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

  • I think it should be made more clear that it is the street that connects to your street and anyone can use it, and that it is not an extension of your backyard.
    Posted 7 months ago by Nonoftat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Flexible permission set for the win.
    This entire argument is a false dichotomy.
    Posted 7 months ago by CrashTestPilot Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Adding my support for public home streets.
    Posted 7 months ago by Toksyuryel Subscriber! | Permalink
  •  Not reading this whole forum - but I really love having public home streets, but I strongly advocate having options for access to home streets. OR larger back yards?
    Posted 7 months ago by La Mariposa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It would be quite discouraging for low level players to go exploring the home streets only to find that as players without a lot of friends, they are not welcome to harvest from those streets.  New players are almost always starved for energy.
    Posted 7 months ago by Treesa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I love my home street being public!
    I will be starting the cultivation of it when I'm next in game.
    I want to look at the resource paths and I'd also like to know if people like all of one thing or a mix of resources to use :)

    I also drop cubimals, RKs, food, drinks, spices, etc in the street for everyone to help themselves to.
    Please, drop by whenever you feel like it.
    Have a happy Glitchy day :D
    Posted 7 months ago by xombiekitty Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Why would a new player expect to have a lot of friends immediately?  Why wouldn't he just use public resources, the way everyone else has?  The beginning of the game is intended to be about exploration.  With access controls in place, a new player would merely find that some home streets are accessible, and some are not.  As it is, he could stumble into a street whose owner doesn't want strangers around, and be kicked out.  As for finding food, not everyone has edible (or any) resources on their home streets, so the point seems moot.

    So why do some of us think that access controls are a good idea?  One reason is that home streets have enormous potential for griefers, largely because we are forced to pass through the streets in order to get into our own houses.  I'm not going to help griefers along by detailing methodology here, so suffice it to say that players have already done some pretty nasty things to each other on home streets, and that the potential is much worse than what we've seen so far.

    Common sense would tell you to simply block griefers; however, if there is no eye witness to the crime, only staff can tell who should be blocked, and even if staff can figure it out, it is against their policy to give the name of the griefer to the victim.  Staff also does not recognize many actions as "bad" because they are permissible actions in most contexts.  (A minor example: it's fine to use Potion of Animal Youth, but it's not very nice to use it to take someone's home street animals, and it's even worse to take all of the animals, wait til they've been replaced, and then come along and take them again... but that still falls into the bounds of ordinary, permissible gameplay.)  This means that the griefer is not punished, since he technically hasn't done anything "wrong," and he's free to continue to harass others.

    (Just to be clear: I haven't been a victim of any of this, but I've seen it happen to many players.)
    Posted 7 months ago by glum pudding Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Going a step further, glum, there's also the fact that your sole "privacy" option is blocking. 

    Blocking is not privacy. It's reactionary, not preventative. It's also a strong action to take against another player. I find it highly amusing that the people talking about the spirit of Glitch and social community are advocating this kind of harsh action against other players if they are not welcome on a street.

    If I block another player, I generally do it because that player is becoming a nuisance. If I want a private street, I can't block all of Ur. So how does that option help anyone?

    Awesome response as always, puddin'. And as crashtestpilot reiterated, this entire argument is a false dichotomy. The reasons for wanting private streets are many, but very few are about hoarding resources. 

    It's wonderful that many of you have developed and begun using resource routes. It's shameful that you think that's now the only way to play, and the only reason someone would want privacy. 

    I'm staggered by the audacity in this thread. Demanding access to everyone's street so that you can use the resources there is ridiculous, especially if a player chooses not to cultivate their public street. That happens now REGARDLESS of privacy options. 

    I can't wait for the thread demanding that people cultivate their street a certain way so as to better participate in the resource routes. 

    Edit: Before I forget, thank you skywaitress. I did see your last reply before this page, and it was very nicely written. It warmed my tiny, icy heart. Thank you :)

    Edit 2: Here's some additional food for thought on the applications and ramifications on additional privacy options, and how they could be used to add a new layer of game play.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I love having my home street public, I would like others to have the option of keeping theirs private.
    Posted 7 months ago by Vocable Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I've been staying out of this since my opinion can be guessed on this, but Xev, you said "I can't wait for the thread demanding that people cultivate their street a certain way so as to better participate in the resource routes."

