Sign In

### Topic

#### Home Street Privacy Proposal

So, I was participating in the discussion about keeping home streets public, which I generally support. But then I had an experience which generated this post with the idea for an opt-out option.
The key to this concept is that it is reciprocal.
If you keep your home street public, you can visit any other public home street. This would be the default setting.
If, however, you choose to make your home street private, only those with keys to your house can visit it, AND you can only visit those home streets to which you have house keys.
My hope and expectation is that most people would choose to live in an ungated community. But for those who want total privacy and prefer not to encounter or share resources with those they do not already know and trust, this would be an option. It would prevent the imbalanced situation where a person could cut off their local resources from the commons, but benefit from the commons themselves nonetheless.

Posted 7 months ago by Pascale | Permalink

### Replies

- I think the flaw with this idea is that it assumes too much about why people would want a private street.
  In the interest of trying to keep it fair, within your perception of why someone would want a private street, you want to also restrict other people's access to streets. But that assumes that people who want a private street are doing so primarily out of greed or elitism.
  The use of the phrase "gated community" is also pretty telling. Is it so strange that some players would want a private street simply because they don't want their homes accessible? Perhaps they want to role play as hermits, or only be accessible through certain routes.
  My concern is that you guys are so blinded by the awesomeness that is streets and resource routes that you don't see the other perspective very clearly. There is another perspective.
  Let people have options. It's not always about greed or other negative traits you perceive or infer. And if it is, so what? Is it not a bit greedy in and of itself to set limitations on other players out of a defensive fear that they are hoarding resources?
  Additionally, a person can easily cut off access to resources right now. Simply by not putting any resources on the street, they still have access to other routes.
  Remember, contributions to the game world come in all forms. It's not a simple tit for tat in raw resources. What someone uses iMG for necessarily should differ from what another player uses it for in order to have a balanced game economy and ensure balanced game play.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Honestly, Xev, I truly don't care what the motivation is. People who just want their own private sphere where they'll never run into a stranger… fine! I actually understand all too well the impulse toward hermetism.
  But every choice comes with consequences. My suggestion simply offers one such possible consequence. If people wish to control their environment in certain ways, it only makes sense to me that that decision will shape their experience in certain ways.
  As I've said elsewhere: Glitch is a game of abundance. It's easy to gather whatever you want or need, pretty quickly, in UR. But this question of private terrain (which the game has never ever even hinted at being possible before the new housing) is an interesting one, and offers up some new options for shaping game-play.
  Posted 7 months ago by Pascale | Permalink
- I guess I'm not really sure why wanting privacy options means there need to be consequences (implying punishments).
  I'm confused on this point, because these two statements don't seem connected:
  " Glitch is a game of abundance. It's easy to gather whatever you want or need, pretty quickly, in UR"
  "But this question of private terrain (which the game has never ever even hinted at being possible before the new housing) is an interesting one, and offers up some new options for shaping game-play."
  I agree with the latter 100%. As for the former, it sounds like I'm not making my point very well.
  Yes, Glitch is a game of plenty. Suppose for a moment that the people who want private streets don't use public streets for resource gathering (and, when it comes to resources, go about it the old way - in world). Restricting their ability to visit friends or leave gifts for people or attend public parties / events seems like a very real, very likely consequence of what you're proposing.
  Your idea of why people want additional privacy options is a very, very narrow one. You certainly seem to believe that you "understand all too well the impulse toward hermetism," but even if you do, can you really speak for everyone else who wants increased privacy options?
  I don't think any of us can do that.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Pre reset it was very uncommon for me to see more than a few glitch in game at a time... Now I see even less and yes I am a bit of a hermit in game but I like the ability to come out and play when I want to.There is more than one way to keep stuff private (Attract few visitors and have plenty to share.)
  Posted 7 months ago by dr kelly | Permalink
- I am all for letting those that want their street cut off from the world, but I confess to not understanding the "strangers on my street bothers me" motivation. If teleporting /home took you directly between house and world, would it even matter to you that there was a home street?
  Posted 7 months ago by MrVolare | Permalink
- As the lone dissenter in this topic, I'm going to assume your question is directed at me, MrVolare.
  Strangers on my street don't bother me. I'm more interested in having the option to toggle privacy so as to choose to limit who can access me at certain times. The house is fine, and I agree, the option to teleport directly would certainly improve that, but the issue has little to do with people on my street / stealing resources, so much as how I want to play the game.
  I quite like the idea of not being found. If our houses exist in our imagination, why can anyone get there? I'm so enchanted with the idea of the new housing, and I (no matter how unrealistically) am delighted at the idea of a web of connections.
  I LOVE the idea of resource paths (even though I don't use them - I prefer the in-game routes, myself), and would be so pleased if there was a way to integrate social interaction into those routes.
  For instance, if privacy options were enabled in such a way (and I admit, this is asking a lot of development) that you could approve / deny directly who "linked" to you via road sign, it would allow for remarkable game play. Not only would you be able to allow no connections, you could allow as many or as few therein.
  For instance, if we collectively set up a role play that involved secret networks and challenges (e.g. the only way to win the prize would be to get to the end of the route, but getting to each next step requires work and puzzle solving - either by following written clues, meeting people, or finding keys) we would create an entirely user-generated level of game play that makes the possibilities endless.
  This is the essence of imagination, and I can't help but wish these options were more readily available. Just look what evolved overnight with the resource routes. That's amazing, and absolutely colors how TS approaches future development. Why stop there?
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- -1
  Posted 7 months ago by Janitch | Permalink
- I really think it's possible these ideas would require recoding the entire friend system in the game and aren't as simple as adding a switch. Approving/denying who adds you to a sign is the equivalent of approving/denying a friend request, something that cannot be done in this system, something I and others have strongly objected to in the past.
  -1 as well.
  If it's not about limiting who can access your street resources, then simply don't put any out, and there won't be much reason for anyone to visit.
  No one who visits can take your machines, icons, RHK equipment, or poison your trees -- what else do you need?
  Posted 7 months ago by Red Sauce | Permalink
- Cross posted from general:
  Here's a thought.
  Imagine for a moment that when we typed "/home" we actually went HOME, i.e. into our houses. It would then be clearer that our home is our dwelling and our back yard. We would have to be proactive, just like everyone else, in order to go out our front door into 'our' street, i.e. the street we happen to live on, and that we have some control over.
  I think the current game mechanic that drops us on our street instead of inside our home blurs the distinction between public and private, and makes people feel more proprietary over the street their home happens to be on.
  If we went directly into our homes, there would be no additional question about privacy. Your home and your backyard ARE absolutely private (unless you choose to give out a key). No one will 'stumble into' your home. You won't run into any strangers there.
  So that's my proposal to TS. Have the "/home" command take us into our houses, and make going to our home's public street a thing we have to choose to do, just like everyone else who might visit it. I think that, psychologically, that will go a long way to clarifying the relationship between home (private, total control) and street (public, some control).
  Posted 7 months ago by Pascale | Permalink
- "I really think it's possible these ideas would require recoding the entire friend system in the game and aren't as simple as adding a switch. Approving/denying who adds you to a sign is the equivalent of approving/denying a friend request, something that cannot be done in this system, something I and others have strongly objected to in the past."
  I'm not suggesting it would be easy or practical. Simply an idea. Neither of us are in a position to gauge what TS wants to do or how they want to devote resources. I have no delusions that it would be simple or even likely. Just an idea.
  I also think that privacy issues will only become larger as time progresses and more people play Glitch. As for approving/denying friend requests, I'm reluctant to reopen a can of worms that is apparently closed, but I would be curious as to why you would object so strongly to that? Privacy options are just that: options. These ideas are in no way meant to suggest that everyone would suddenly have to go through the tedious process of approving / denying friends in general. Rather, those who wanted to could.
  The issue with people adding others as a friend is that suddenly an information "feed" is automatically subscribed to, regardless of whether or not a user consciously approves that.
  As for stealing, that's not my issue or priority with wanting privacy options. For me, it has zero to do with resources. It's not about "stuff," it's not about stealing, it's not about people harvesting my trees (which they are welcome to do - that's why the trees are there). If I didn't want people to see or use the stuff on my street, that stuff wouldn't be there.
