Sign In

### 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 priority: Home 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 | Permalink

### Replies

Previous 1 2 3 Next

- Very well stated Xev. I hope TS looks hard at this issue.
  Posted 7 months ago by Piece of Serenity | Permalink
- Personally I love the public street system but I am beginning to understand that some players hate it. When I first read that some people were opposed to it I had a hard time making sense out of their position. But after reading their posts I have come to sympathize with them. Many of them have had bad experiences with crime or stalkers in the real world and feel unsafe with the openness of Glitch.
  I completely support any player's desire to be able to choose to opt out of the public street system.
  Posted 7 months ago by Miss Bobbit | Permalink
- In regards to your "I'd rather not talk to anyone right now" point (which I agree with, I've felt that way plenty of times), what about implementing a Do Not Disturb command? I've seen it in a few games- you type /dnd [and a message here if you'd like], and anyone who tries to talk to you gets your automated response instead, leaving you to do whatever non-chatty things you'd like. The DND could even show up as a visible indicator on a player's name, though I'm sure there are people out there who would like to keep to themselves, but not advertise as such.
  Posted 7 months ago by Wrench | Permalink
- I'm very glad you wrote this, Xev :)
  I gave up on reading the other thread due to what I perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be the hostile nature of a lot of posts... yours included.
  I like public streets, but after reading this well thought out post I can understand the whys and hows of your suggested privacy options. Of course, I'm not TS so my opinion and understanding means nothing in this.
  Edited to add something that has been bugging me:
  I saw in the old thread and this thread that people are citing terrible occurrences in real life as the reason for privacy options in Glitch. Not everyone feels the same way due to awful experiences.
  I spent a lot of my life hiding due to continued rape and abuse. I've been home during a home invasion, and I've had someone try to take me off the street and continue to follow me when a stranger agreed to walk with me to authorities.
  I now live my life transparently online. My real name, my address, my email, my phone number... all available... and I actually feel less frightened since choosing to live this way. This is not the way to live for most people. I just wanted to make it clear that not everyone is the same so please don't suggest, as was the case in the old thread, that you can't have been through anything bad in your life if you like public streets.
  Posted 7 months ago by xombiekitty | Permalink
- Thank you, you put into words my scrambled thoughts. :)
  Posted 7 months ago by Li'll Missy Brenda | Permalink
- Thanks everyone! I want to be really clear - my proposed solutions are just that. I don't think they are the end all be all solution, and I agree that TS has consistently surprised us with surpassing our hopes and expectations. That said, your suggestions are equally valid and useful.
  Whatever your stance, I will read all your replies and update the OP where appropriate with solutions better than mine, and alternatives. Regardless, I am inevitably somewhat biased, but I will do my best to remain objective and curate the discussion into a manageable (albeit long) post.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Instead of editing, I want to address your post directly, xombiekitty:
  "I just wanted to make it clear that not everyone is the same so please don't suggest, as was the case in the old thread, that you can't have been through anything bad in your life if you like public streets."
  I 100% agree with this, and I think that's where level of comfort comes in. People are different. That's what makes Glitch such a cool place. There are so many attitudes, perspectives and styles - it's fun!
  I don't think real life scenarios should be used as a for or against argument in this context (it's also really easy for that line of conversation to turn into a personal attack or be taken as a personal attack). I will do my best to curb that from happening in this thread, and I hope everyone else will too.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Hi five Xev. Brilliantly written and very well thought out
  *hands award*
  I agree with everything you said here. And the best part is the population of glitch that doesn't want anything to be private are not affected by such a change. They never even have to see the button if they dont want to. The only time they will even have to know this function exists is when they come across a glitch who has toggled this button to on and they can't interact. I guess that would be frustrating of you really needed to speak with them, but how often does that ever happen anyway?
  ps- I personally dont mind either way. Public/private, apple/banana, black/white. IDC lol.
  Posted 7 months ago by Clickadee | Permalink
- Perfect, Xev :) I think that's the main thing here.
  Everyone is different and poor TS has to find what works best for them and their players :)
  I know they work really hard, so I hope the best thing for everyone comes out of the feedback.
  Posted 7 months ago by xombiekitty | Permalink
- Fascinating post Xev. So many ideas to think about.
  My initial reaction is that Glitch is a social game, but that the 'game' part is of equal importance to the 'social' If one is not feeling social, why should that be forced upon one? The game should be whatever one chooses for oneself, not someone else's game.
  Privacy is not a big problem for me, or has not been so far, but I understand others have had unpleasant experiences and that should not be allowed in a 'game' which one plays for enjoyment. Those who wish to play privately, all the time or sometimes, should have that option. They should not have to follow someone else's agenda.
  People should be free to choose how they play, not have things forced on them which they do not enjoy, just because someone else says what Glitch is or isn't.
  Reasons for desiring privacy are private! Why should anyone have to explain?
  Posted 7 months ago by Cassandria | Permalink
- @Clickadee - if communication needs to happen, mail still works and would only not work if the other player was blocked (as would be appropriate). Likewise, local and global chat would and should still work. Players who enable privacy options can opt out of public places by not going there. If I'm on a public street, I will see messages and be able to participate in those conversations. That should be true of everyone, as it is now.
  @xombiekitty - I also updated the OP for clarification. I meant stalker behavior entirely in the context of the game, not at all in real life. I hope it reads a little better now. But I will continue to revise as needed.
  @Cassandria: Much as I agree with you, (and I do), it's clear that we have some 'splainin' to do, especially since these aren't currently features. I really appreciate your post, though :)
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Oh, Xev, you didn't have to alter your post.
  My comments were referring to posts by [edited as requested] in the old thread that I found incredibly aggressive and offensive, and when I saw Miss Bobbit just mention things (in no way offensive or aggressive though) I just finally had to mention that we're all different as it reached breaking point for me. I actually understood that you meant in-game stuff only in your post.
  Sorry for the confusion!
  Posted 7 months ago by xombiekitty | Permalink
- Yes, Xev, I am afraid we have to explain, and you have done a wonderful job of doing that. :-)
  Posted 7 months ago by Cassandria | Permalink
- I didn't mean to imply that every person who wants more privacy in glitch was motivated by a real world experience. I know that is certainly not the case. But I do think that if there is even one person who is in that position then we should be especially careful to respect this viewpoint. I'm sorry if I was unclear or gave offense.
  Posted 7 months ago by Miss Bobbit | Permalink
- You did nothing wrong, Miss Bobbit.
  As I said it was just seeing it brought up again sent me right back to [edited as requested] posts on the subject. I just wanted to comment on things before they got out of hand like the last thread.
  Maybe I should have stayed quiet since I seem to be confusing and upsetting people.
  My apologies, folks.
  Posted 7 months ago by xombiekitty | Permalink
- This right here is what I love about this game. Now kiss.
  Seriously, though, it warms my tiny little ice heart. Which in that scenario would be deadly. Well done, jerks.
  @xombiekitty: Even if you understood, I think clarification is always better. I wouldn't want someone else in a similar situation (or someone advocating for privacy using that to bolster their claim) to misunderstand that paragraph. Thank you for your continued input. It's much appreciated :)
  As an aside, I realize that particular user ruffled a number of feathers. I would prefer (if you would be so kind), if you would modify your posts to remove that user's name. No matter how right or wrong either of you are, it would be really hard for me not to respond defensively if I saw a post about myself.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- I like the game mechanics and privacy options as they are. I'm also not always feeling particularly social, but the solution is incredibly simple - close Global. You don't have to respond to anyone or anything, and I often don't.
  No need to make mountains out of molehills and complicate the interface just because you can't say "No thanks" or "I'm busy right now". When people IM me or knock on my door and I'm not up for company, I either say that or don't respond. It's not rocket science.
  Posted 7 months ago by Fleep | Permalink
- @Fleep: I'm delighted the solution is so simple for you. Just to clarify, Global is not an issue and would not be affected in any way by these proposed privacy options.
  Your post addresses very little of the issues presented in the OP. How would that prevent or resolve the issues of users "calling out" other players for playing a certain way, using public information about them to justify why they should or shouldn't do something they don't want to?
  As for ignoring IMs, that's great that that works for you. It doesn't work for everyone, especially for people who ARE social, or who are socially invested in the game. For instance, someone who runs a group (or say a club... *cough*) has a vested interest in talking to EVERYONE, but that can get exhausting. It's a delicate thing, and some users do take it extremely personally if you don't respond.
  Even if I'm ignoring people who are IMing me, lots of IMs tend to lag up my game. It can be overwhelming even if I'm not interacting with other users.
  Bottom line: Different strokes for different folks. I'm very happy the current system works so well for you. Please understand it doesn't work quite so well for everyone.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- @Xev: I'm not thrilled about removing the name as I feel like I'm hiding and being secretive... something I do not like. I will however edit it out as you requested as it's your thread.
  Posted 7 months ago by xombiekitty | Permalink
- Understood, and thank you. I think you have every right to be ticked at that user, and if you want to address it, perhaps do so in IM / mail, or alternately in the old thread. I want to prevent bringing up the stuff that was really besides the point as much as possible.
  I think we are agreed that real life incidents should be neither here nor there as it pertains to in-game privacy. They may be a factor for some people, and that's okay too, but it's too easy for it to turn into a judgement.
  Calling out a specific user invites debate on that point. We all (myself included) have a very hard time not having the last word. It's not fair to bait people if it can be avoided, which is what that may be interpreted as being.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Well stated Xev! I think it does make sense to have privacy setting for the profile page just like the privacy options on facebook and appear offline feature/ busy tag feature. For home street though, I consider them to be the same as the home street on old housing which anyone can visit-- just maybe harder if the person doesn't have permission to see your profile page.
  Posted 7 months ago by rosedragon | Permalink
- Wow, I hope you know it wasn't baiting. I'm an incredibly honest person and all I did was be honest. I'm just going to drop out of this thread too.
  Posted 7 months ago by xombiekitty | Permalink
- :( xombiekitty. I know you weren't, and that's not what I meant. Simply that it could be interpreted that way, and it's tough for people not to want the last word. I see that as potentially inviting more problems than resolving them as you had intended. You made an excellent point, and I wanted to incorporate it into the overall conversation. I can't imagine that's the last good point you'll have, so please stick around.
  @rosedragon: Agreed entirely! A home street doesn't necessarily have to become private in this scenario. Perhaps just not so easy to access. Right now, they are the easiest streets to get to, more so than any other street, public OR seam.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- @xev - That's because I don't see any issues to address, you're basically asking the devs to re-engineer the game because you have too many people IMing you? Or because they say mean things about you?
  The solution to the first is simple - say I'm busy, ignore the IM, or block the user if you wish. The solution to the second is even more simple - who cares what someone says about how you play the game? Ignore them.
  Sounds to me like you (and some others) are having a personal problem, not a game design problem. If you haven't figured out how to manage your social interactions in online spaces already, I doubt any amount of re-engineering the game will change that.
  (Seriously, it really is that simple. If you don't respond, people will get the hint and move on. If they don't, then it's harassment and there are mechanisms to deal with that.)
  Posted 7 months ago by Fleep | Permalink
- @Fleep: I don't really know how else to communicate my points, but it's possible someone else here will. Otherwise, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
  Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- -1 (should be in the Ideas section)
  Posted 7 months ago by Janitch | Permalink
- It's not a suggestion yet, Janitch. It's a discussion. But thanks! Once we get something hammered out (if we do), I will post a condensed version in the Ideas forum. Right now, I don't think it's ready for prime time just yet.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- I love the /DND( message here) idea. Sometimes on glitch my friends get POed because I don't reply to their messages when im simply eating lunch or im talking to someone else or maybe i don't want to talk to anyone. About the actual post, i think it's a spectacular idea, because for some, things were taken from their home street, such as grown herbs and things like that. Some random person actually got in my friends house (still on glitch here) with no "letting in" or key, and took diamonds. same person took all my herbs from my home street. Point is, some people have bad experiences with home streets being extremely open to everyone, and some just plain don't care. Again, this is a great idea that i hope Stoot is considering while the game is broken :P
  Posted 7 months ago by Sutton | Permalink
- Lol, I'd love it if Stoot read this, but I have a feeling he's pretty busy with the Urgent Matter. That said, I too really like the DND idea. Since it's gaining momentum, I've updated the OP to include it.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- +1: Xev has thoughtfully laid out what I've been advocating scattershot in a variety of other threads.
  And her use-cases mirror what I've also supported: IE, a privacy CONTINUUM, IOW, more than one state of privacy.
  Posted 7 months ago by CrashTestPilot | Permalink
- Thanks for adding this thread! It definitely does deserve its own discussion.
  I totally and strongly agree that you should be able to lock down more fields in your profile, [edit: I originally wrote "including the link to your front yard" and then rethought it, but it's quoted below so I thought I should leave a mention of this in!] especially the ones you mention.
  I am a little less sold on the feasibility or importance (relative to the time/resource cost) of developing a workaround for locking down IMs. I agree with Fleep that in my case it's non-oppressive to just say "Hey, I've had a tough day, can I get back to you later?" I tend to feel like if people are still pestering, or giving too many sad faces/hugs/passive aggressive comments, the problem is that my (dear) friends are being annoying, and not that the game itself is broken. But I would be interested to see if this is an issue for more players.
  Now, for the other stuff. In the last conversation you mentioned that a thread targeted only for people who agree is a "circle jerk"--so I guess I have some good news and some bad news about my opinions ;)
  While I think people should have more control over their profile, I don't think anything about front yards should be re-coded. This seems consistent with what Stoot and others have mentioned is likely to remain the mechanic.
  I have nothing against solitary play styles. Sometimes I play in a solitary fashion. My roommate and close friend plays Glitch, and I actually won't mention her name here because she is a very solitary player and probably wouldn't love the attention. However, there are certain aspects of the game that just aren't targeted for this play style, just like there are certain aspects of the game that aren't targeted to all other styles--including mine.
  For example, my play style is centered around achievements. Do task x 1,049 times, receive a badge--love it! I want all the badges, and would say that is without a doubt my primary reason for playing. But there are a number of badges I can't earn without playing Game of Crowns. The catch is, Game of Crowns makes me annoyed and uncomfortable. I don't like competitive flash games, the timer makes me nervous, and above it all, I'm just bad at the game--and don't want to spend my relaxing time feeling anxious. My aversion is so strong that even participating in the group that hangs out in the arena not competing gives me hives.
  But Game of Crowns exists in the game. Those badges exist. I can't achieve 100% of my play style without discomfort.
  Now, there is a "simple" solution! If the Devs added a "vs. the computer" option to Game of Crowns, the issue would be resolved. I would feel better about playing against AI and not having to worry about the other people I'm competing with. It would allow me to hone my skills.
  But I totally don't think the Devs should spend their time on that. The system works for those who like it, and those who don't--like me--can gain other badges in other ways, making peace with the fact that certain things in this game just aren't designed with me in mind. I feel the same way about front yards. Even if (in one example) a play style involves gathering hard-earned resources, and that person doesn't like it if others gather from your hard-earned resources, there are still other options. The game isn't and can't be developed to meet 100% of all the desires of all the potential play styles. I don't see front yards as being so much a privacy issue as a "this game mechanic does not behave in a manner 100% consistent with my play style" issue.
  Posted 7 months ago by Pomegrandy | Permalink
- Thanks for suggesting this thread, Pomegrandy, and thank you for your very thoughtful reply. I agree quite strongly with this, actually:
  "While I think people should have more control over their profile, including the link to their front yard, I don't think anything about front yards should be re-coded within the game itself."
  My primary issue, and something that I think would probably alleviate a great deal of discomfort around home streets, is accessibility. Whether or not a home street ever becomes truly private, restricting accessibility to that "insta visit" button on profile pages would really help. As it is now, everyone can visit everyone else immediately without any energy loss. That's truly unique, and again, a fantastic feature and benefit within a certain context... but not necessarily in the context of the entire world.
  If we simply create controls around that button, that would INSTANTLY enable a diligent player to control exactly who can (and who can't) get to their home street. Admittedly, it would create an exhausting level of diligence, especially given how friends are coded right now. All I have to do at present is add you as a friend, and boom, I can add you to my sign and visit you whether you want me to or not.
  Friends are another issue, and one that is part of this privacy conversation. I don't know the best way to address it, however, so I'll need to think on that a bit.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- I don't have any problems with too many IM's, but if people want the ability to automatically let others know that they are busy and can't chat right now, I think that's reasonable. I would suggest something similar to what happens when you try to IM a dev, and a message pops up warning you that you shouldn't take that action lightly. Use the same coding for this, but allow a player to set their status to "busy", and change the pop-up message to something like, "This player is currently busy and would prefer not to chat right now. Are you sure you want to IM them?" Then, if it really is important they can still try to IM them (and shouldn't feel as bad if they end up being ignored, since they were warned). If IM's can be completely shut off, then I can see various problems with this, including the scenario of the player forgetting that they turned it off, maybe realizing a week later that it was strange they haven't gotten any IM's...
  I also wouldn't mind having the ability to make some information on our profile pages private, but don't think it's necessary to go any further than this.
  Posted 7 months ago by Shepherdmoon | Permalink
- The turn-off-IM thing sounds like a great idea. I can log in and not get bothered but I can definitely see that some folks here get bombarded with cutesiness and silliness from their friends and there are days that would definitely be irritating.
  Beyond that, I'm not as smart or articulate as most of the people 'round here, so this will probably come out sounding wrong, but ..... I'm a bit concerned about the mentions of group halls in that last thread, as it seems some folks not just want to play "solitary" glitch from time to time but want to play glitch with a limited number of other people. So Person X may have been around for a while, reached level 60, has a bunch of buddies who consider themselves old hands at the game, and gathers them all in a group hall (or home street) every time he logs in ..... that type of thing. I think it would be a shame for the rest of us, less given to "grouping up", to lose those folks from global chat and random parties and the daily running round Ur. I rather the all-in-it-together than a bunch of cliques having the craic in private spaces.
  Posted 7 months ago by Golden Retriever | Permalink
- Interesting..... I like the no IM thing....
  Posted 7 months ago by RJStormRider | Permalink
- I think Xev has laid out the current privacy concerns very succinctly here, and I like all the ideas for how to address these concerns. The Away/DND message seems like a no-brainer. I'm only superficially social in this game, but even I would like to have a DND option sometimes. Or possibly an invisible mode, so that people can't see that you're online at all, for those days when you really just want to hop on, grind something, and hop off.
  I would always leave my home street public, but I can understand why many other people might rather restrict their street to friends-only or completely private. After a lot of reading and consideration, I think I would also be much more comfortable in my own game play if this option were available. I like sign hopping and leaving gifts for people I don't even know, and I would really hate to upset someone with what I perceive as an innocent gesture of fun. It would be better if I could be more confident that visitors are welcome when I go to someone's street. Players should be able to choose whether they can be linked on signposts or from their profile webpage.
  Posted 7 months ago by Miss Coco | Permalink
- Really helpful input, peeps, thank you.
  I am updating the OP to reflect what I see as a growing trend: If we address how friending works, and restrict who sees what on profile pages, there will be a kind of "trickle down" on how that affects home streets. Actively needing to toggle private or public won't enter into it.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Note: I started this on my phone, but was limited in how much I could type, so I've augmented it a bit.
  Thanks for this post, Xev. Very much.
  While I'm fine with and embrace many of the social aspects of Glitch, I hear you loud and clear on the social burnout. I'm too damn polite to not acknowlege IMs or knocks on my door, and have found myself juggling many, many IMs at once, to my detriment. I've suggested a 'do not disturb' setting before. I'm even cool with the idea of IMs still coming through, but would feel comfortable ignoring them for a while if I knew people were aware that my 'DND' setting was on.
  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.
  Also, I would love a peephole in my door so I can see if anyone's on my street before I venture out.
  Posted 7 months ago by Voluptua Sneezelips | Permalink
- + 1 to the DND idea, at the very least! Thank you for coming up with it!
  Posted 7 months ago by Carl Projectorinski | Permalink
- @VS: I think, if we establish nothing else here, that that's the most important thing. Obviously, because it's near and dear to my heart, I'm biased.
  Fundamentally, not wanting to talk and be social one night does not make one anti-social or un-glitch-like.
  I think it's a bit unfair and dramatic to think that people who don't feel like chatting and feel bad telling people to go away (or blocking them!) should find another game.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- @Golden Retriever:
  So Person X may have been around for a while, reached level 60, has a bunch of buddies who consider themselves old hands at the game, and gathers them all in a group hall (or home street) every time he logs in ..... that type of thing. I think it would be a shame for the rest of us, less given to "grouping up", to lose those folks from global chat and random parties and the daily running round Ur.
  What you are worried about is already possible. If I form a group with my friends, we have a private channel where we can talk every time we log in. We can travel together or we can hang out at one person's home. Or we can hang out in our own homes and still have our private chats as a group.
  If you haven't noticed any harm to your game play so far, then the addition of a 'group hall' is not likely to significantly change your experience.
  Posted 7 months ago by WindBorn | Permalink
- +1 to profile privacy.
  +1 to invisible mode (people can talk to you if they can find you, but they don't see that you are playing)
  +1 to do-not-disturb mode (people can see that you're playing but they can't talk to you)
  tweak: DND mode only exists while you are in the world.
  Given that, I propose that players can't enter the public street that your home is on while you are in world and in DND mode. Players can still visit that street when you are gone, but they won't be able to walk in on you if you're DND and puttering about. IE, *you* have privacy, the street doesn't. (Unless of course TS decides otherwise.)
  Posted 7 months ago by WalruZ | Permalink
- Away/DND is one thing, and I've supported it in the past.
  But most of this OP reads like "I have feelings about the privacy of my non-personal information and my cartoon avatar, believe that these feelings are or should be universal, believe that anyone who thinks differently simply is a social butterfly."
  I'm an introvert. Sometimes I don't feel like being social, so I don't log in. I don't start outlining how Tiny Speck could delay launch for another three months to make it so I can play without any social demands. I don't quit Glitch altogether either.
  Every thread where this has been brought up lately, someone says "What's great is that it won't affect people who don't want more privacy!" Which would be nice if it were true. But in any company, someone working on project A is not working on project B -- and clearly the smaller the company, the bigger an issue that will be.
  If there were any attempt at all to step back from personal bias and desire, it would be clear that none of these things are urgent or even concerns of the majority of players, none of these things will relaunch the game, none of these things will attract new players, none of these things will retain those new players. At best, this would enable some existing players to play a couple of hours per week more. What does Tiny Speck gain from that? Why should any software engineers be dedicated to recoding a system that has advantages and disadvantages for a complex system with new advantages that will please a small amount of different players than the existing system?
  I'll give you this though: they should absolutely completely gut and rewrite the friend system after all the other development plans they've mentioned publicly are finished. So two years from now, it's golden.
  Posted 7 months ago by Red Sauce | Permalink
- @Saucelah
  I'll just leave this here:
  "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."
  Given how long the OP is, I'm sure you missed that disclaimer. In other words, I think we're agreed - no one here is talking about this being urgent, or a huge priority, nor delaying launch.
  As for thinking this should be how everyone plays, not at all, and if you could help me tweak the parts of the OP that read that way, I'd much appreciate it.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- I think TinySpeck is capable of deciding what to do, what not to do, in what order and in what timeframe. We do not need to pre-screen our discussions with that in mind.
  (not directed at the OP at all)
  Posted 7 months ago by WalruZ | Permalink
- @Walruz: Thanks for clarifying :)
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- I never knew I was actually a lumberack/cowboy.
  EDIT:
  "1. Burn out.
  Privacy is important for a number of reasons, but I think chief among them is burn out. This is new, you guys haven't heard this before, but it's 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."
  Lol'd.
  Posted 7 months ago by Volkov | Permalink
- Either I said it totally correctly or I completely missed my mark. Not sure which. Or you're just laughing because I AM FUNNY. Also, I strongly support and encourage more gifs in this thread.
  MOAR GIFs.
  Edit: I also did not know you were a lumberack cowboy. Sounds like you've got a condition, son.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Xev: I'm not going to speak for Saucelah, but I know I personally get a sense of urgency and 'privacy options need to be added now' not because I missed the disclaimer, but because this is the next thread in a handful that already exist that address and discuss (civilly or otherwise) privacy concerns lately. Devs have seen, read, and posted in many of these existing threads. What I'm saying is: privacy concerns are already on their radar.
  I feel this thread also might find better reception by being in the Ideas forum? Maybe? Since the OP is more about discussing new extensions of and solutions to the existing system, rather than, say, a philosophical discussion on what privacy is/isn't in Glitch. I don't know, this is a super minor thought... especially since I'm about to post more philosophical thoughts on the /home system in a couple of paragraphs. Whups.
  That said, I find the dnd/away message and an 'invisible' setting would satisfy many of the folks concerned about privacy in the game. I don't think I would use them, personally, but I wholly support having those features. Some tweaks to the friends system would also be super (I never did quite understand why I have to be friends with someone just to send mail, for instance, especially when there's the currant fee already implemented to cut down on spam). I'm not gonna add much else than my +1 on those, because I'd just be repeating what other folks have already posted here.
  I will say that I do support the idea of /home streets remaining public without restriction because it's the game mechanic that Tiny Speck chose to implement.
  It's very true that some players find the new /home system uncomfortable, or unappealing. The way the /home mechanic sets up an accessible, public space will not appeal to some players, in the same way that I find no appeal in things like level grinding. It may persuade some players away from playing this game, much like I don't play many MMOs or RPGs because of my distaste for aforementioned level grinding. The difference comes from the fact that Glitch is in beta, and thus these mechanics are being rolled out while we're playing--not before we can decide whether or not to sign up.
  Instilling public access to the /home street is along a similar vein that they also chose to have most of Ur's trees plantable and poisonable by everyone and most of Ur's animals placeable and stealable by everyone, making it a player decision (for the most part) as to what many tree and animal resources are available where, rather than a dev one. The public-ness of /home streets is something that has great potential to change how the game fundamentally works and functions. I think the devs are extremely conscious of the effect the mechanic is already having, even, on the game they are building.
  Getting back to the topic at hand: having dnd/away messages and 'invisible' settings would provide privacy options to concerned parties without taking away from this game mechanic. Having these two options, specifically, becomes more about making the player invisible, rather than an entire space in the game--which are two very different ideas, I think.
  Posted 7 months ago by Classical | Permalink
- @Xev
  It just seemed really..contradictory?
  Example: "Privacy is important for a number of reasons, but I think chief among them is burn out. This is new, you guys haven't heard this before, but it's 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."
  "you guys haven't' heard this before" and then typing out others have just made me go derp.
  Could be reading it wrong.
  So sorry prease.
  Posted 7 months ago by Volkov | Permalink

Previous 1 2 3 Next