    If this happens it won't come from HRR proper.  We only want people who are interested in participating to participate.  No one has to use the routes who doesn't want to.  No one has to participate in the routes who doesn't want to.  No one has to replenish resources who doesn't want to.  Those who do want to participate will choose to meet the requirements of the route.

    Always Xev.  Forever Xev.
    Posted 7 months ago by Scarlett Bearsdale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • At CTP's false dichotomy: not the entire thread for sure.  I argued that such is a waste of development resources.  I still think it is.  I do not think it is simply a "let's put this one guy on it for a few weeks" job and then boom, new privacy options.  I think we're talking back-to-beta part 3 proportions.  And I think it's unnecessary.  No one on your street can take machines or equipment, icons, or poison trees.  If it's not about limiting access to resources, it becomes simply a "it makes me feel oogy to find a stranger on my street" kind of deal -- and that is a matter of perception, which will change over time.  

    Why are there strangers on your home street?  Because in Ur, there are strangers on your home street. 

    Why is Glitch the same as itself?  
    Posted 7 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • 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 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Scarlett: Oh my gosh, I was in no way suggesting that, and I am so sorry if it came across that way. I have said and continue to say that I think the development of resource routes is amazing and awesome and a tremendous indication of where this game can go with player-created ideas. My point is that there's a level of bossiness that rears its ugly head more often than I particularly feel comfortable with. Nine times out of ten, it never comes from the people who came up with the ideas or have taken the responsibility of organizing stuff. Instead it comes from other people who bizarrely piggy back off of it. 

    @Saucelah: I think this is a larger issue which is how Glitch handles privacy options in general. As the game gets larger (which it inevitably will), privacy issues and problems therein will become a larger issue. You think it's a waste of resources to devote to one little thing, and I agree. I think it's part of a bigger conversation about online social communities and interactions. Beating people up for wanting privacy options is baffling to me. 

    Bottom line, from where I stand, is that privacy issues will never go away. People want and need privacy. There's a lot of backlash about it, and I'm not really sure why. When it comes to this specific topic, I see adding privacy options at the street level as very reactionary - a band aid to existing development. I don't think that's a good way to go. Instead, I think that privacy options should be taken into consideration in general as they pertain to the game as a whole. Set up the infrastructure before we're out of beta, save a lot of time and trouble down the road when the game is too big and too unwieldy to add such features in after the fact.

    @Pascale: Except that's not the issue at hand. I agree it would solve some 'problems,' but fundamentally, our streets are accessible to anyone from anywhere at any time. That's not true of any other street in Glitch. I'll do you one better. Why not treat home streets like seam streets? Instead of having to be physically adjacent to the street AND have a key, players would only need to be near a connected street, using the street signs. Keys would work similarly to keychains, but could be physically represented in game (like they are with seam streets), and could be an extra barrier in addition to signs.

    Home streets could still be connected by road signs, but there would be an optional privacy layer "approving" those connections. We would also be alerted about them the same way we are with friends.

    This could add so much more complexity to game play. Admittedly, it also requires complexity around how it's built and managed, and may be utterly impractical.

    I'm not foolish enough to think I hold a lot of sway with how TS spends their development resources.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If you have any issues with a player, you can block them.  What more is needed beyond that?  I do object strongly to changing the friend system, as this one is convenient in a game environment, allowing players to add me to contact or visit me without me having to constantly monitor and approve before they can interact.  

    I don't see any reason for anyone to hide "proactively" and see it more as attempting to change the way the game works --  if the "online now" message attracts attention from someone I do not wish to talk to, I will tell them I do not wish to talk to them and block them should there be a further problem.  It seems as if it is not personal privacy you are imagining, but social privacy, privacy from connections you've created or from creating more.   And social privacy is a game element -- how it is engineered subtly cues players about the game community. I believe giving players the tools to block out the world rather than individuals will attract a community I do not want to be a part of.   

    I am adamantly against using development time for non-issues or for creating issues out of systems that have positive trade-offs I don't want to lose.  This system works like twitter -- I imagine there's plenty of people that understand that system well enough that they can understand this system.  This is a small company, a complete overhaul of how friending and profile visibility work would not be a minor undertaking, and it certainly would take away from more pertinent content that would be used by a larger portion of the players --- meaning all of them --- and make more sense for Tiny Speck's development priorities.  
      