  Surely you can fundamentally understand that for the billionth time, I don't give a crap about people taking my pretend stuff. Right? Please tell me you understand that? Because I really don't know how else to say it at this point.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- Playing devil's advocate for a second: if it's all just pixels, why do you care if someone sees your feed? Pixelly you got a pixelly badge! Pixelly you is in Ajaya Bliss! What difference does it make if someone knows that?
  But as I've said elsewhere, I would have absolutely no objections to a "cloaking device." If you want to be invisible to other players, I'm perfectly okay with that. I'm happy for TS to supply such an option if they want. Hell, I'm even okay with nuance: Visible to All, Visible to All Who Have Freinded Me and My Friends, Visible Only to People I've Friended, Invisible to All.
  I think this is a separate issue from access to home streets.
  Posted 7 months ago by Pascale | Permalink
- @Pascale: 100% agreed! But it would roll home streets into that, most probably (as it probably rightly should). I've said elsewhere that the idea of dev spending time to specifically restrict access to home streets probably isn't well spent. Privacy issues in general is a larger question and one worth considering.
  In fact, your cloaking device suggestion is one that has been discussed elsewhere (possibly by you) in older threads.
  In response to your devil's advocate question, the issue isn't "stuff" but knowledge. It's about the very real social interactions between very real people in a digital space. The badges (which I don't particularly care about) are pixels, but location information and data about a player can and has historically been used against them. Ad hominem attacks using public data are used against players in threads debating how resources are used (and who "deserves" to use them).
  I personally quite like not advertising things about myself in game. Regardless of the fact that no real life identifying information is available (unless user-provided), many players develop a strong relationship with their character, and use that avatar as an extension of self. It's not a big leap to understand that people can become uncomfortable with other players being able to instantly access all sorts of information about them (and jump directly to their home street without using TP - either by using a street sign or a button on that user's profile page).
  People get REALLY upset about piggies. They get really bent out of shape over a lot of stuff (pixel based or community based). People have very real, very strong attachments to this game and to their avatars. It's reasonable to expect that the social dynamics of this game will eventually result in friction that some basic over-arching privacy options would more easily rectify. Including access to home streets!
  Edit: Sorry - because we're kind of updating both threads at once, please keep doing what you've been doing and read both before responding (as I've been trying to do as well). I'm realizing we're hitting different points that are equally relevant in both places. Maybe we can consolidate and stick to one? If you prefer this one, I think it's more on-topic.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- I understand completely the desire for more privacy controls. But as I think about it, I wonder what it would look like. How could I tell that someone was playing under "private" mode? Would they be invisible? It would look pretty strange for rocks to be mining themselves. Do I still get the mining bonuses if I mine with them? What about scooping jellisacs? If we're scooping at the same time, do we both get the jelli, as it is today?
  What about the growl when they enter or leave a street? Without that, there could be people in the street with me and I wouldn't know about it. Sometimes, if I'm mining with a partner, we use local chat to converse and if no one else is "around" then I might be more free with my words than if there are other people there. I would find it "oogy" to think there are invisible people on the street I could not detect - they could see me and my chat but be hidden from me. In fact, that in itself would become a tool for griefing as well.
  If they are visible, and it's possible to see that they have entered the street, how is their desire for privacy indicated? If I try to IM them, do I get a polite message saying that they'd prefer not to chat right now? What about if I try to talk to them using local chat? What about group chats? Do I get the same message if I use my emo bear actions or try to sprinkle them with the watering can? Is there any other way I can bother them that we should be thinking about - how would they change? What does it look like when you imagine it? What if I start a game ticket? Can they play it? What if they start one? Can I play it? Does my sneezing powder still make them sneeze? What about my radiation?
  With respect to home streets, perhaps when I bring up their info screen, the "Visit Someone's home street" button is greyed out to me because I am not a keyholder or their friend. Is there a way that I might "knock"? What about when I click on street signs that are linked to theirs - do I get another growl "You want to go to there, but you can't." What if I want to install a sign to them, my friend, but their privacy settings preclude that. Do I get a notification, or does it just look like their name is unavailable? Is the mechanism different from the one that occurs when I am being blocked? Do we want to differentiate between a privacy state where you are essentially pre-emptively blocking all of Ur (no IMs, no visible chat messages, no mail, no visits) and one where you are not? (no IMs, no visits, but visible chat messages, unapproved friending is possible so mail is possible).
  These questions are all really straightforward, and they're not that hard to decide on answers for, but they're just the tip of the iceberg. This actually would involve rewriting code that touches almost everything that we can do in the system. I think a reasonable thing to hope for is 1) the ability to set your own "warn-off" for IMs like the devs do - "Xev has a lot of friends. If you are not one of them, do you really want to IM her? Be sure!" and 2) the ability to set your location to "A secret location" permanently, regardless of whether the location is actually hidden or not.
  Posted 7 months ago by Scarlett Bearsdale | Permalink
- Really good questions. I think the public areas and the private areas need better definition. The problem with home streets is that they're a strange in between - HIGHLY accessible (more than any other street in Ur), yet personal.
  I think a person in "private" mode should not be hidden as they interact in public areas. E.g. they behave and interact normally on a street. A person can speak to them as they normally would in the local chat. However, they can set privacy options to restrict IMs. So a person IMing them might see a message like, "Sorry, this user is not available for IM. Try chatting in local or becoming friends!" Something friendly to that effect. It is then at both users discretion if the interaction is pursued further.
  By that same token, users who enable privacy settings should be visible and accessible in a forum context, in public chats, and in public areas of the game. A private user doesn't get to hide under some veil of anonymity - that is indeed rife for abuse. Growls should stay the same, especially if you're physically on the street with that person. Conversely, a user who's enabled privacy options may not have their "last seen" information publicly displayed on their profile page. In-game, however, little should change in public shared areas.
  As for home streets, I think a variety of options or degrees of privacy should be available:
  1) Everyone can visit the home street via button or street sign (how it is currently)
  2) Only YOUR friends can visit your home street via button or street sign (e.g. someone can add you as a friend, but unless you have added them, they cannot visit your street)
  3) Only users with keys can visit your home street (excluding even friends if they do not have a key - at this point if you choose not to give out any keys, no one can visit your home street - the same way it works with houses)
  I don't see knocking being an option. The user can set privacy in their preferences. In the case of parties or events, a user can send out keys to all of their invitees and then take them back when the party is over.
  I don't think street signs should work automatically. A quicker option to making street signs approval based would have them work (or not work) based on privacy setting. Exactly to your point, if you are not approved to visit, you would receive a message to that effect. And I especially hope it would be Liz Lemon's "You want to go to there, but you can't."
  I think blocking is much more severe and really shouldn't be bundled into privacy settings. They're two very different functions, and privacy should be less of a pre-emptive strike, and more of a level of comfort / restriction granting users control over their level of interaction. Mail should be available for all users, private or not. Though I think it's a little hinky we have to add a user as a friend (now) to send them stuff, I suppose it makes some sense. In the event that these privacy settings would affect whether or not people can add you as a friend without your consent, that would necessarily require mail to be reworked. That said, I see that as part of the privacy issue as a whole, but another subject for another day.
  I agree that it would require a lot of work to implement this kind of stuff. Even the smallest, seemingly simplest change can have a lot of ramifications. Still, from the start I think we've all known that there have been some limitations and issues with the current system. It's worth making these requests so that they are out there when the time comes to rework this stuff (since that will probably happen at some point anyway).
  I do quite like the idea to set your location to "a secret location" permanently as a quick fix in the mean time, as well as restricting IMs.
  But your point is an excellent one: All of these things highlight that privacy is an all-encompassing issue. One fix here or there doesn't really "fix" it. And taking privacy into consideration will necessarily force us to reevaluate the entire system as it is currently. That's a LOT of work, for sure! I certainly don't have all the answers, though I've done my best to answer your questions to help illustrate how I envision this working, it may not be the best or most elegant way to solve the problem as a whole.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- To repeat a suggestion from earlier, the solution might be as simple as changing the name of the street from "Your Street" to something less personal. (To me the problem seems to be the subtle distinction between "Your Street" and "Your House".)
  Posted 7 months ago by Janitch | Permalink
- Agreed, Janitch, if that is indeed what 'home' streets are supposed to be. But I still haven't gotten a concrete answer as to why Home streets are infinitely more accessible than any other street in Ur. Literally anyone can jump to anyone else's home street instantly from anywhere in the world without TP or energy loss.
  There's a concrete benefit for friends, but for the world in general? Can we agree that's a bit much?
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- You know, it will be interesting to see whether the Botlers currently under development will be capable of serving as public proxies on the home street. Perhaps they are a way to manage the scary world of people who might wander onto a person's home street.
  I feel that this issue has been pretty thoroughly aired from all points of view. I have been impressed by the way that Stoot & Co. have generally read, followed, and responded in word and dead to other player concerns in the past.
  Let's see how TS proposes to sort it out, going forward. Maybe they'll choose to tweak the way we think of /home and /house and /street, and how they are accessed from the world. Maybe they'll offer privacy controls of some sort. Maybe they'll leave things exactly as they are.
  I do, however, trust that they won't do it without considering the thoughts put forward here and elsewhere in the Forums. I have my own ideas about what would constitute an effective solution—which (by the way) have evolved as the discussion has proceeded—but I'm counting on TS to look at a variety of opinions and make choices in the best interest of the game, the community, and their success as an enterprise.
  I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turned out to be more interesting and more creative outcome than any of us, who are necessarily operating with more limited knowledge of the technical foundation and capabilities of the software, could imagine.
  Not a schmear of smarmalade, just a vote of confidence that I hope will be justified.
  Posted 7 months ago by Pascale | Permalink
- Excellent post, Pascale. I agree completely, and I too look forward to seeing how the Butlers add to the feel and definition of home streets. I was actually going to quote you, but I realized I'd just be copying your entire post. Very nicely put.
  Edit: Additionally, thanks for making this topic. It's a bit saner than the other thread(s), and I think does a nice job of addressing the various perspectives on this subject. We don't agree on all points, nor do we have to.
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- I can see that making home streets private is very important for some people so I think it should be allowed but only if:
  1) They are blocked from everyone else's (except keyholders) home streets
  2) They cannot put any resources in their private front yards
  I think these conditions are necessary because otherwise making a street private gives an advantage in resource management.
  I think allowing this would be a sad development but I think only a very few would actually do it and not for very long. I think it should be handled exactly the way a user name change is currently handled.
  Also, I think that the whole private home street discussion is really pretty unnecessary because the primary reason people visit home streets is to collect resources. If you don't want people on your street just get rid of the resources. No one wants to stand around in an empty lot. Occasionally, in my wanderings, I come across a street with nothing in it. Do I hang around? Of course not! Why would anybody do that?
  Resource removal is certainly what I would advise private home street advocates to do right now, while waiting for Tiny Speck to look into the matter. I have a feeling that removing all the resources will solve the problem before it even gets decided by TS.
  As far as the whole ease of access thing, I assume TS did it that way to help us connect and share with each other. It is similar to the all other connecting-sharing features of the game like snaps and the forums and notes and mail etc etc. I love the ease of access to home streets feature and I would be very sad if it was taken away.
  I don't know what to say about the whole stealth and cloaking thing... This whole train of thought seems very... I don't know... (sigh)
  Posted 7 months ago by Miss Bobbit | Permalink
- Not that I have ever banned anyone on my list, but would be cool to have that as an option as well. ban them from your property.. restraining order :P
  Posted 7 months ago by Baron Münchhausen | Permalink
- @Miss Bobbit:
  Resources are plentiful in Glitch. Whether it's placing them on home streets, in backyards or just collecting them in the world. Why is this again a question of resources? Why ... you know what?
  Nope. Done. Thanks all.
  I've pretty much had it. I'm so very sorry I'm not patient enough to keep repeating myself. I know some of you have been lovely and I've had a remarkable dialogue with you. I just hope that others will continue to assist in presenting both sides of an issue that is legitimate. Whether or not it is ever adopted or implemented is up to TS, but I'm sick of people throwing themselves into the fray without reading what's already transpired.
  But then, that's nothing new. Why am I surprised?
  Posted 7 months ago by Xev | Permalink