlap, but that's kind of the gist.

    What I'm getting at is that it's hard to say who's actively, deliberately trying. Who is truly savvy enough to come into a big community like this, guns blazing, and just instantly become a known name on purpose

    The implication of your statement is that if you become overwhelmed with social stuff, it's your fault for trying to be popular, so stop bitching. You put yourself out there, you should be able to handle everything with no filter. While I see your point, I don't agree. I think it's important to realize what the alternative is. 

    If someone can't handle the social stuff, the only recourse right now is to physically remove themselves from the game. So if I become super ultra popular tomorrow, and I can't handle the influx, I either shut up and deal with it (because if I have a little break down and freak out, I will instantly draw the ire of the ENTIRE COMMUNITY), or leave altogether.

    That's shitty.

    Now, it's possible I misunderstood this. Regardless, it's a REALLY excellent point, so even though I disagree with what I think you're saying, I am really glad that you brought it up. 

    2. "Also,  if you don't want to share certain information about yourself just don't put it on your profile.   Talk to people you trust and hope that they don't repeat your conversations to others."

    This isn't  about personal, real life, identifying information. This is about the information that we, collectively, cannot control. Location information about where we are in the game, if we're online, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with real life data. It's also not about having to stop being social. I think that's fundamentally what this comes down to.

    This idea that people should just go away if they can't handle being social because they got burnt on being SUPER SOCIAL is bizarro to me.

    Flask put this very well:  "we needn't choose either "all attention all the time" or "no attention at all", hmmm?"

    3. "I have never found it particularly rude if someone ignores the chat window. I ignore it myself sometimes when I'm busy. If my rare chat initiatives are ignored until later it is no big deal. I figure the person is either busy, didn't see the chat window, or is talking to someone else. The way I play I don't usually encourage chat. I read and respond to updates and add to the forum discussions but not when I'm trying to get something done in the game. It doesn't seem to be a problem that requires official controls on who can or can't speak to me."

    You made some interesting points. First, that you don't find it rude if someone ignores you. That's great! That's not the experience everyone else has had, and not the point of view everyone shares when IMing others. Some people get really bent out of shape about it. Some people also just like to talk, and will keep typing even if you don't respond. Especially if you don't respond.

    Second, you don't encourage chat in-game, instead you prefer to be social in the forums. Therefore, you don't see the need for privacy controls. Can you see that others don't interact that way though? And that the way the game is designed, to very much encourage social interaction in-game, can be overwhelming to some players? Even if it's not overwhelming ALL the time, it's overwhelming enough to make numerous threads about it over the course of a year and a half?

    4. "ha, I'm not much of a fan of celebrities so I don't care so long as their private homes remain private and people keep their distance from them in public.  Public is public."

    You make some really interesting statements here: Private homes remaining private, and people keeping their distance in public. But that's not how it works. People, fans especially, don't keep their distance. Celebrities have to go to great lengths to maintain their privacy. But, you also raise another good point - differentiation between private and public. There isn't much distinction right now. And, in a social game, where some people - not just devs - do become very, very popular (even achieving a type of 'celebrity' status), that's important.

    It fundamentally comes down to what people are willing to put into this game, socially, and needing to know that if they put a lot in, there's some way to protect themselves from getting burnt out or overly emotionally invested. Right now, it's just a huge emotional and energy drain otherwise. I think if there were better privacy options, we'd see more people not censoring themselves and holding back, because I think fundamentally, your attitude is shared with a lot of people. In so far as people who are concerned with privacy and with the "EVERYONE KNOWS EVERYTHING" aspect of Glitch remain very guarded and very quiet, not sharing creative ideas or trying stuff in the community BECAUSE they are concerned about the reaction - however "positive" it may be. 
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Pascale: Yes! I would love it if the botlers had a greater function in that respect, but I don't know much about them, so if you want to expand on that more, that would rock.

    @Zooo: Thank you so much for replying to this thread. You have a lot of great points to share. 

    1. "Social media and gaming sites are awesome, but expecting privacy is a fantasy. If it is on the internet, someone will find it."

    I'm pretty sure you're reiterating / responding to Treesa with this comment, but we are agreed - any personal information, or data about yourself you do not want known or shared should not be posted anywhere. As far as Privacy in Glitch is concerned, this isn't an issue that would or should be addressed by TS. It's more of a common sense thing.

    As for your example regarding the person who was bombarded with people telling them that they were breaking the rules, I want to avoid getting into the details of who did what and when and what someone "deserved." It's not about what someone deserves. It's about the fact that the community as a whole will not behave well if someone is doing something they perceive to be wrong. We can tell people that they should or should not do something all day long, but the community doesn't work that way. An individual does.

    2. "You and I had a similar argument about a user in global who lacks basic common conversational skills and societal politeness.  Conversational skills include listening, a grasp of the language and an awareness of the medium. In this case, a non audio/visual form."

    I wouldn't classify that as an argument, and I really hope you don't :( The problem is that conversational skills vary from person to person, and in an online community... well, now, that's just cute. We, as a group, are going to get all kinds. It's not practical to get our feathers ruffled whenever someone doesn't play by our social rules. Social mores and customs differ based on community, people and time. What is kosher here and now may not be in four months, and vice versa. The point is there's no set standard that everyone agrees to or deliberately ignores.

    3. "I've been around long enough to have witnessed many a misunderstanding happen online because of knee-jerk reactions to a message. Because online conversations lack the visual and audio part of a conversation; misreadings are the norm rather than the exception. If you add in the very "global" nature of Glitch with differing societal norms... well, we've all seen the results."

    This is an EXCELLENT point. I definitely see what you're saying - the visual and audio are key social cues and that is what very clearly differentiates an online community from a real life one. Consequently, the societal norms develop differently in some ways. They still do develop unique to that community, however, and the parallels are worth noting. The community as a whole does dictate its displeasure and pleasure at things, en masse. So there are very clear checks and balances for what is considered okay and what isn't.

    That being said, that's really intense. Because quite literally, the entire tuned-in community will come at you, positive or negative, if they have a reaction to what you've said or done. Having some way for the individual to distance themselves from that will not only help them, but it will help the community be a little calmer, instead of behaving like a swarm of angry bees. Or happy bees? I ... okay, bad analogy, but you hopefully get my point.

    4. "Tiny Speck is a business and they have a right to set rules for their proprietary programs and certainly there is no reasonable expectation of privacy from TS while using the in-game communication channels. While I am intelligent to know that my pithy little IMs are not monitored; I am also aware that as soon as I hit "submit", "send", or "reply" it is no longer private. In short, don't post personal details that you don't want broadcasted anywhere. If they do, and it is used to hurt them - certainly don't expect any sympathy from me. They might get a "dumb-ass" though."

    Private IMs in the sense of whether or not they are private, are not and have never been the issue in this thread or anywhere else as far as I know. Personal, identifying information, or private information about you in real life that you can share or withhold at your discretion are not in question. We are agreed that anyone who gets upset for posting their social security number on a public forum and then gets upset about people knowing it (or similar scenario)  is a dumb ass.

    But let's be really clear - that's not and has not been a part of this conversation. It's neither here nor there, and when we talk about privacy in Glitch, we're talking about it as it pertains to the social dynamic of the game. That intrinsic element that makes the game as good and addictive as it is, as well as overwhelming.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • kneeds moar blookin
    Posted 7 months ago by Volkov Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "when  we talk about privacy in Glitch, we're talking about it as it pertains to the social dynamic of the game"

    You may be talking about it that way but other people may wish to to discuss other aspects of the topic.   The "conversation" is  whatever people who add their thoughts to the thread make it.   Its not just what the op says it is.  The original post  is what it is but the conversation is what the contributors say it is.  

    As to the celebrity discussion, I've lost interest in that topic but in response to your comment about celebrities in public I'll just reiterate that celebrities are, for the most part, public people.  They hire publicists, they cultivate their image, some of them command more money in their films simply because of the number of people who can recognize their faces on the promo posters.   Maybe there are a few who have been pushed into the limelight against their will but most have worked hard and paid a high price to get their face and name recognized by the public.
    Posted 7 months ago by Treesa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thanks for your response, Treesa.

    "You may be talking about it that way but other people may wish to to discuss other aspects of the topic."

    Which is all well and good, but when you're refuting claims that no one made, I have a right to point that out.

    "The original post  is what it is but the conversation is what the contributors say it is."

    If that were true, I am totally within my bounds to say you're a duck, so quacky quacky.

    "As to the celebrity discussion, I've lost interest in that topic but in response to your comment about celebrities in public I'll just reiterate that celebrities are, for the most part, public people. They hire publicists, they cultivate their image, some of them command more money in their films simply because of the number of people who can recognize their faces on the promo posters."

    Regarding the celebrity discussion, I appreciate that you've lost interest in it, but you brought it up and people responded to it. And you're still responding to it, so I'm really grateful to you for suffering through what must be extraordinary boredom.

    I'm attempting to relate the tangential celebrity topic to Glitch itself, specifically how a normal, every day player may achieve a level of "celebrity" with regard to popularity. In that context, my point stands - (and so does yours) there's a clear line between what's private and what's public. We don't have that in glitch, and anyone can at any time interrupt you and demand your attention. Or interject into a conversation they weren't originally a part of, as was the case in Laureth's example. 

    All THAT relates to the other stuff I talked about in my post (that you didn't respond to, even though I had questions for you I hoped you'd answer), namely how a person in glitch truly can become "famous" in this community without hiring a publicist or choosing that as their career path. But, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your response, and we're actually in agreement on that point?
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I more or less support more privacy options for people, and I can say I wouldn't even use them myself.  Options are options, and more of them is always good.
    Posted 7 months ago by Kirnan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thank you for your input, Kirnan! We're mostly agreed, so I don't have much to add. The idea is definitely about options, not mandating a new way of playing. Some people are concerned that it would unintentionally create a very defensive play style. I think and hope that it would give the people who wanted options the options they need to enjoy the game and further immerse themselves in it.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Can't remember if I've already posted in this thread or not.  But here it is, short and sweet. 

    I just want to be able to alter my IM status to 'not available'.  

    Have already mentioned this over several threads over several months.  If I'm feeling chatty I'll switch IM on and if I'm in a 'I want to be left alone' mood I switch it off.  Give me that TS and I will love this game even more (if that's at all possible!!)
    Posted 7 months ago by ~Arabesque~ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I would also favour a "DND or "Not Available" status option.

    Groups are a social choice we make too, we have friends outside those groups but if it was an option for me I would restrict my home street to the group of my choice. 
    Posted 7 months ago by Leithwyn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thanks for your response, Arabesque :) I very much agree.

    That's a really great point, Leithwyn. Semi-related, and possibly of interest to you, is this post.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Xev, this is a terrific thread. As a new member of Imaginators, I came here to check out your moderator style. I am very happy/comfortable with what I see here.

    While I haven't read all the replies, I will comment on one specific aspect in your OP:
    "If I know I'm in a foul mood, I can proactively update my settings so that I don't inadvertently offend someone because I'm feeling fat and sassy. I'll save that for Global. Like I usually do." -- This cracked me up!
    Posted 7 months ago by kastlin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Ha, thank you very much kastlin!
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I demand royalties for use of my Bees! .gif!
    Posted 7 months ago by MarbhDamhsa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • You shall be paid. ... In PIE!
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • ... What flavor is it?
    Posted 7 months ago by Liza Throttlebottom Subscriber! | Permalink
  • .... uh.... gliiiiiitch.... 
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Oh, shit, things be getting Sweeney up in here.
    Posted 7 months ago by Liza Throttlebottom Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Devs, can we please log in invisible?
    Posted 6 months ago by Li'll Missy Brenda Subscriber! | Permalink
1 2 3 Next