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

- @Classical: I think you raised some excellent points. I will respond to a few of them, but overall, I think you add a lot to this conversation. Thank you.
  Regarding the Ideas forum, I think this thread will eventually make its way there, but I don't think this thought (privacy as a whole) is fully formed yet, and until it is, it may be better suited here. There's also the context of other threads dealing with this subject that have come up in recent memory that make me think it's still more philosophical. Half of the OP is about trying to explain why privacy is an issue in the first place, not so much for TS, but for the community as a whole.
  As for privacy issues being on the radar, I agree, but ultimately I hope to get some concrete answers on what will likely go into place eventually, versus what won't. If it's unlikely that privacy options will ever be implemented, that will certainly affect how I decide to play the game and if I decide to play the game.
  That's not meant to be dramatic, just a fact. If that's the direction the game is going in, that's fine. It's up to me as an individual to decide if that's the kind of game I want to play. I know it's really delicate saying this without being branded as a drama queen. I don't think that my leaving the game (hypothetically) would be an inherently bad or awful thing. If the game and community as a whole are going one way, and I'm going another way, there's a certain inevitability to that.
  I'd just like a head's up if it's already fairly decided because otherwise I'm investing some very real cash into a game that I ultimately won't want to play. It's just business at that point. I won't want a refund, because I really objectively like TS and what they do. But I probably won't be as keen to invest in more subscriber packages moving forward if I'm unlikely to enjoy the benefits of them.
  Now, if there is a comprehensive staff post addressing these concerns overall, please point me to it. I've definitely missed it.
  As for home streets, I think they're less of an issue in general when we really think about it. The more critical point that I think has people bent out of shape is the sheer ease of access. I don't think the mechanics of the game have to be reworked to limit whether or not people can insta-jump to your home screen just from viewing your profile.
  Your point about a player being inaccessible versus a space being inaccessible is a very, very good distinction.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- @Volkov - I meant I hadn't included that perspective in other posts on this topic. Burn out isn't a new concept or a new thing, it's just that I haven't mentioned it as a reason for wanting privacy before. I can definitely clean that up - looking at it that way, it's definitely not clear. Thank you :)
  p.s. moar gifs. thx.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Wordski.
  And I made the lumberjack/cowboy bit about the whole glove analogy.
  Peoples will be peoples.
  Bump.
  Posted 7 months ago by Volkov | Permalink
- I'm way too easily amused. Henceforth, all new posts must be accompanied by a funny gif or picture. (not really, but see OP for a fun prize if you post the best / funniest one. As judged by me. Yep. IT'S RIGGED.)
  Also, I was poking fun at your typo: lumberack. Made me laugh.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- "If the game and community as a whole are going one way, and I'm going another way, there's a certain inevitability to that."
  Xev: Oh man, no, I wouldn't say this statement is 'dramatic' or anything like that. I totally, completely understand that.
  I can't say I've seen anything specifically addressing how Tiny Speck plans to implement privacy controls in Glitch, if at all. But I also feel there's a major semantic difference between having an issue 'on the radar' vs. having a plan in place as to how to solve said issue.
  So, no, other than stoot specifically saying the /home streets would remain public and that there will be more private/public spaces at one point, I don't think the devs have explicitly said anything in regards to how they plan to address player privacy in the future of Glitch. To which...a lot of the previous threads regarding privacy have been only around for a couple of weeks at most. Tiny Speck drafting a solid plan and figuring out how it fits into their software engineering schedule probably takes more time than that, I'm assuming.
  But from the fact that the devs read the forums and have been posting in the previous threads regarding the public-ness of /home streets and the privacy wars they kind of blew up into, I think they are at least very aware of some folks' concerns about player privacy.
  Posted 7 months ago by Classical | Permalink
- Yes indeedy, and I'm hoping to hammer out some of those concerns into delicious, bite sized pieces. It seems more time consuming for TS to read through some of these contradictory (even among people who WANT them) requests than it is to hash it out here and post the conclusion in Ideas (which is my goal. we'll see how that goes).
  As for a concrete answers, it's less of a plan and more of a yay or nay. "No, this will never be a priority for us, we always want the game to be very open" or "yes, even if we don't know exactly what we'll do or how we'll address it, it's clearly important and we will do our best to come up with something that is acceptable to most users."
  Or even, "privacy will be a thing that can happen in designated places - if you want to play that way you can, but your profile will always be public, and people can always IM you." For instance, group halls. And, frankly, I'm kind of in it until that point at least to see what happens. I'm very interested and excited about some of the potential there, especially as it pertains to more private gameplay. Privacy issues won't go away, but if that's a viable compromise, I can probably live with it (though I can't speak for everyone else who feel strongly about privacy stuff).
  I'm not looking for a point by point list, especially since that's tough to commit to prior to development (so many things can change!) just a general statement of whether or not it's likely to be incorporated into future releases.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- STOP!
  Did someone say hammer?
  i.imgur.com/7p7qy.gif
  Posted 7 months ago by Tricky Woo | Permalink
- While that's only tangentially related, I will allow it. It's not winning any cubimal boxes, though. (Also, props for an awesome username).
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- I don't have much to say on topic. For me personally the game has a good balance between gameplay and social interaction. As long as people are not able to steal from my house i.imgur.com/Vs2fw.gif I'm happy.
  If only I know how to fix i.imgur.com/5OXfA.gif my link skills, maybe I'd win a box with something cute in it. i.imgur.com/4m40E.gif
  Meh. i.imgur.com/EHZ6M.gif
  Posted 7 months ago by Tricky Woo | Permalink
- Oh, you may yet win, Tricky. You brought your game face. As for linking text, highlight the word(s) you want to be a link, and click the chain with the plus icon (second from right) above the entry field. Depending on your device, you might not see it. Looks like a little row of buttons.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- I keep trying that. Trying and trying. Somehow either I don't see it or it doesn't work unless I type URL by hand. So tired of it now.
  Posted 7 months ago by Tricky Woo | Permalink
- Any decent IM software since ICQ has had dnd/busy/away etc. to signal to friends and filter messages. If memory serves me right, this was mentioned when Xev brought this issue up some months ago, and stoot called it an interesting idea.
  I haven't quite made up my mind regarding friends. I like how the current system allows me to friend someone (like stoot) to follow updates etc.
  The current system is twitter-like. Twitter allows you to limit access but it is open by default and most people leave it like that. Maybe the same would work here.
  Personally, the thing I miss the most regarding friends is the option to write a few words on how I met someone and keep it in the friend list, it's getting a bit hard to keep people apart even though I have fewer friends than many of you guys have.
  Posted 7 months ago by Vic Fontaine | Permalink
- Tricky Woo - maybe you use IE?
  TS does not like IE so no links for IE users...
  eta: meh, you found the links
  Posted 7 months ago by Vic Fontaine | Permalink
- Agreed, Togger. The system as it is now is very difficult to keep track of. It requires an almost obsessive organization on the user's part. My strategy is to just kind of give up and friend everyone.
  @Tricky: To the contrary, you magick'ed it.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Great post/thread Xev. There's a lot there and I want to stew on it a bit, but initially, I LOVE the DND or "busy" idea. It think it would be very useful by a large percentage of players. With respect to Shepherdmoon's concern about someone forgetting they had it on, that could be easily avoided by having the busy status end when the game playing session ended (i.e., if someone wanted it on all the time, they would have to turn it on each time they entered the game.)
  I'm also getting a little tired of people making blanket statements about the "extremely small percentage" or "the very small minority" of players who have these concerns. Clearly, some people have concerns. I have not spoken to every single person in the game, so I wouldn't dream of suggesting that it is a minority or a majority, much less claim a percentage. The number of threads and the volume of posts does indicate to me that the number is not insignificant. Furthermore, it seems logical to assume that the most private among us might not be inclined to post in the forums.
  I apologize for not having a more constructive contribution at this time.
  Posted 7 months ago by Audaria | Permalink
- @Audaria: No apology necessary. Thanks for your input. Good call on the "what if you forget you're away," scenario. I'd missed that the first go round and will update the OP.
  You raise a great point about no one really knowing if this is a popular issue or not, and yes, odds are pretty good that less-social glitches would avoid the forums generally.
  Thanks to Shepherdmoon as well.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Excellent, well written and well-thought-out post, Xev. Previously, I didn't think I agreed with some of these issues about needing more privacy... but after reading this, I realize that I do in fact agree with many things that you have said here.
  I would DEFINITELY use a DND/Busy/Away setting if one existed, for those times when I'm just feeling too introverted to chat. In fact, it's a brilliant idea. It does get tiring sometimes to try to manage a bright and cheery voice with friends here, after a tough day of teaching.
  Like others here, I don't feel comfortable ignoring IMs, and I feel very awkward telling people I don't feel like talking. It seems rude to me. But I am inclined to leave my street open, and don't really have any problems with that. I can always go in my house, or go to the world if I don't feel like socializing in my street.
  I also just want to commend you on keeping your tone throughout this thread so calm, rational and even, and thereby helping to keep this thread so civil and friendly. It is a lovely change from some of the other threads recently!
  Posted 7 months ago by Clarabelle | Permalink
- Thank you so very much, Clarabelle :) That's tremendous to hear. I am very much trying to avoid ganging up on anyone or any perspective. This is not and should not be an adversarial or sided conversation.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- I have a hard time relating to much of what you said since I don't participate in much of the social parts of this game anyway. I'm inherently an introvert and don't often IM or chat with other players. I only engage in Global when bored or I need something (or want to give something away).
  With that said, I can see why people would want more privacy controls but I still think they aren't really that necessary. This is a social game/community. Agree to disagree, shall we?
  Everyone has their own opinion regarding things like public streets, privacy and such. I'm interested in seeing both sides of the coin. Also, I second what Clarabelle mentioned above. I am very happy to see that you have kept this thread light and your tone respectable. Its a far cry from some of the other players who have taken an offensive position in regards to their opinion. Also, the gif contest thing was a nice touch. Glitch benefits from players like you.
  Posted 7 months ago by Papa Legba | Permalink
- "I'm not looking for a point by point list, especially since that's tough to commit to prior to development (so many things can change!) just a general statement of whether or not it's likely to be incorporated into future releases."
  Xev: I'd agree that is a fair request!
  ...and I have nothing more to contribute right now. My silly gif collection is on my home computer. :<
  Posted 7 months ago by Classical | Permalink
- Wow, I am really touched. Thank you guys!
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- I think in light of many other posts, this thread is a good example of how the tone of the OP can really influence the tone of the rest of the thread.
  And it is clearly totally possible to get across the gravity of what you're trying to say without using severe language. I think there is much to learn here!
  Posted 7 months ago by Carl Projectorinski | Permalink
- *pretends to read* Well said! *actually reads* OMG YOU ARE TOTALLY RIGHT! *looks for bacon*
  Posted 7 months ago by NO DELETIN BACON>:O | Permalink
- So, apparently there are some really horrible bacon gifs in the world. I'll spare you. Suffice it to say, this is where I netted out.
  Also, stop! Ya'll are making me blush... :]
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- I'm unsure whether to jump for joy or run from this thread...
  Posted 7 months ago by Dahlia DreadNaught | Permalink
- Why worry? Throw caution to the wind and break all the rules.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- I think the OP and others have made many excellent points, most of which I agree with. However, I also think some of the changes proposed could have negative consequences. I say this based on some thinking and reading I did months back when I myself wanted options that would involve changes to the way Glitch handles privacy and permissions.
  Rather than posting a lengthy explanation to this discussion thread, I've created a separate thread on Choices and Consequences.
  Posted 7 months ago by Splendora | Permalink
- I am totally on board with the idea of a /DND+[optional message]. It wouldn't surprise me if this were something we could set up through a Botler.
  I also agree that home street access is currently FREE AS IN BEER, which is too cheap and easy. It should cost teleportation-level energy to access someone's home street (other than your own) from Ur (i.e., not navigating via street sign).
  I'm less persuaded of the importance of the profile-level privacy stuff—especially if the prior two items are implemented.
  Posted 7 months ago by Pascale | Permalink
- Not wanting to be arguementative but I would prefer TS keeps things Precisely the way they are right now. We all managed to have fun in the previous housing set up and I don't recall much complaining about Privacy. This new set up is fun and Nice for a change...not needing to spend energy everytime we want to go somewhere. The resource routes are terrific and people Do have the choice to keep the Public streets bare if they wish Not to share with other members of the community.
  I understand the game is in Beta giving people the notion that TS is going to listen to all ideas , But we signed up to play the game They designed, not some hybrid/mess of the vocal minority trying to imo force what they want on TS.
  Posted 7 months ago by Anya Karenya | Permalink
- Hey Ms Sparklz, I'm too sleepy to give a well thought out reply, but thanks for your input. I will respond thoroughly in the morning :)
  In the mean time, enjoy.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- @Xev..I used a worn out phrase..."vocal minority". What I really mean is prior to the new housing I didn't see the adamant cry out for privacy options. Players seemed to be happy and having fun despite some community garden issues.
  Posted 7 months ago by Anya Karenya | Permalink
- Xev, I think these are great, and they're things I've been hoping for for a while.
  One thing I would like to ask for clarification on, to the thread in general (hopefully I don't get flamed for it ><)--and I only skimmed through the old street thread, so maybe it was brought up there--is this: I still don't understand the controversy over public home streets. Old housing block streets were public, after all, and I don't recall that being an issue. (Disclaimer: I am rarely in the loop about most big kerfluffles in Glitch, so I may have missed it if there was one.) The only difference is, each Glitch is the only house on their street, and they have more control over what it looks like/what resources are available. You were always able to teleport to someone's house, weren't you? You just had to go to their real estate page, and it cost energy and a map tp.
  Posted 7 months ago by MX Ghostie | Permalink
- @Ms Sparklz You raised some interesting points, which I'll respond to one by one. I hope this style makes sense:
  1. "I would prefer TS keeps things Precisely the way they are right now"
  Since the game is still being developed and expanding, odds are it will continue to change. The way the game is now is great, but hoping it will stay like this indefinitely is probably not reasonable. That said, TS is pretty cool about what they roll out. Sure, not everyone likes everything that happens, but I think it's the not knowing what might happen that makes beta a little bit scary. Since this is a back-to-beta game, I think it's pretty valid that people who truly signed up to play a complete game might get a little freaked out at the idea of the game mechanics changing drastically (or even slightly).
  2. "We all managed to have fun in the previous housing set up"
  I don't think this is entirely relevant to the conversation, and it's entirely speculation. However, I will say the previous housing set up had a good amount of issues which was why TS changed it. There were a number of threads about how to evict or tax people who'd bought homes but didn't "use" them.
  3. "... and I don't recall much complaining about Privacy."
  Neither do I. I do recall a number of threads discussing privacy and requesting more options. No one was particularly whiny about it. Here are just a few:
  Only seeing the location of friends if they've added you back
  Not wanting achievements to be public
  A general Glitch privacy thread
  Comments on the "stalky" nature of the game and not wanting to be found
  Privacy Opt-out of search
  Concern over what 'friends' see when they add you
  These are just to illustrate that the concern over privacy has been around probably since the game began. It's not new, and it's not one person talking about it.
  4. "The resource routes are terrific and people Do have the choice to keep the Public streets bare if they wish Not to share with other members of the community."
  It occurs to me that perhaps you didn't read the entire OP. I say this because the following things are posted there:
  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.
  There's more, but consider reading the OP in its entirety. It's frustrating to have to repeat points that have already been made and moved past. What's doubly frustrating is that you're echoing what has already been pointed out as a straw man argument and a misconception, namely:
  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...
  5. "I understand the game is in Beta giving people the notion that TS is going to listen to all ideas"
  Well, this is interesting. Should no one post any ideas? Kind of odd that there's an ideas forum, then, isn't there. Or should TS only listen to certain ideas? Isn't it up to TS which they listen to and which they don't? I appreciate your concern, but I'm sure they can figure it out.
  6. "But we signed up to play the game They designed, not some hybrid/mess"
  Let's be really clear here. Whatever is suggested and subsequently implemented will inevitably be what TS designs. No matter how much the game changes, TS is designing it. No one else. TS is influenced and motivated by the community, but the only people building the game are TS. I have a lot of faith that TS will surpass our expectations and hopes when it comes to a lot of this stuff. Just look at new housing. You seem to be very pleased with it, which is wonderful. A lot of people were really nervous about it before it was released since it would inevitably be very different from the old housing system. It's not worth getting upset about something that may or may not even happen at this point.
  7. "...of the vocal minority trying to imo force what they want on TS."
  I know you sort of modified this later, but I find it interesting that you're citing a minority. I'd be very interested to see your data. I'm also intrigued as to how you see this thread as forceful. If anything I have written here or in the OP come across that way, I'd very much appreciate your help in revising it.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- @MX Ghostie: I certainly have no intention of flaming you, and I'll give anyone who does a dirty look. Promise.
  As for your excellent question:
  "I still don't understand the controversy over public home streets. Old housing block streets were public, after all, and I don't recall that being an issue. (Disclaimer: I am rarely in the loop about most big kerfluffles in Glitch, so I may have missed it if there was one.) The only difference is, each Glitch is the only house on their street, and they have more control over what it looks like/what resources are available. You were always able to teleport to someone's house, weren't you? You just had to go to their real estate page, and it cost energy and a map tp."
  There really isn't a whole lot of controversy, in my personal opinion. I think there's a lot of freak out because the streets are SO easily accessed compared to any other streets, including the old home streets.
  If TP / energy were used that would be one thing, but that seems kind of unfair to people who love the idea of sharing their home streets. The convenience of getting to them is wonderful and I wouldn't want to take that away.
  However, an option to make that "Visit So and So's Home street" link only appear for friends or not appear at all would be nice.
  Edit: I don't think this really solves the issue of accessibility and home streets. It's a conundrum because houses don't physically exist in the world anymore. There's no path or map to get there. Indeed, homes are this subnetwork world that exist outside of the world proper. It's a great idea that also has some tough puzzles when it comes to privacy. How do we resolve the privacy issue without redefining what home streets are and what they should be? How do we resolve it without taking away the new features everyone likes?
  However, if we look at privacy as a larger issue, the home streets debate becomes less relevant. They would be affected by one aspect of privacy or another, and would hopefully solve some of the privacy-related issues without grievously offending the people who like everything as it is right now.
  That's it :)
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Hm..
  Posted 7 months ago by Volkov | Permalink
- I don't really have anything constructive to add, because Xev has done such a good job with the OP. Just wanted to say that I fully support the development of more privacy settings, even if I don't use all of them, because having some modicum of control over social interaction would go a long way to making this gaming community more of a safe, comfortable space for all.
  I'm also super-appreciate of the courteous, positive tone of the thread, so good job with that, Xev! Much easier to have a constructive discussion without all of the flouncing about!
  Posted 7 months ago by Aurora Dellaterra | Permalink
- No thanks. Glitch isn't Facebook. It's a MMORPG. If someone is bothering you, block em. Don't like people knowing what you're doing in a virtual browser based game? Close the browser.
  Posted 7 months ago by Bashere | Permalink
- Bash - the OP outlined why blocking isn't really very effective as a means of controlling your individual social environment. If you have a very social playstyle, that's awesome. Some of us don't, or we have had negative experiences which couldn't be resolved by blocking, and we would benefit from increased optional privacy settings. If something like that really was implemented, you would in no way be required to make use of those settings, and could continue on with your gameplay, completely unaffected :)
  Posted 7 months ago by Aurora Dellaterra | Permalink
- Thanks Aurora. :)
  @Bashere: Thanks for sharing your perspective. There isn't much to say in response since as far as I can tell you're just airing your opinion. However, if I missed something, please rephrase it.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Thank you Xev. I appreciate everything you said. I had something happen where I posted an update (supposedly 'for my friends' hahahah..in Glitch EVERYONE is your 'friend') and all of a sudden got an avalanche of pedants pointing out how this rule was being broken, and how I should immediately deactivate my account, my daughter's account (who is over 18, not that any of the 'well meaning' glitches shoving the rules down my throat over and over even registered that fact) and so on. Mainly because she let her 7 year old niece use her glitch under supervision. And I was stupid enough to tell my "friends" not realizing that my 'frenemies' would have access to that too! Yes, Glitch it took your player base to get the concept of "frenemies' across. Because for days now I've been unable to ignore the whole overly shoved in my face help even though it was a minor issue that should have been old 3 days ago.
  Funny, its not the first time that I've felt that other players have just ripped me a new one for not playing Glitch their way...try wanting to mine alone *ever*...LOL. You'll get chased and harassed and called names and be told you shouldn't be allowed to play if you're not going to share share share! Block someone because you're tried of the constant "here's my opinion now OPEN wide because its going down your throat" type stuff happening, and people DO get offended. I'm not friends with the people I blocked, why do I have to listen to them anyway? Who are THEY to tell me how to game MY game? Well I've learned...I've learned that 'll talk to my *friends* off game.
  Posted 7 months ago by Laureth | Permalink
- The "flouncing" gif seems a little harsh... just because it's lulzy doesn't mean it's not a bit mean. For what it's worth, I just checked, and the explanation of why blocking won't work doesn't come up until 27-28 paragraphs/text chunks into the post... like I mentioned before, I agree with a lot of your assertions, but I also don't think dismissive hand-waving has much more of a place in this kind of a discussion than drive-by disagreement.
  (I know you probably didn't mean it that way, but when you have a conversation this long--and granted it does deserve this long a conversation--it gets tricky to call people out on missing things. Especially when it turns into a joke shared with other participants.)
  Posted 7 months ago by Pomegrandy | Permalink
- @Laureth: that's a really good example that I had seen but not experience directly enough to speak to. Thank you so much for sharing it. I know it's hard to bring up drama without creating drama, but I think you did an excellent job. I'll try to curb any sideline comments should they arise, and I hope everyone else will too.
  @Pomegrandy: Agreed and updated. That wasn't my intent, so hopefully it no longer reads that way and the real point is more readily visible.
  I want everyone to feel comfortable participating, and I also don't want anyone to feel ignored for doing so. Thanks for your feedback to keep me on track.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Doesnt the Block feature do everything you want? You can block and unblock easy. I dont know for sure but i never heard of a limit of how many times you block/unblock a player. Also if im say cooking while listening to a audiobook. A simple kind, "Im kind of busy right now" always worked for me.
  Posted 7 months ago by WhereIsTheCandy | Permalink
- Hi NiceDayToday :) Thanks for your post. Let me know if this answers your question:
  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.
  As for your strategy when responding to IMs, I'm glad it works well for you. That doesn't work as well for others. Unfortunately, I don't have a concise paragraph that fully addresses that, but the OP does (it's long) and some other posts in this thread do as well.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- *zap*
  As (I can only assume [despite evidence to the contrary]) Bees! mentioned, there probably isn't going to be any changes to the privacy settings on streets. I feel that a large portion of the griefing over privacy is due to: "X's Home Street"; a problem which could be easily rectified by changing the name -- there wasn't an issue back when home streets were housing quarter blocks.
  Re: IMing privacy - What's the big deal with ignoring the messages you get? It requires very little effort, much like blocking/unblocking, although I will state that we need an easily accessible list for reference. Granted, I only tend to get messaged when I'm 'on my level', so to speak, so maybe there are obnoxious people out there?
  Posted 7 months ago by MarbhDamhsa | Permalink
- Laureth's experience is very relevant to this discussion. In fact, updates are a bit of a messy feature because of the "loose threading" style. I will see my friends' replies to others, and I will obviously click to see the earlier update to understand what they are talking about. Or to see the snap they are commenting.
  I think this is great because I might learn something or be able to help someone or meet new friends this way. It's clear that updates feel less public than the forums because only a random subset of friends and their friends will see what you write, but it seems people forget that anyone could be reading and replying.
  I think it's very hard to add privacy into the current update functionality. How would that work? If an update is private, can I not reply? Or should my friends just not see my reply since the thread is private when it contains a private update?
  Also, there is the reactive/proactive thing. In this case, a user posted an update and did not like how the community reacted to it. If privacy settings are "open" by default, that could still happen. If it becomes common to protect profiles and snaps so that you don't run the risk of seeing a case like this, I feel we loose something from the community.
  My best suggestion: Be civil. Don't restate the point others made already. And if you feel you are being attacked? Shrug it off, responding in anger will only make it worse. None of which can be automated by a privacy filter.
  Posted 7 months ago by Vic Fontaine | Permalink
- @MarbhDamhsa: I both love and am pleasantly baffled by your gif usage. Carry on.
  As for your points, I think the home street issue is really a sideline note when it comes to privacy in general. If the option for displaying the "jump to home street" link were available, that would alleviate a lot of issues right off the bat, without modifying how the home streets work. That said, it's a complicated issue because home streets are different. They aren't streets. They are an abstract network that exists outside of the world. It's hard to figure out what that means. I don't have an answer, and I don't know if we will collectively come up with one in this thread.
  To be really clear: This thread is much less about home street privacy specifically, and much more about privacy options overall.
  I don't think that we should think about privacy from a reactionary perspective. It doesn't work that way, and it's not a very sustainable or community-oriented approach.
  The appeal is for a global system that addresses levels of privacy that is proactive, instead. I predict usage will be intermittent. Some users will take advantage of the controls indefinitely. Others will use them sparingly when the need arises. Some users will want control over very specific aspects of their account (profile, for instance) while not caring about any other privacy measures.
  Regarding IM privacy, it's not a matter of obnoxious people. It's about sheer volume of IMs that people tend to get. It's not easy carrying on two or three conversations while in-game. It's even harder if you're trying to juggle ten. Sometimes, you don't want to carry on any, and it's hard to make that known when people keep IMing you then want to know if you're alright because you aren't responding or are "busy."
  This is a social game. People are social. Social is neither good nor bad. It just is. We're social animals and we're also kind of bossy, bitchy and nosey. We're also incredibly kind, compassionate and helpful. Sometimes we're a weird combination. You bundle this all together and you toss in a player who just wants to work on the game and relax, and someone's going to get upset. Whether that player upsets someone by being overly curt or they are overwhelmed and upset by the sheer volume of interaction, I don't think it's fair to either party.
  The person IMing them isn't a jerk, and the person who doesn't want to talk isn't a jerk. This isn't about someone being at fault. Sometimes no one is. It's just a perfect storm. Privacy controls would better help alleviate that stress and make for a less "YOU need to stop IMing me right now," confrontation and much more of a general, "Sorry, busy at the moment, I will try to respond later" message. If it's automatic, it's not personal.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- @Togger: Really thoughtful post. Thanks. I'm going to respond to your points one by one.
  1. "Updates are a bit of a messy feature because of the "loose threading" style. I will see my friends' replies to others, and I will obviously click to see the earlier update to understand what they are talking about."
  This is a very good point and one that matters greatly in this conversation. Profile updates are extremely interconnected.
  2. I think it's very hard to add privacy into the current update functionality. How would that work? If an update is private, can I not reply? Or should my friends just not see my reply since the thread is private when it contains a private update?
  Very good question. I think the best way to approach it is the simplest. Start with the comment that should be private and go from there. The current system is complex, and there are benefits to that (to your previous point). There are also drawbacks, which you also pointed out. I was particularly struck by the peanut-gallery aspect of Laureth's example. People started chiming in from everywhere - random people who were friends of friends of friends.
  I hate to use Facebook as an example, however, it's a good case study for how privacy controls evolved from a complex system to manageable privacy controls without drastically affecting the interconnected nature of the site.
  Facebook allows a user to choose between friends only, friends of friends and no one. If my post is private, and only friends can see it, then you as an observer may either only see your friends' reply, (but not the original post, and you would not be able to respond in that thread), or nothing from that thread at all.
  3. Also, there is the reactive/proactive thing. In this case, a user posted an update and did not like how the community reacted to it. If privacy settings are "open" by default, that could still happen. If it becomes common to protect profiles and snaps so that you don't run the risk of seeing a case like this, I feel we loose something from the community.
  Some people really LIKE being out there and public and getting attention. Some people like it sometimes, but not others. With privacy controls in this scenario, Laureth would be able to be out there, but when stuff began to spiral, she could shut it down temporarily until everything blew over. She would have the option to close access to her profile feed thereby preventing the situation from escalating further. In essence, she would have moderator control on a very basic scale over her own profile.
  4. My best suggestion: Be civil. Don't restate the point others made already. And if you feel you are being attacked?Shrug it off, responding in anger will only make it worse. None of which can be automated by a privacy filter.
  It's all very nice and sounds brilliant, but this turns into a do as I say not as I do sort of thing. We can tell each other to be nice as much as we want, but we all have our own unique definition of niceness and we all have blinders on when it comes to our own behavior (and the behavior of people we like and agree with).
  The idea that everyone can or should get along turns into an unrealistic and ultimately cruel dictate. It's much easier for people to get along when they can step away from an argument (as was the case in Laureth's example - she couldn't escape it). When they can't, it's overwhelming and impossible to think clearly. It's also that much harder to avoid behaving badly.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- I am displeased with the non-relevant gifs in these posts.
  Posted 7 months ago by Volkov | Permalink
- Xev - About your 3 points.
  1 Block is hard to do: You go to a player page click "Block". To unblock you click "Unblock"
  2 Its permanent: No its not permanent. (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.
  Posted 7 months ago by WhereIsTheCandy | Permalink

Previous 1 2 3 Next