    You can call this position beating you up for wanting privacy options, or you can call it a providing a counterpoint.  I go with the latter.  
    Posted 7 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Actually, twitter allows you to have a private account, where you get to approve who can follow you. So the parallel is inexact.
    Posted 7 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Why would anyone want to "hide" socially, proactively? It doesn't really matter to me why, unless their purposes are somehow nefarious (and I don't see how that could be the case).

    Why not allow an optional "invisible" setting for people while in-world? Perhaps they just don't care to interact with others for this session? Maybe they don't want to chat with people who visit their streets? 

    That's all fine by me. I have every sympathy with a player who just sometimes wants to be left alone.

    The part I object to is them bogarting what has been designed to be a publicly-accessible street.
    Posted 7 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I am adamantly in favor of letting TS decide what features they want to add or subtract, using developers' time to its very best effect. An issue that has some players unhappy does not become a non-issue just because it has not made me personally unhappy.

    I have a different idea for how the desired feature might be added without too much extra coding: allow players to use the home street "expansions" to extend their back garden instead of their home street. Choosing that option would leave a tiny nubbin of home street that anybody you had not banned could still visit. Removing its resources would reduce the options for griefers and the inclination of other glitchen to linger nearby.

    Having my home street public has given me lots of pleasure and I want to keep good stuff out there, including all 4 machine types which anyone is free to use. If TS can find a way that doesn't use too much dev time to make the private-home-street-wanters as happy as I am, I believe creating that happiness would be a fine use of their time.
    Posted 7 months ago by Vocable Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I have no idea why they would want to Vocable, but that seems to be what Xev is suggesting.  Not just suggesting, but claiming is inevitably necessary.  

    He appears to be stating the problem is not public streets, not a desire to keep the use of its resources to himself, but privacy in general in the game.  
    Posted 7 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Saucelah: I'm not making claims, simply attempting to point out that this issue is not new, and it will not go away. I AGREE that slapping a band aid on home streets is not a good solution. Privacy issues are relevant, and the puzzle of how to solve them is one worth pondering beyond this very small, very specific issue. 

    You're right, as I am not concerned with resources one way or another, the level of give/take as it pertains to privacy is irrelevant. That said, I appreciate Vocable's ideas even if they don't strictly address privacy issues as a whole.

    @Pascale: "Why not allow an optional "invisible" setting for people while in-world? Perhaps they just don't care to interact with others for this session? Maybe they don't want to chat with people who visit their streets? That's all fine by me. I have every sympathy with a player who just sometimes wants to be left alone."

    I agree entirely with this and think that privacy options that address these very specific points should be considered. I don't agree with the "bogarting what is designated to be a publicly accessible street," part. I get that it's currently public, but it's kind of contradictory in the context of the game. That said, it raises a very valid point I'm not sure we've all really hit on yet in this thread: 

    "Home" streets = what are they? How are they defined? What is the right definition?

    The problem is that they are called "home" streets. They are MORE accessible than any other part of Ur. You can instantly get to anyone's home street from anywhere in the world, regardless of TP, regardless of location, regardless of keys. 

    The idea of our houses and home streets is that they exist in our imagination. We have the ability right off the bat to customize what they look like and what is in them. We have more control over them than anyone else. Yet we don't "own" them, as asserted by many in this thread. We are curators of them. Okay, but why? And who is creating this definition? Can that definition change? What does it take for that to happen, and who gets to decide?

    This is a new release. There are bound to be kinks. I think this is one of them. The sheer ease of jumping to another person's "space" (almost to the exclusion of the 'real' world of Ur) is unprecedented. It's a convenience we never had with physical houses and locations on the map. On the one hand, it's a tremendous boon to visit friends most easily. On the other hand, it presents a lot of very real issues and concerns for people who are getting unwelcome guests or simply don't wish to have visitors (and possibly never did).
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Saucelah, I really wish you'd stop white-knighting for TS and their precious development resources. All your arguments seem to be the same "OMG don't you dare suggest TS do anything other than stuff *I* like about Glitch".

    Home street privacy probably won't require "recoding the entire friend system". It probably won't "take the game back to beta 3". I don't think TS developers will go mad with the mental strain of trying to implement this, nor will even thinking about home street privacy cause head explosions.

    All some people want, myself included, is a way to better control who shows up on our home streets, for various reasons, any of which are pretty reasonable. There are no evil overlords cackling as their nefarious home street privacy scheme becomes the thing that destroys Glitch. It's not a big conspiracy. Re-fucking-lax. Please.
    Posted 7 months ago by Kelti Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It would be really helpful, Kelti, if you would specify what your reasons are for wanting to restrict visitors to your home street.

    Are you being griefed?
    Do you just prefer not to interact with people you don't already know?
    Is it about the use of your resources?

    I am asking because I truly want to understand. What is the problem that you want to solve by gaining total control over access to the home street?
    Posted 7 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I like having my home street public. I put in my backyard anything I want to keep to myself, and enjoy figuring out what I want to put in my home street for other people to stumble upon. I think TS has done a good job locking some things up in the home street that make that easier - I have lots of gas plants on my home street, for example, and I know that I will continue to be able to use them because no one else can poison them. Then the gas plants remain there for me and for anyone else who stops by. I also put other things in my home street that are helpful and either respawn quickly or are once per day per person, like trees. It's nice.
    Posted 7 months ago by Hildalady Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ Kelti...Saucelah Is Not the one that needs to *** relax lol. Had to block you in global due to excess whining, thought that would work in the forums..my bad rofl.
    Posted 7 months ago by Anya Karenya Subscriber! | Permalink
  • what we want, by way of feature request, is the idea that we can control our streets using a sophisticated set of parameters.
    The more switches we have: IE:
    a) Friends only
    b) Keyholders only
    c) Some other level of "friends," like perhaps "contacts" only 
    d) Public, fully.

    The reasons for the request are not important; what is important that being able to manipulate the resource that you are making public at this time, spending resources and imagination on, etc.

    Let's stipulate that there are many types of players (Google Bartles), some of whom are social, some of whom are less social, and some of whom are antisocial.

    Arguments along the lines of "if you wanted to be in an MMO and you're not social, you're going to have a bad time" aren't relevant. Listen: All kinds of people play games.

    What is relevant is that all kinds of people play games, social and less so.

    The point is, there is an innate notion of ownership: IE, it's on "my" street.  In my own use case, I'm the curator of the Metal Route. I have people on my street all day long. When the resource breaks, I'm of two minds:

    A) Let the crowd fix it: (They do.)
    B) Set an example; display stewardship (I do, and the img is worth it).

    Both of those are senses of stewardship: A is a hybrid of absentee landlord/avid crowdsourcer; and B is a bit of boy scout/landholder/drill sergeant.

    I can imagine that there are other use cases, as well.

    1) A player that wants to use their front yard as an extension of their house for purposes of self-sufficiency.  I've done that.  Let's call him/her Survivalist.

    2) A player who is concerned that their resources are being pillaged, and no one is fixing them for them. Let's call them Tragedy of the Commons.

    3) A player who shares their resource because they want to share. Let's call them Heart.

    4) A player who shares their resource because, even tho they are afraid of the resource being pillaged, they know a community has their back. Let's call him Crash, because that's me to a T.

    Let's parse these audiences: 

    1) Survivalist fears reliance on others, or just doesn't want to be social. These are often the most interesting players. Allowing them to do their thing often breeds things like comprehensive tools defining all the tasks and all the resources. Bless them.

    2) Tragedy of the Commons is social gone bad. The person has let too many people in (I friend ALL the things!) and as a consequence has no support group, and a picked clean front yard. To fix this, a second degree of "friends" ala "contacts" would allow Tragedy to make sure their front yard was only being picked clean by people they know. It would be magnificent.

    3) Heart is a varient on Tragedy.  They share their resources and accept the consequences, because it's a Nice Thing to Do.  You won't see them on the forums complaining. It's about attitude, in the end.

    4) Crash, me, has a torrent of people running through his street mowing on his resources. He also has an awesome community of people that restore resources (thank you IMG bonus!) so he doesn't have to worry about becoming Tragedy of the Commons. It's a sweet place to be.

    TL:DR  There are many kinds of players; a means to screen visitors to streets would appeal to many kinds of people, a few of whose types are delineated above.
    Posted 7 months ago by CrashTestPilot Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Does it really matter why I want my home street private? Would any answer I give be seen as reasonable? I sincerely doubt it given the vehement and acidic nature of just about every single comment I've seen so far.

    I don't like my resources being denied to me when I want to use them. When I want something, I want it then, not 5 minutes from then, not 20 minutes from then not 6-7 hours from then. Time is valuable in a game with relatively unlimited resources. It's not about resource hoarding, even though some idiots keep harping on that. It's about TIME.

    I don't like strangers on my property. If I want to invite someone, I'll invite them.

    I don't like people using the resources I put out there and depleting them, forcing me to fix them.

    If the resources out front are depleted, I can't use them until they're repaired.

    If I place anything but trees out front, then people can grief me (as they've done so far) by leaving ore stubs, stealing my animals or using youth potions, etc. Great example of the Glitch spirit, folks. Someone speaks out, so you come sneaking by like a pack of cowards and mine ore down to stubs. Wonderful sense of community there.

    I expanded my front yard to the max on either side so I could plant herbs mostly, but have a bit of everything else to share with a friend. When I found out that anyone could come raiding, I was quite surprised as that seemed not to be how I'd thought the home street worked. Someone from global chat deliberately came to my yard to take things once they found out I'd left things outside. That's an asshole move no matter how you look at it. That pretty much soured me on having strangers on my home street.

    Basically, I don't like being forced to allow anyone in the entire game to use my home street as their own. I'll choose who I want to let on my home street, thank you. I have no problems helping people out. I spent almost 2 hours yesterday helping a pair of players assemble a second floor. No payment was asked for, nor was it offered. I've build doors for people, I've helped people make fuel cells and returned most of the awesome stews they offered as payment. This has all happened the whole time this BULLSHIT in this post and others has been going on. I'm contributing despite having good reason NOT to because of all the crap people are giving me for a very simple and reasonable thing I've spoken for.

    Most of you should be goddamned ashamed of yourselves. From raging at me for wanting total control over my resources, even though that's pointless in the larger context of the game, to panicking about how street privacy will cause game bugs and take away developer time from other issues to outright personal attacks for no reason other than thinking things should/could be different than they are now. It's even carried over to global chat where several people are so butthurt they just can't stop making snipey comments at me for hours upon end.

    Pathetic.
    Posted 7 months ago by Kelti Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Also nobody *has* to block someone in chat. I rarely if ever speak to anyone privately. You block someone in chat because you're so afraid of their words that you need to put on blinders. "I don't like what you're saying, waah waah, so I'm going to make you disappear in order to keep my narrow little world view intact."

    Stop crying and start listening for a change. Maybe you'll find that when I'm not being pointlessly attacked, I'm funny, interesting, witty, informative, etc.
    Posted 7 months ago by Kelti Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Kelti lol Even after blocking you, others repeatedly Asked you to stop "whining/raging". I Rarely block anyone. Trust me baby, your words are Nothing to fear but to feel sad about.

    I'm done w/you :) Carry on and others can deal with you.
    Posted 7 months ago by Anya Karenya Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Also as an addendum, I don't believe in things like handouts. I prefer to make my own way in the game. That's why I have all the skills learned. I also don't think that other people should benefit for free from my spent imagination, nor do I feel I should have to spend my imagination to fix my resources that other people are depleting when I'm not doing anything to their resources.

    It's parasitism and I don't want to have anything to do with it. You people want to set up resource routes and completely shut down the outer world, that's bizarre but whatever. Don't accuse me or anyone else of wanting to play a single player game. I'm happy to play with other people in the game, it'd be kind of pointless not to. I just don't want you on my home street for many reasons. I'll happily meet people out in the world, as we all used to before.
    Posted 7 months ago by Kelti Subscriber! | Permalink
  • As an aside, I find it particularly telling that the people who want additional privacy options are also the people who do not wish to block others. I also find it fascinating how many people go out of their way to announce that they've blocked someone.

    The "community" soured me on Glitch before, and it's doing it again in record time this go round. Seems like another leave of absence is in order.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Kelti, might I suggest taking a deep breath? Maybe taking a step away. Every time you post I'm taken aback by the anger in your words. Almost every interaction I've had or observed with you has been full of venom. It really confuses me.

    People have no right to grief you of course, no matter how nasty you've acted. But people are people and they tend to react poorly to being called names, being "yelled" at, cursed at etc. Before you post a response perhaps think about how you would feel if those words were directed at you.

    You can say you want to control who has access to your street without being rude and combative. There are several people here who have been able to calmly state their case and I believe it's been productive. Several others have even said they've changed their minds because of it.

    You will find the Glitch community is actually quite amazing when you approach it differently. I know I have had exceptionally positive experiences with almost everyone I've come into contact with. The difference is what what you put out there. When you put out negativity it comes back to you.
    Posted 7 months ago by SkyWaitress Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If TS had not named the home streets "Player X's Home Street" I don't believe we'd be having this debate.

    It would simply be the street your home is on. You'd be lucky enough to be able to customize it, to some extent. The expectation of privacy and access control would not have arisen as strongly as it has.

    I expect some people would still have *wished* for it. But they wouldn't see it as some kind of entitlement. Maybe.

    P.S. I look forward to an opportunity to change the name of my street to something less "ownery."
    Posted 7 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • This was some heavy reading to catch up with first thing in the morning.  As the game is at present I just accept (because it's just the way it is) that anything I choose to place outside can and will be used by other glitchen on their travels.  The front yard area (which doesn't belong to me in the true sense of the word) is the only area in Ur where I have complete freedom to mould the terrain to my vision of the perfect Ur so that anyone can come along and see my vision. 

    That being said, the barnacle clumps are getting a tad boring for me now so if anyone here wants to stop by and help me deplete them I'd be grateful! Will take me 5 wine of the deads otherwise : )
    Posted 7 months ago by ~Arabesque~ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I like the current system. But since there's unhappy people, I suppose it can't be too much to ask to have a setting for the Home Streets: Private and Public. I guess you could do what currently is the house/key system? A sort of 'gated' system might work. Emphasis on 'might'.
    Posted 7 months ago by KitkatCat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Much as I respect both sides of this argument (despite preferring home streets to be public myself)...

    1. TS do accept suggestions or at least take ideas on board, so what's the point making it such a drama and be so negative about the way things are. Public home streets have been introduced and that is "how it is" (at least right now). So gear your play to it and make CALM suggestions, not spluttery ones..

    2. Hearing it discussed on Global, last night - my time - was really unpleasant with somebody saying that taking stuff from home streets was like "money laundering".

    No, it is not. Nobody pays for any resources except in terms of time (LEISURE time, no?). Nobody is taking funds from anyone in violation of any sort of rules. Ethical ones, perhaps, but even then not really. Unethical would be finding ways of taking stuff that is locked down to an owner.

    3. The time (oh that precious stuff) involved in yelling because the game play isn't how you personally want it... how about spending it on collecting extra resources instead? Either to expand your backyard and putting resources there, or restoring stuff on your street (and getting IMG for it). Win win.

    4. Yes, it's a shame that the most vociferous posters who want their streets private are being 'griefed' by visitors (although whether it really is griefing, at least in most cases, not sure).

    But by insisting that people are 'thieves' and 'money launderers' - and repeatedly, it's not the way to be left in peace on your own little patch. Draw attention to yourself in a negative way, and there will always be a few individuals who retort in some way.

    Draw attention to yourself by sharing and being positive will often (although of course not always) attract others to share with you.

    And now, I am off to collect some stuff. Particularly grain: no idea who left me some extra piggies but they are hungry little beasts but hey... 48 iMG a shot, so thanks ;)
    Posted 7 months ago by Just Bren Subscriber! | Permalink
  • When a person uses words like "handouts" and "parasitism" for behavior that has been actually designed into the game—well, a reality-check is called for. Just imagine, people benefiting from something "for free," just an investment of their time… oh noes, what an outrageous concept!

    You know, kind of like playing a game for free that requires massive amounts of actual real-world capital to make possible.
    Posted 7 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • 'You tried to share with Kelti. Kelti doesn't like to share!'
    Posted 7 months ago by MarbhDamhsa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 for public home streets and also maybe the socialization of means of production
    Posted 7 months ago by awdrone Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The arguments in favor of street privacy would make sense to me if we did not have a back yard. 

    I understand that some people probably want to keep all their resources private. And all people probably want to keep some of their resources private.

    But keep in mind that we already have the means to do this! Put all the stuff you want private in your backyard and any stuff you want to share in your front yard. I guess I don't understand why there is any more to be said about it.

    Yes, it is true that confining yourself to just the back yard will allow you to have fewer resources, but here is the thing: just like in real life, being willing to share what you have makes you a richer person. It is one of those cool paradoxes of life that the more open you are to sharing the more you wind up having.

    I love it the way the Glitch public-frontyard / private-backyard reflects this so perfectly. I hope they keep it exactly the way it is.
    Posted 7 months ago by Miss Bobbit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Is everyone selectively ignoring every other reason for privacy except the ones they can refute?

    Awesome!
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm ignoring everything cos I don't care either way! 

    *skips about*
    Posted 7 months ago by shhexy corin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Probably the most compelling statement in this entire thread, shhexy.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Xev...

    What other reason CAN there be for private home streets except personal preference, as in whether or not to share harvestable resources (that are freely available elsewhere in Ur apart from other people's home streets).

    ... and by those preferences, I don't feel people should feel forced to justify their reasons, either. This is a GAME, played how the player likes best using the tools available.

    The preferences (private / public) can be simply that a player doesn't feel sociable or that they don't want other people to use pixel resources they've amassed for their personal use or 'waste' the time that they've taken to turn those resouces into something harvestable.

    I respect that.

    As I said earlier,  TS has no doubt noted some people want 'more' privacy and others don't, and will take decisions regarding the final form of streets and yards taking their comments and ideas into account.

    Mind, if some people are simply whining and turning discussions into vitriol while others are trying to offer ideas or keeping calm, wonder who they'll listen to most?
    Posted 7 months ago by Just Bren Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Just Bren: Let's not cast stones when we're all living in the same glass house, yeah? If you have something to say to a particular user, say it. Some of us are adults.

    "What other reason CAN there be for private home streets except personal preference, as in whether or not to share harvestable resources (that are freely available elsewhere in Ur apart from other people's home streets)."

    It's all personal preference, but I don't give a toss about resources. I don't use nor intend to use my home street for resources, (I think aesthetically the home streets look nicer without a lot of clutter, but that's just what I choose to do with MY home street). Still, I would use privacy options if I had them.

    The issue of "resource hoarding" as it pertains to home streets is a straw man argument because there is no logical reason to want privacy options if the only reason for wanting privacy is to hoard resources. As everyone and their mother has pointed out, if you want resources all to yourself, just put them in your yard.

    Likewise, just a reminder to everyone: The entire world is filled with resources. The. Entire. World. Game play used to be more than just grinding, and it ideally will evolve to be more than grinding. New skills are fun, but that fun goes away when it becomes repetitive.

    I personally (not speaking for anyone else) want privacy options specifically because of that social element. Everyone's kind of hidden away at the moment which I rather like, but I want the public streets to be public and I want the option of privacy on my "home" street. When the game hits its stride again, and it will, there will be lots more players than there are now. I left Glitch for a while specifically because I was getting just too much attention and blocking wasn't a fair option. 

    Attention is great and all, but sometimes it gets really intense. Every single person I talked to was nice and friendly and in no way worthy of a block or a ban. But the sheer volume of it was overwhelming and ultimately exhausting. It would be nice to be able to play the game regularly without having to block people who just want to say hi. It would be nice to have an "incognito" mode, or make access to personal areas more restricted. Setting levels of social interaction with other players would be a very nice option, and may ultimately make or break the game for me.

    Honestly, if that's not a big priority for TS and isn't seen as a worthwhile thing to take into consideration, I'll take my toys and go home. I'm certainly not about to stick around and watch myself get more and more irritated playing a game. I'm a big girl and I can find other stuff to do. 

    However, it's worth mentioning because I'm not the only one who would like to see more options when it comes to privacy overall in Glitch. I'm not the first person to talk about it, I won't be the last. But I'm shocked at the level of hostility towards the subject alone. This isn't the first time I've seen a major to do about something on Glitch, and I doubt it would be the last. I'm hopeful that we can collectively find some resolution and accept that different players find the game fun for different reasons, and those reasons do not have to be mutually exclusive.

    The resource hoarding argument is absurd and isn't a viable reason to deny players privacy. The world is overflowing with resources. Let's find another strawman argument, please. Or, if we're feeling like putting on our big boy pants, let's try actually having a conversation about it. Point by point, perhaps!
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'd like the updates & online status in my profile to be hidden from non-Glitch users.
    Posted 7 months ago by shhexy corin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Xev...
    "Let's not cast stones when we're all living in the same glass house, yeah? If you have something to say to a particular user, say it. Some of us are adults."

    Wut? I have nothing to say to a particular user. I just prefer calm discussion to vitriol in general.

    You thought I was talking about you? Oh dear, that is really jumping to conclusions and being rather unpleasant about it too. Never heard of you before, but I heard plenty of bitching and whining on Global last night from a few people. Don't think you were one of them but I didn't go away and list them ;)

    The weird thing is... you seem to have the same opinions as me. I have no problem with people wanting privacy either. Alternatives would be great.

    What I do dislike is people sliding into high drama over it. Even stuff like threatening to take their toys away or insinuating that you are adult and others are not.

     
    Posted 7 months ago by Just Bren Subscriber! | Permalink
  • This is the thread that never ends,
    It just goes on and on my friend,
    Some people started reading it without knowing what it was
    And they'll continue reading it forever just because,
    This is the thread that never ends,
    It just goes on and on my friend,
    Some people started reading it without knowing what it was
    And they'll continue reading it forever just because....
    Posted 7 months ago by Innie✿, Obviously Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "You thought I was talking about you?" 

    No, I assumed you were talking about another user who's been vocal in this thread. Sounds like indeed you were. As I said, let's not cast stones. As for the adults part, I mean some users can take direct critique. Some can't. I'm fairly certain the user in question can handle herself. Then again, since I wasn't in Global, perhaps not. But passive aggressive comments aren't welcome.

    "What I do dislike is people sliding into high drama over it. Even stuff like threatening to take their toys away or insinuating that you are adult and others are not."

    As for "taking my toys away," that wasn't meant to be a threat, but a statement that if this game goes in a direction I don't enjoy, so be it. Sometimes that happens, and that's okay. I think privacy in general is a worthwhile topic that probably pertains to more people than just myself.

    Since we're in agreement about the privacy part, let's agree that maybe you may have misinterpreted some of the other stuff I said, and since that stuff is really not as critical as the privacy comments (which were on-topic), the other bits aren't worth getting into a debate over, and will probably be an exhausting exercise for both of us. Shake on it?
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Seriously, who is being passive aggressive?

    You want to make this all personal. It isn't. You are trying to read subtext that is not there. I am trying to take you at face value and you are getting all aggressive.

    I am not in Glitch for bandwagons or conclusion jumping or misinterpreting. I don't like whining or entitlement IN GENERAL. No singling out. And if I did, I am 'adult' enough to say so. Are you?

    No, don't answer that. I am not implying you aren't, however.

    I think there are different ways to play Glitch, all of which have their merits. So yes, we agree on that.

    So yes, please let's drop it.
    Posted 7 months ago by Just Bren Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I really did not understand the non-resource motivation for making streets private. Now I think I get it. 

    If I understand this correctly there are a number of players who object to having to see other players in front of their houses and dislike having other players greet them in front of their houses.

    I think that's pretty far out there but if that is how they want to play Glitch then I suppose it's a good idea to accommodate them.

    In that case I think there should be an option for a player to make their home street inaccessible to everyone. However this should be combined with removing all expansions and cultivations and blocking them from all other home streets.

    Also, I might suggest that any player who chooses that option should consider having their wardrobe and vanity selections reset so that they look like this because it just seems so completely nutty and un-Glitch. lol  ;D
    Posted 7 months ago by Miss Bobbit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ Just Bren: 

    Wow, clearly my posts came off way differently than I intended them to. I'm really, genuinely sorry. I'm certainly NOT trying to make it personal, and I don't think it should be. In fact, that's what I was saying a few pages back. I am truly sorry if it came across another way - I obviously need to be more careful with how I word my posts.

    Indeed, my latest post was trying to address that miscommunication and it clearly failed. I agree, let's drop whatever "this" is, but if you want to keep discussing the topic at hand (privacy), I'm game. 

    It's entirely possible that I've missed a lot as it pertains to Global chat. I wasn't there, I can't speak to it, and if it's all the same to you, let's either explain what happened there if it's relevant, or move past it if it's not.

    @Miss Bobbit All due respect, but if you could explain what exactly IS glitch like and what isn't, specifically, I'd much appreciate it. I do believe there's been some misunderstandings around exactly those points. I'm sure it would clear up a lot of things.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink