Topic

In support of keeping Home Streets public

Recently there has been a very vocal few in the forums up in arms about how they would like their Home Streets all to themselves. Since happy people tend to be much less loud than unhappy people I wanted to start a thread to show TS that most of us are very happy with sharing our Home Streets as a public resource.

In the old system we had to pay for a house with currants. Then those houses came with a very limited number of preset resources. The most you could hope for was 5 trees, 24 of one kind of crop plot... maybe a jellisac or firefly swarm. It was extremely limited.

Now the possibilities are practically endless. Our backyards are a completely private haven for almost any resource we can dream of. Then as a bonus we can choose a whole additional set of resources to sit right outside our front door! We just have to share them.

Now I believe the fact that there are huge resources networks attests to the fact that a majority of players like and want to keep sharing their Home Streets. Glitch is all about cooperation and sharing and I think most glitchen get that.

I know that in the past very vocal unhappy people have caused game changes. There have already been a few tweaks to Home Streets (although I believe these are positive tweaks). I am a bit afraid that the few angry glitchen screaming at us kids to stay off their lawn might actually cause more changes that would hurt the beautiful resource routes.

If you agree that Home Streets should stay public I'm starting this thread as a place for you to speak up so the wonderful staff at TS sees that most of us like sharing the things that were only kind of ours to begin with.

(p.s. this thread is not referring to people who have misunderstood and lost things. I do think there should be clearer warnings about what is safe on your Home Street and what is not)

Posted 7 months ago by SkyWaitress Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • Wow.
    Posted 7 months ago by CrashTestPilot Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Xev

    1) I think that Glitch is an mmorpg. It is multiplayer. As someone above pointed out, if someone doesn't like multiplayer then they would be much happier playing Harvest Moon.

    2) I also think Glitch is very community/sharing/cooperation/friendliness oriented. I think if someone doesn't enjoy community/sharing/cooperation/friendliness with other players then they would be much happier playing an adversarial pvp game.

    I think this is a very bare-bones description of the fundamental core of what makes Glitch Glitch. If you take these 2 things away, it is not Glitch anymore.

    I think coming to Glitch and objecting to these two aspects of the game is like going into a cupcake shop and demanding to be served a rib-eye steak.

    What do you feel that Glitch is or is not?  What do you feel is at the core of what makes Glitch Glitch? 

    I think you must agree that Glitch is something specific, not just some kind of "anything goes" environment. There are lots of things that are encouraged and lots of things that are prohibited here that make it unique.  So I don't think it makes sense to say that Glitch is whatever anybody wants it to be. Clearly, some people wanted Glitch to be a place where it was possible to steal herd-keeping supplies but that was not compatible with the nature of Glitch so that was eliminated.

    My point is that I believe that not wanting to interact with or share with other players is equally at odds with the nature of Glitch.

    What do you think is the nature of Glitch and how do you see that making home streets private would be compatible with that nature?

     
    Posted 7 months ago by Miss Bobbit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • This is what I think Glitch is:

    1) Glitch is people. Consequently, many different personalities are present. There are different styles of play, different goals and different strategies. No one strategy is right or wrong. No one style of play is right or wrong (with some exceptions: griefing / harassment being noteworthy). 

    Yeah, only one thing. I don't have a very big list.

    I think the idea of friendliness is a concept that can be fairly subjective. What is friendly to you is not friendly to me and vice versa. I think respect is more definable. Treating other players with respect is a big one. Respect is about treating people decently even if we don't understand or agree with them. We don't always do it, but I think we try. We might occasionally be successful. 

    As it relates to your last question, I think there's a good deal of definition around public areas, and not so much definition around private ones. I think we need that definition. Whether we create it, or it is defined for us, there needs to be an agreement about what is okay in areas that are not designated public spots. (and what those areas are).
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • hi. i'm going to answer something said up there somewhere because the thread itself seems kind of tired and there's no point keeping it strictly on-topic.

    blocking someone does not mean you fear someone's words. what kind of silliness is that, except to attempt to shame people into not blocking you?

    i don't block people because i'm afraid of them. i block people because i do not enjoy having any awareness of their presence.

    in real life, i do not have social conversations with people who annoy me. i do not watch television that annoys me, and i do not listen to radio programs that annoy me.

    if you annoy me, why should i allow your presence to creep into my game experience?

    it's not a big deal. there's no need to tell people you're blocking them. you just turn them off and go happily about your day.  most of the time they don't even notice.

    ...i think.

    maybe i should temporarily unblock some people so i can ask them if they'd noticed i'd blocked them.

    yeah. that's an effective life strategy.
    Posted 7 months ago by flask Subscriber! | Permalink
  • shhexy said...
    I'd like the updates & online status in my profile to be hidden from non-Glitch users.

    ... and I agree!
    Posted 7 months ago by katlazam Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Xev,

    I want to just say thank you for bringing such a calm, rational and intelligent other side to this. Especially in your last several replies I think I have come to really understand your side of things. I really don't think this is as much about street privacy as it is privacy in general for you.

    I'm a social personal and it's one of my favorite aspects of the game. However I completely understand the desire to go incognito in game occasionally. (I understood it even more when chats stopped meditation. Thank goodness for that upgrade card.) There are just times you want to jump on and play for a little while without chatting or turning down a zillion party invites. That doesn't make you antisocial or mean you should find another game to play.

    Yours is the only real argument for home street privacy that makes sense. Resource hoarding doesn't make sense. Selective generosity doesn't make sense. Being frightened of finding strangers on home streets doesn't make sense. Wanting to take a breath from constant attention in game does make sense, I won't argue with that.

    Could TS design an overall privacy system? Of course. Will they? ::shrug:: No idea, it doesn't seem to be a priority at the moment but I wouldn't be opposed to it. Would that system include restricting home street access? I don't even think it would need to. Unless of course you're talking about a system that makes you invisible everywhere in game. Home streets are just like any other street when it comes to overall game privacy, especially if TS would tweak things a little and have /home set us directly in our house.
    Posted 7 months ago by SkyWaitress Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Here, here, Sky Waitress!  And beautifully said as well, Miss Bobbit.

    I love having my home street public.  Many of you have probably heard me chime into a Global Chat conversation to explain that I don't think of it as "mine", but instead, my contribution to Ur.  I feel excited and energized to be able to interact with the world and the Glitchen community in a new way via home streets.  I like Pascale's suggestion that we be zoomed into our houses and not onto the streets themselves to make the psychological distinction between which part is "home" (and private) and which part is our connection to other folks.  

    Public home streets have improved my enjoyment of the game.
    Posted 7 months ago by PhoebeGee Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thank you :)

    I am indeed talking about overall privacy. It's no secret that it's a pet hope of mine that home streets would fall into that conversation, but they just as easily may not. And that's fine.

    If they do, I would be delighted to see the creative game play that could come out of selective invitations to home streets. Yes, that would mean restrictions on who got to go where, but that's not new in the game (keys are a very real thing that restrict access to seam streets), and it probably won't be new moving forward with group halls (or whatever they're called). 

    I think the resource routes are an awesome application of community creativity applied to a new development release. I don't think TS could have predicted that would happen or that it would happen the way it did. I don't personally use the resource routes or have much interest in them, but I appreciate how cool they are objectively outside of my own style of game play. I'd love to see how additional creative stuff could come about using privacy options to enhance role playing, etc. (in addition to addressing very real privacy needs). 

    All that said, there are number of very valid suggestions that would better alleviate stress around this issue. Ultimately, I think we need better definition around public and private areas and what those words mean in the context of Glitch.

    As an aside, it seems that there's some fear that including privacy options would mean that public home streets would go away. I am absolutely not suggesting or advocating that. Home streets are and should remain public by default. Any additional privacy options would be implemented on a case by case basis by the individual user, and would only be in place as long as that user wanted them to be. This would in no way change the default world, just (ideally) provide more options.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Leading on from SkyWaitress' post with regards to privacy, the only option I would like in this regard is to be able to switch my instant messaging on and off.  The hardest thing for me when I'm trying to just relax (due to bad day for whatever reason) is when I get im;d consecutively by different players (and some friends).  I really don't mean to cause any offense to anyone that im's me.  It's just sometimes I want to be left alone to glitch without feeling the need to try and explain to someone on IM that I really don't feel like talking at the moment.  Just a simple system like MSN messenger where we can have the option to change our on-line status to busy so at least fellow glitchers will no to either not IM at that time or even if they do a response may not be imminent.

    *breathes*
    Posted 7 months ago by ~Arabesque~ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Xev, I think Seam Streets are a very poor parallel. Anyone can scrape together the currants and buy the key to the Seam Street of their choice. And no one player or group of players controls access to it.

    Yes, in my view, the kind of street privatization you're describing would, in fact, radically alter game play. It might be interesting, but there's no denying that it would have the potential to profoundly change the character of the game. It doesn't personally appeal to me—but perhaps there's a big enough subset of players who will be even more unhappy without such an arrangement to make it worth doing.

    I wish "home streets" weren't in a one-to-one ratio with homes and individual Glitchen. Had I been in a position to do so, I would have advocated strongly for allowing shared streets from the get-go. But. Here's where we are.

    Let's see what happens going forward. Perhaps Group Halls will somehow provide a satisfactory mechanism both for those who want to be more geographically social AND for those who want to control a chunk of the shared world more closely.

    I'm willing to play it out.
    Posted 7 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I have only been playing Glitch a few weeks and there are many things I love about it, but the community spirit ranks high on that list. I love the way our mood is improved by helping others/trees/animals and there is such a strong sense of sharing that most of my personal goals in the game revolve around things I want to be able to so for others. I love the resource routes and can't wait to plant some trees on my home street and join one of the routes (I need to learn botany first). Just as soon as I have anything to share anyone and everyone will be welcome! xx
    Posted 7 months ago by Little Princess Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ Little Princess

    Make some patches and tell us what kind of trees you want and we will come and plant them for you! We would be happy to do that for you.

    (if you prefer to diy, you can buy the beans at auction, but please let us help!)
    Posted 7 months ago by Miss Bobbit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Pascale: They weren't meant to be a direct parallel. Rather to point out that home streets are hands down the most readily accessed "places" in the game, more so than any other public street, and certainly moreso than seam streets. The idea that they should remain public is all well and good, but in my opinion they're just too easy to get to. 

    I like the convenience of my friends / select people being able to easily access my street and therefore my home, but not necessarily all of Ur.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • (sigh)

    The street that runs in front of your house is a public street, by design.  Tinyspeck has made that clear.   It is not "yours", it does not "belong to you".    You can expand it and change the appearance and spend imagination there, but you are performing all of those actions on a public street.  If it were "yours", you would be able to control who, if anyone, can enter the street.  That would make it a private street.  You can't generally restrict access, and you can't because it's not a private street - it's a public street.  It's not "yours", no matter how much you wish it was.  Saying it is so does not make it so and has not made it so. 

    I'm not in favor of an option to make home streets private.  I'm in favor of people figuring out what is right in front of their faces and then sucking it up and dealing with it.
    Posted 7 months ago by WalruZ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Perhaps having the game refer to them as "Player's PUBLIC Street" would lessen the confusion and/or distress?
    Posted 7 months ago by foolbunny Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I remember when we had community gardens that clearly stated:  "plant for everyone, take what you need".     I had an herb garden of my own in my bog loft but I went to the community gardens to plant for everyone.  I didn't need any myself.   When the plot campers won the right to stake claims and prevent people from harvesting "their" seeds I stopped going there.  What was the point?  I would have been supplying more free herbs to the small groups of campers who had adopted he community gardens as their own, monopolized most of the available plots and prevented others from harvesting.  The idea of community garden was dead for me so I stopped going there and instead just allowed some friends to rotate use of my own herb garden.

    I don't know whether I am still going to want to provide free resources to everyone on my home street if its just as private a street as my back yard.  Might as well give everyone a key.   I don't mind looking after a public street but I'm less interested in the idea of just giving away stuff defined as private.   
    Posted 7 months ago by Treesa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +100 foolbunny!!! Player's Public Street!
    Posted 7 months ago by Fernstream Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Gee, the streets are public? I had not noticed. Thanks for clarifying that critical point and making this discussion completely dissolve. I suppose we're all done here. Thanks!

    ... Really? No kidding they're public streets. You know what else was said and done? Houses. You know how it was first come first serve for different types of houses in different regions? That was totally 100% the way that it was.

    It's worth remembering the game is in beta, and we are beta testing new features. Pointing out issues we are having with said features is not a bad thing. It is part of beta testing. It doesn't make us ungrateful or bad people for not liking absolutely everything. Whether or not this feedback is taken into consideration is not really the point. It's about making a perspective known. 

    Beating everyone into submission by bullying them or telling them to "get over it" isn't conducive to anything except making this community as a whole look pretty damn ugly.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Nothing to see here. Move along.

     
    Posted 7 months ago by foolbunny Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The only thing I'm going to add to this thread is that I agree with the original poster :) 

    +1 SkyWaitress
    Posted 7 months ago by Just Willow Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'd like to add how awesome it is to see the awesome community griefing me for speaking up. Logging on every morning to stubs of ore and dirty herb plots sure is the way to go if you want to convince someone that you're a helpful bunch of nice people!
    Posted 7 months ago by Kelti Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Well, Ms. Rand, if you don't like socialism, you can always move to Murrica
    Posted 7 months ago by MarbhDamhsa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • To the glitch that was happy to collect my full seed bag from the vege garden at the front of my street . Thanks.
    Posted 7 months ago by Gumby_Roffo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Kelti, it is not the community griefing you, it is one person or a very small number of people.

    I think it would be in the interest of TS to detect and remove players who take pleasure in repeatedly griefing others.
    Posted 7 months ago by Vocable Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The stated purpose of this thread was for people to talk about how much they like the fact that front yards are public. 

    People who do not like the fact that front yards are public are naturally welcome to come and share their opinion. That is the purpose of forums: sharing your points of view.

    However, not all of the statements from dissenting players were "opinions." I'd characterize at least a few of them as "accusations" that people who like open front yards hate freedom of choice and want other players to be miserable, which is... patently untrue. At least it was at the beginning. The rising hostility has retroactively washed away any high road that once existed, but I think we can mostly agree that the first stone wasn't thrown by the OP. 

    Perhaps what people who agree with the OP are responding so negatively to is not the presence of a different opinion, but the idea that the very existence of this thread is somehow oppressive to people to disagree. People are getting heated. Probably they shouldn't be. And anyone who is griefing other players ingame should be ashamed of themselves.

    But, and this is a point that I think gets missed in a lot of big Glitch arguments: storming into the opposing camp and howling that the existence of their viewpoint is quashing your right to have opinions is itself a way of trying to quash their right to hold opinions. 
    Posted 7 months ago by Pomegrandy Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Heated remarks about the opinions of others have not been confined to just one side of the private-not-private-how-private-should-private-be opinion divides.
    Posted 7 months ago by Vocable Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Kelti
    You just might be overstating the griefing (or I may be giving our community too much credit)…  some people leave dirty plots,  happens on my street all the time,  but you don’t see me claiming that it’s the pro-privacy advocates griefing me.  Stubs of ore sounds more likely to be someone trying to get a reaction out of you than innocent game-play.  Unfortunately you are giving them exactly the reaction that they want.  Either way,  I would be happy to swing by your street on occasion to clear out any ore stubs and replant your plots.
    Posted 7 months ago by Syruss Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Kelti You are now TROLLING!!  People have agreed with you, no just let it go!!  WE like streets being public.  I agree that if someone WANTS to make theirs private that's not an issue.  so please just shut up about it!!
    Posted 7 months ago by Cherry Cat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I guess in the nature of the original purpose of this topic I would like to state that I like the home streets being public, I also would like to say that if anything I have posted in this topic offends you I am sorry you took it that way. It is very easy to write something and not realize how that comment comes across, so I would suggest we all take a breath and not take things too seriously. This is a game, it is still evolving so no way to determine how TS will change things. I think there are truly people who would prefer not to have others visit their streets but would still like to be able to expand their territory to make use of the space. There is nothing wrong with that, they are entitled to that desire. TS will make the final determination about privacy or not on "Home Streets". I think TS gets the overwhelming message from this thread that there are many of us who enjoy the social/sharing aspect of home streets.
    Posted 7 months ago by Gizmospooky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Vocable, after being the victim of that type of harassment (went way more extreme, though) for a long time, I can tell you.......... TS will not investigate it.  I should say, I am not sure they can investigate it.  I am not sure the tools are even there for them to investigate that type of stuff.

    Kelti, its best at this point to just remove those items and move on.  There is a reason I only have trees (since they can no longer be poisoned and holes dug) and not gardens/rocks in my yard. ;)  Im sorry you were targeted. If you need some wine of the dead to remove those items, let me know. I will help you out.
    Posted 7 months ago by Innie✿, Obviously Subscriber! | Permalink
  • SOLUTION: streets are public by default (since the majority like it public) and you can make them private if you so choose. compromise! 
    Posted 7 months ago by Priestess Mint Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I want to say I do not mind sharing the resources on my home street. I visit other home streets for resources and expect to share mine.

    What I do mind is the down right taking of items on the street. And yes, I hear all the responses to that- "Don't want it stolen, don't put it out". But, why should I have to lock everything up because of the actions of just a few? I don't do that at my RL home but I am forced to do that here. Why would someone steal my RKs, SWF boxes or commom cubis? (I appreciate the person who replaced mine with theirs) I know, it's part of the game but it leaves a sour taste as to the "Community" aspect of the game.

    I am more than happy to share my home street resources, but the stealing has to stop.
    Posted 7 months ago by Ruby Specklebottom Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Priestess Mint, unfortunately it is a little more complicated than that. To maintain the balance of resources, the public-to-private player would need to agree to remove all resources from their front yard (public street) and agree to be blocked from accessing other players' public streets. To neglect this would incentivize taking public streets private, rewarding players for withdrawing from what many of us consider to be some of the most essential aspects of the game. I strongly support keeping the public streets public but since there are some who feel such an intense desire to take them private, I think we should be willing to work out a compromise.

    @Kelti I would also be happy to volunteer to help you replant your plots and clear your ore stubs.
    Posted 7 months ago by Miss Bobbit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Kelti - I'll help too, just let me know if you want me to come to your street :)
    Posted 7 months ago by Jezebel Subscriber! | Permalink
  • No reading al of this. But I am pro having home streets public. For many of the reasons described.
    Posted 7 months ago by Lord Bacon-o Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Miss Bobbit - As I said earlier, I do not keep resources on my street, but I'm free to access other players' streets and use their resources. What is the difference? I don't see why there should be ANY punitive action for people who want to keep their streets private. I agree that a compromise would be great, I just disagree with blocking those players from other streets. As I also pointed out earlier, I prefer to gather resources in the world, but I do occasionally visit people's home streets to see what they've done, leave gifts, or just visit friends.

    Personally, I don't care either way. I don't see the harm in privacy options and chances are I would want to use them, at least occasionally. The idea I like the best, involves letting us expand our backyards more if our front yards are expanded less. No surprise there, since my street is not expanded.
    Posted 7 months ago by Audaria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Audaria The reason is that without the penalty there would be a significant advantage (resource wise) to making a public street (front yard) private. It is not punitive, it just keeps things in balance.

    If you look at your friends' front and back yards you will often see that people choose to put more easily depleted resources (wood trees for example) in the back to preserve them. People also use their back yards as extended storage space. Back yard space is simply more valuable to the owner than front yard space. Allowing him to effectively have two backyards gives an advantage. Allowing increased backyard expansion in exchange for reduced front yard expansion creates the same problem.

    The other side of the coin is that the resources that most of us place on our public street are a form of contribution to our community. It is a way for us to give back. Some give a lot, some give a little and yes, some give none. Personally I think declining to share resources is a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I am fairly certain that I get a great deal more use out of my public street resources than my visitors do, so even looking at it from an accounting standpoint I come out way ahead. Factoring in the aesthetic pleasure from the pretty trees and cute animals and the joy I get from my visitors and I conclude that putting resources on my public street has been a genuinely rewarding part of the game.

    But I understand that not everyone experiences things the same way so I am willing to recommend a compromise as long as it does not give an advantage to those withdrawing from such an important part of Glitch.
    Posted 7 months ago by Miss Bobbit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Miss Bobbit - I'm glad you understand that not everyone experiences things the same way. I like my street exactly the way it is. And just because I don't have resources on my street, doesn't mean that I decline to share resources. I choose to do so in a different way. For all you know, I may share MORE resources than you, but do so privately. Anonymously. Any judgments about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face are made without the benefit of full knowledge.

    I disagree that imposing a penalty for choosing to keep one's street private is non-punitive. By definition, a penalty is punitive. And make no mistake that what you suggest is a penalty. As things are right now, and even as they would be under your system, by your definition I would still have an advantage. I don't keep resources to share and I am free to go to anyone's home street and use any or all of their resources, unless they have me blocked. There is nothing stopping me. Or do you also propose that there be a "minimum development" standard imposed if people want to use the resources on others' home streets?

    One of the arguments for public streets seems to be that people want to have an altruistic outlet. They want to give without requiring anything in return. That's great. I do it all the time in this game. I do not choose to do it by having resources on my street that can be used to grief me. So, if it is an altruistic endeavor, then REQUIRING people to make their streets open and available is antithetic.

    Giving players a maximum total of yard/street expansions would not give those who chose to use the expansions on their backyard an unfair advantage. It would give EVERYONE a CHOICE. Players who want the feel good full resource street could expand their streets to the maximum; players who want the most privacy could expand their backyards to the maximum; and everyone would have the choice of how large or small both their backyards AND their streets could be.
    Posted 7 months ago by Audaria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • " I am willing to recommend a compromise as long as it does not give an advantage to those withdrawing from such an important part of Glitch."

    This vital part of Glitch was released a few weeks ago. If you want to argue merit, I'd say the "old" way was more social and integral than home streets. I harvest wood from the unending surplus of wood trees now in the world. Frankly, my back yard is pretty tame too - I've put down a few herb gardens and a rock. That's... kinda it. I have a crop garden for shits and giggles, but I've let it go. There are SO many resources out in the world I fail to see how this has to be about balance and fairness. 

    Limitations on what people can do in their yards (space) or who else they can visit (locking off all other home streets to players who enable privacy), create more problems than they solve. I simply don't understand how this is a question of resources when that argument has already been destroyed by both sides - there is simply no tangible benefit to keeping a street private if the goal is to hoard resources (even if no restrictions were set on private streets).

    Resources are an aspect of the game, not the goal. For everyone saying that the idea of private streets are anti-social, I'd counter that abandoning Ur for resource routes is anti-social - limiting social interactions to those select areas you are mining. 

    (yes, yes, anti-social is not the correct term)

    Edit: Holy crap, I don't need to post anymore. Audaria has made a series of amazing posts, and you all should read her's first if you even bother to read mine.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • People offering to do something nice for those who wish they could make their streets private… be aware that even if you show up on their home streets with the best intentions, you are likely to be made pre-emptively quite unwelcome (before you can even declare yourself).

    Some people really, truly, don't care to interact with people they haven't pre-determined are worthy of a visit to their home street. I learned this the hard way myself.
    Posted 7 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Xev Actually, sharing resources on our public streets has always been part of the game. It was ENHANCED and EMPHASIZED several weeks ago.

    The old method of putting piggies, chicks and butterflies on the street in front of our houses was felt to be inadequate so now we have this much more powerful and satisfying method.

    You persist in explaining that for _you_ this issue is not about  resources. Yes, we have all heard you. But this topic is not about  _you_. It is about Glitch. Giving players an incentive for withdrawing from part of Glitch takes the game in a direction very different from where it seems to be evolving to.

    The issue with the locking of the herdkeeping supplies shows that there are some players who have an obsession with gaming the system and behaving in an anti-social manner to get a resource advantage. We should think hard before we open up another way for this to happen.
    Posted 7 months ago by Miss Bobbit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "You persist in explaining that for _you_ this issue is not about  resources. "

    Every argument presented in this topic tends to be from a purely anecdotal perspective. "I play the game this way, therefore it is the way everyone plays the game. And also the way everyone SHOULD play the game. And if you do not play the game the way I play it, you are bad and you should feel bad."

    No.. I suppose you wouldn't see the humor in that. But I find it delicious.

    I EAT YOUR IRONY. I DEVOUR IT AND ASK FOR MORE. FEED ME! (Also, you don't need to use underscores. You can italicize things. Go on.)

    But this is all besides the point. You don't like me. I like me, but you don't. So point your little pencilly eyes at this post instead.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Pomegrandy, you managed to express what I've been thinking while reading this thread.  Thank you!  

    Xev, you seem frustrated but I'm surprised that your tone is getting this unpleasant.  Let's keep it civil, yeah?
    Posted 7 months ago by Sloppy Ketchup Subscriber! | Permalink
  • is "civil" the fun new buzzword around here?

    'coz we used to say "tsk, tsk, that's not very glitchy" whenever anyone took a tone we didn't like or did a thing of which we did not approve.

    now we police other people by calling them uncivil. was "not glitchy" not strong enough? will there be tear gas next?

    fun happy tear gas and bright pink riot police?

    *singing* kum ba yahhhhh, my lorrrrrd, kum bah yahhhhhhh.....
    Posted 7 months ago by flask Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Audaria  Try not to take these discussions so personally. No one is accusing you of not being a good person so there is no reason to be so defensive or protest that you are as altruistic as someone else.

    Glitch, like any rpg uses points, access, etc to encourage or discourage behavior. This is not about anyone judging you or punishing you. 

    Glitch is designed to encourage (not force) friendliness and sharing. Keeping our public streets public is just one way the game emphasizes this very Glitch-specific goal..

    As I have posted before, if the privacy-focused players would do what you do and have zero resources on their public streets they would almost never have visitors and this issue would never have come up to begin with. I think that is a great choice for you and I am glad you are encouraging other like-minded players to look into it.
    Posted 7 months ago by Miss Bobbit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • flask, we don't all have to be friends, but if we want a community we have to be kind.  I'm not talking about crapping rainbows, I'm just saying let's keep personal attacks and insults to a minimum and stay focused on the topic at hand.  I wouldn't dream of telling you what to do, sweetcheeks.
    Posted 7 months ago by Sloppy Ketchup Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Sloppy Ketchup: I sincerely apologize if anything I wrote came across as a personal insult - it certainly wasn't intended to be. I assume you're referring to "pencilly," but if it was something else, please correct me. The quote was not meant to be of a particular user, but to echo the trend in general. Again, apologies if this wasn't clear. My goal was irreverence, not hostility. I'm also not particularly frustrated, but generally amused by this thread. Honestly, what else CAN I be?

    As for pencilly, that's how Miss Bobbit describes her avatar's eyes. I think it's cute. It's a word that describes more of an abstract idea than a concrete one, so a solid definition doesn't suit it. But think of a charcoal drawing of someone's eyes. I like it. Don't you?
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I curate the community crop gardens route. It's not the busiest route, or the longest, but I get a fair few players popping through. I think it's great that I can have resources available for people to share, and I think I'm really lucky to be able to help other people share what they have available. I've been helped with repairs to resources in the past. I don't know who helped, but I'm grateful that those individuals were able to come to my front yard and fix things up.

    Just so we're clear, I 100% support home streets being public by default.

    However, I can sort of see Kelti's point of view. They want their home street to be private. Why is that a problem? I'm genuinely curious as to why it's a problem for a player to not be able to go to a specific street. There are arguments such as "this is the way Tiny Speck wants it", or "it's going to be hard work for them to change things", or "it's not in the spirit of the game" and there are probably lots of others that I can't think of right now. That's not what I'm talking about, though.

    If User A was able to have a private street and made their street private, why would that bother User B?

    Again, I'm completely for public streets. I am completely against forcing everyone onto a private street. I'm also completely against making every street private-by-default-but-with-the-ability-to-be-made-public. I just don't get why it's an upsetting thing for a user to not be able to go everywhere.
    Posted 7 months ago by Fyneila Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Oh sweet Xev, I didn't read your comments as a personal insult to anyone.  No worries.  Let's all splank each other and be done with it ;)
    Posted 7 months ago by Sloppy Ketchup Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Gladly! I'm eagerly anticipating the release of group halls (I know, I have a mental block on whatever they're actually called). 

    Anyway, that's besides the point. Carry on.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink